NationStates Jolt Archive

Why doesn't the US create a reservation for libertarians?

An area of land could be put aside where libertarians could live separated from society as individualists. They could enter voluntarily and would be exempt from all taxes and free from laws, but in turn they would have to leave all the products of society behind when they entered (so no guns unless they mined the metal for it and the tools to make it, designed it and built it entirely by themselves etc.).

Would they survive or just end up killing each other?

...because the reservations we've forced people into in the past have worked out SO well....

...because the reservations we've forced people into in the past have worked out SO well....

But it would be entirely voluntary

Why doesn't the US create a reservation for libertarians?

An area of land could be put aside where libertarians could live separated from society as individualists. They could enter voluntarily and would be exempt from all taxes and free from laws, but in turn they would have to leave all the products of society behind when they entered (so no guns unless they mined the metal for it and the tools to make it, designed it and built it entirely by themselves etc.).

Would they survive or just end up killing each other?
You're talking about Utopia, there, pal. The Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org/) is trying to something similar in New Hampshire.

What the Free State Project is... The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.

Why doesn't the US create a reservation for libertarians?

An area of land could be put aside where libertarians could live separated from society as individualists. They could enter voluntarily and would be exempt from all taxes and free from laws, but in turn they would have to leave all the products of society behind when they entered (so no guns unless they mined the metal for it and the tools to make it, designed it and built it entirely by themselves etc.).

Would they survive or just end up killing each other?

I thought they tried this in the 1860's....

Hmm, so where are you going to get this land? There are an awful lot of libertarians.

I think it's hilarious that Ram thinks that there's seriously something wrong with being a libertarian.

Most inventors, engineers, small business owners, land developers, and others associated with the things that make an economy grow and prosper have heavy libertarian leanings.

You would be fucked without us.

Hmm, so where are you going to get this land?

Eminent domain.

Hmm, so where are you going to get this land? There are an awful lot of libertarians.

http://videoindex.pbs.org/resources/civilwar/images/cwmap02.jpg

Eminent domain.

So, the government is going to piss off one group of people in order to allow another group to live in its own utopia? This won't end well...

I think it's hilarious that Ram thinks that there's seriously something wrong with being a libertarian.

Most inventors, engineers, small business owners, land developers, and others associated with the things that make an economy grow and prosper have heavy libertarian leanings.

You would be fucked without us.

We need no "libertarians" here.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a62/skyyguyy73/lenin.jpg

We need no "libertarians" here.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a62/skyyguyy73/lenin.jpg

yeah, we remember how well that went.

American right wing libertarians would see it as an experiment that proves how their vision of society is superior. But it would be a deeply flawed experiment, since only people who WANT to live in that society would go there, and nobody who actually depends upon welfare (i.e. the poor) and other state support would want to live there.

Hmm, so where are you going to get this land? There are an awful lot of libertarians.

Annexation!

http://videoindex.pbs.org/resources/civilwar/images/cwmap02.jpg

Throw in Penn. and you got a deal.

I think it's hilarious that Ram thinks that there's seriously something wrong with being a libertarian.

Most inventors, engineers, small business owners, land developers, and others associated with the things that make an economy grow and prosper have heavy libertarian leanings.

You would be fucked without us.
Someone needs to read "Atlas Shrugged".

If it wasn't so damned cold up there, I'd make the move to New Hampshire and run for office. But it was 20(-7) last week in Georgia and I don't like it.

Why doesn't the US create a reservation for libertarians?

An area of land could be put aside where libertarians could live separated from society as individualists. They could enter voluntarily and would be exempt from all taxes and free from laws, but in turn they would have to leave all the products of society behind when they entered (so no guns unless they mined the metal for it and the tools to make it, designed it and built it entirely by themselves etc.).

Would they survive or just end up killing each other?

Already been done it is called New York and LA. :D

Now if we could just get all the other people to move out....

The Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org/) is trying to something similar in New Hampshire.

and incidentally proving that there are maybe 15,000 cappie 'libertarians' in the world, total. still stuck under 9k signups, i see. and fewer than 1000 in nh. weren't they supposed to disband if they didn't get to 20k by 2006? and didn't over 1000 pledge to move to nh by the end of this past december?

all shall quake in fear before the dedicated might of the libertarians!

I think it's hilarious that Ram thinks that there's seriously something wrong with being a libertarian.

Most inventors, engineers, small business owners, land developers, and others associated with the things that make an economy grow and prosper have heavy libertarian leanings.

You would be fucked without us.



Id ask for a source, but I know you dont have one. If you wanna talk personal experiance, I call bullshit on the engineers part. My dad is one, and him and most of the guys he works with are democrats.

But hey, you know, youve been so reliable in the past that I might as well take your word for it.

As to this reservations idea, hey, whatever gets their whiney, ideologically bankrupt asses out of my hair. Id like to see how their little society worked out, and how long it lasted until the rich-poor gap was so large there was a communist revolution.

and incidentally proving that there are maybe 15,000 cappie 'libertarians' in the world, total. still stuck under 9k signups, i see. and fewer than 1000 in nh. weren't they supposed to disband if they didn't get to 20k by 2006? and didn't over 1000 pledge to move to nh by the end of this past december?

all shall quake in fear before the dedicated might of the libertarians!
I don't recall ever endorsing this. I think it is more like a thesis project than a real political movement.

On the other hand, success may just be slower than they had hoped. I'm not going to call it a failure for a while, yet.

Id ask for a source, but I know you dont have one. If you wanna talk personal experiance, I call bullshit on the engineers part. My dad is one, and him and most of the guys he works with are democrats.

But hey, you know, youve been so reliable in the past that I might as well take your word for it.

As to this reservations idea, hey, whatever gets their whiney, ideologically bankrupt asses out of my hair. Id like to see how their little society worked out, and how long it lasted until the rich-poor gap was so large there was a communist revolution.
Actually, their little society -- or something very much like it -- produced the United States you had until the Roosevelt era began. I think it would be very successful if a large group of people were allowed to flourish in the absence of an oppressive government.

Id ask for a source, but I know you dont have one. If you wanna talk personal experiance, I call bullshit on the engineers part. My dad is one, and him and most of the guys he works with are democrats.

But hey, you know, youve been so reliable in the past that I might as well take your word for it.

As to this reservations idea, hey, whatever gets their whiney, ideologically bankrupt asses out of my hair. Id like to see how their little society worked out, and how long it lasted until the rich-poor gap was so large there was a communist revolution.

To be fair, in the past, many of the great innovators, thinkers etc... were libertarians. However, that was in the past, today, right libertarianism is a little outdated, so it probably isn't the case atm.

Actually, their little society -- or something very much like it -- produced the United States you had until the Roosevelt era began. I think it would be very successful if a large group of people were allowed to flourish in the absence of an oppressive government.

Which Roosevelt?

Actually, their little society -- or something very much like it -- produced the United States you had until the Roosevelt era began. I think it would be very successful if a large group of people were allowed to flourish in the absence of an oppressive government.

What a bastard that Roosevelt was, dragging the US out of a depression caused by the laissez faire bullshit espoused by libertarians...

Already been done it is called New York and LA. :D

Now if we could just get all the other people to move out....
I've seen those movies, and it didn't end very well.

Except if your name was Snake Plissken.

Eminent domain.
Shouldn't libertarians be against that?
Ah yes, my sarcasm detector IS working.

We can call it... Rapture.

Someone needs to read "Atlas Shrugged".

wow, you actually pulled off a "you would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand."

The problem with "Atlas Shrugged" is, as people tend to forget, is that it's a work of fiction. In other words, it's generally a poor idea to demonstrate how your political philosophy is sound, when it only has been demonstrated to work in a hypothetical universe which was designed to show how it would work.

Atlas Shrugged wasn't a history book. It wasn't an economic treaties. It was a book of fiction, and trying to show how Rand's libertarian/objectivism philosophy works because "It worked in Atlas Shrugged" is a very poor idea indeed. Not the least of which is because, as someone pointed out to me recently, you generally don't want to demonstrate a political/economic philosophy on a work of fiction in which the protagonist inventing an infinite energy motor.

But, if we want to talk works of fiction, if you want to see how Galt's labor strike and "stopping the motor of the world" would work, read Brave New World. Note what happened when all the Alpha++ ended up on an island alone.

I think it's hilarious that Ram thinks that there's seriously something wrong with being a libertarian.


My political leaning is towards anarcho-syndicalism, not a million miles away, I just think that extreme individualism is a fantasy. As a species we have got where we are by working together not as an 'agglomeration of individuals'.

My political leaning is towards anarcho-syndicalism, not a million miles away, I just think that extreme individualism is a fantasy. As a species we have got where we are by working together not as an 'agglomeration of individuals'.

And I want to get paid for my ideas and my work. If you plan on stealing either, plan on getting shot.

It's the American way.

Already been done it is called New York and LA. :D

Now if we could just get all the other people to move out....
New York is a libertarian state?
Well. You learn something new every day. Imagine that.

wow, you actually pulled off a "you would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand."

The problem with "Atlas Shrugged" is, as people tend to forget, is that it's a work of fiction. In other words, it's generally a poor idea to demonstrate how your political philosophy is sound, when it only has been demonstrated to work in a hypothetical universe which was designed to show how it would work.

Atlas Shrugged wasn't a history book. It wasn't an economic treaties. It was a book of fiction, and trying to show how Rand's libertarian/objectivism philosophy works because "It worked in Atlas Shrugged" is a very poor idea indeed. Not the least of which is because, as someone pointed out to me recently, you generally don't want to demonstrate a political/economic philosophy on a work of fiction in which the protagonist inventing an infinite energy motor.

But, if we want to talk works of fiction, if you want to see how Galt's labor strike and "stopping the motor of the world" would work, read Brave New World. Note what happened when all the Alpha++ ended up on an island alone.

Also, Rand was ironically very much against the libertarian movement and hated libertarianism.

It's the American way.
I thought you guys just sued the pants off of folks...

I thought you guys just sued the pants off of folks...

Actually it's "Form a big company and steal ideas from individuals to profit off of, and conversely if an individual uses a name or concept with the slightest pretense of being associated with us, we sue their asses off."

The problem with "Atlas Shrugged" is, as people tend to forget, is that it's a work of fiction. In other words, it's generally a poor idea to demonstrate how your political philosophy is sound, when it only has been demonstrated to work in a hypothetical universe which was designed to show how it would work.
Yes... although fiction isn't entirely useless when discussing political philosophy; many fine sentiments and ideas can be portrayed and discussed thorough fiction.

Think, for example, of Emile or Candide.

CF: Microsoft and Apple until Xerox reminded them of where their OS originated.

Yes... although fiction isn't entirely useless when discussing political philosophy; many fine sentiments and ideas can be portrayed and discussed thorough fiction.

Think, for example, of Emile or Candide.

Neo is struggling to discredit Objectivism by saying it's fiction, rather than by discussing or arguing any real ideas he might have.

Maybe it's because he doesn't have any.

Yes... although fiction isn't entirely useless when discussing political philosophy; many fine sentiments and ideas can be portrayed and discussed thorough fiction.

Think, for example, of Emile or Candide.
Or Bagpuss.

Neo is struggling to discredit Objectivism by saying it's fiction, rather than by discussing or arguing any real ideas he might have.
No, I believe he is critiquing Atlas Shrugged, a fiction, as being held up as a positive argument for Objectivism.


Or Bagpuss.
Quite; though I always preferred Ivor the Green Engine.

Yes... although fiction isn't entirely useless when discussing political philosophy; many fine sentiments and ideas can be portrayed and discussed thorough fiction.

Think, for example, of Emile or Candide.

it's certainly true that a political philosophy can be demonstrated in a work of fiction. The difference is though, objectivism has existed only in fiction. One needs to eye the bias here. "Atlas Shrugged" was written by Rand to demonstrate that an objectivist based society could work. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that the very philosophy she advocated would work fantastically well, in the book she wrote to demonstrate that it would work.

Rand wanted to show that it would work, so she created a universe in which it worked. It's the ultimate dues ex machina. It worked in a book that was written specifically to have it work. You can't use the fact that "it worked in Atlas Shrugged" as being in any way indicative that it would work in real life especially due to the fact that Galt's Gulch only managed to exist as a totally independent commune because it was wired into Galt's infinite energy device.

Explain how THAT is a viable option.

Yes... although fiction isn't entirely useless when discussing political philosophy; many fine sentiments and ideas can be portrayed and discussed thorough fiction.

Think, for example, of Emile or Candide.

But if you're trying to use a fictional work to demonstrate the utility of your philosophy, your work really needs to be set in the real world. Your characters need to be at least vaguely human.

And your ideal society can't rely on an infinite energy machine.


Neo is struggling to discredit Objectivism by saying it's fiction, rather than by discussing or arguing any real ideas he might have.

If they only way to demonstrate the utility of your philosophy is to create a fictional world that is designed specifically to revolve around your philosophy, you probably don't actually have much of a point when we're discussing the real world.

If I created a fictional world in which all capitalists were irrevocably evil and all communists were super-geniuses with only good in their hearts - a world where everyone was perfectly happy to work their asses off to have their needs met, even if the other guy got more than them (because he needed more), then I could demonstrate that pure communism would work.

Of course, like Rand's philosophy, it would only work in my little fictionalized world.

it's certainly true that a political philosophy can be demonstrated in a work of fiction. The difference is though, objectivism has existed only in fiction... Galt's Gulch only managed to exist as a totally independent commune because it was wired into Galt's infinite energy device.

Explain how THAT is a viable option.

But if you're trying to use a fictional work to demonstrate the utility of your philosophy, your work really needs to be set in the real world. Your characters need to be at least vaguely human.

And your ideal society can't rely on an infinite energy machine.
I quite agree with you guys, just wanted to temper Neo Art's (unmeant) suggestion that fiction is useless when discussing political philosophy.

I quite agree with you guys, just wanted to temper Neo Art's (unmeant) suggestion that fiction is useless when discussing political philosophy.

well yes of course it is. For example, Orwell's masterpiece, despite being, literally, about animals on a farm, was a quite accurate critique of soviet era fascism.

On the other hand, "Atlas Shrugged" is populated by a race of Neitzien supermen who decide to stick it to the universally corrupt and ignorant politicians, too greedy to see past their own noses, and the underclass comprised entirely by criminals and ner'do'wells, by having a labor strike and shutting down the world economy, by going to live together in a village, in peace and harmony, basking in the glow of Galt's perpetual motion machine...

You want to argue that Atlas Shrugged demonstrated how a libertarian society could function? Fine, let's start by you showing me that static electricity motor.

Because without that, I get the feeling your wondrous society would freeze to death first winter.

wow, you actually pulled off a "you would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand."

The problem with "Atlas Shrugged" is, as people tend to forget, is that it's a work of fiction. In other words, it's generally a poor idea to demonstrate how your political philosophy is sound, when it only has been demonstrated to work in a hypothetical universe which was designed to show how it would work.

Atlas Shrugged wasn't a history book. It wasn't an economic treaties. It was a book of fiction, and trying to show how Rand's libertarian/objectivism philosophy works because "It worked in Atlas Shrugged" is a very poor idea indeed. Not the least of which is because, as someone pointed out to me recently, you generally don't want to demonstrate a political/economic philosophy on a work of fiction in which the protagonist inventing an infinite energy motor.

But, if we want to talk works of fiction, if you want to see how Galt's labor strike and "stopping the motor of the world" would work, read Brave New World. Note what happened when all the Alpha++ ended up on an island alone.
There's a lot of book there and some is relevant, some isn't. I sure wouldn't put my faith in Ayn Rand's engineering ability. But, the book makes you think. It does make you wonder how well the policy of economically rewarding losers and economically punishing winners will work over the long term. I'm sure we're on different sides of that issue, too. I do think that the economy would work a lot better if the winners, innovators, successes, etc were rewarded for their success and the losers were just tolerated with a subsistence level of welfare.

There's a lot of book there and some is relevant, some isn't. I sure wouldn't put my faith in Ayn Rand's engineering ability. But, the book makes you think. It does make you wonder how well the policy of economically rewarding losers and economically punishing winners will work over the long term. I'm sure we're on different sides of that issue, too. I do think that the economy would work a lot better if the winners, innovators, successes, etc were rewarded for their success and the losers were just tolerated with a subsistence level of welfare.

I'm sure that most posters here on NSG are fine with economically rewarding losers.

But, the book makes you think.

Yeah, it makes you think "How could anyone capable of tying their own shoes buy this tripe"?

well yes of course it is. For example, Orwell's masterpiece, despite being, literally, about animals on a farm, was a quite accurate critique of soviet era fascism.

On the other hand, "Atlas Shrugged" is populated by a race of Neitzien supermen who decide to stick it to the universally corrupt and ignorant politicians, too greedy to see past their own noses, and the underclass comprised entirely by criminals and ner'do'wells, by having a labor strike and shutting down the world economy, by going to live together in a village, in peace and harmony, basking in the glow of Galt's perpetual motion machine...

You want to argue that Atlas Shrugged demonstrated how a libertarian society could function? Fine, let's start by you showing me that static electricity motor.

Because without that, I get the feeling your wondrous society would freeze to death first winter.
Let's look at the Pilgrims... They were started as a collective society. They almost did die that first winter. After Bradford allowed them to work for themselves, they flourished. That's the executive summary, anyway... Today, the static electricity motor would be replaced by solar power, wind power, maybe cold fusion eventually. Maybe even dirty old coal for that first year or two?

I'm sure that most posters here on NSG are fine with economically rewarding losers.
Well, many of us aren't fine with folks being divided into 'winners' and 'losers'.

I'm sure that most posters here on NSG are fine with economically rewarding losers.

I know they are. Unfortunately, so is a majority of the US Congress.

I'm sure that most posters here on NSG are fine with economically rewarding losers.

Actually, liberal egalitarian approaches to economic redistribution specifically is against the 'energetic being a slave to the lazy'. You're thinking of a utilitarian approach to income redistribution.

Read Robert Heinlein's Coventryhttp://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/shortstories/coventry.html. It's a short stroy about a "libertarian paradise." It is, like Atlas Shrugged, a work of fiction. Heinlein's story offers a far more realistic idea of what would happen in such a place.

Actually, liberal egalitarian approaches to economic redistribution specifically is against the 'energetic being a slave to the lazy'. You're thinking of a utilitarian approach to income redistribution.
Indeed.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need, and suchlike.

Well, many of us aren't fine with folks being divided into 'winners' and 'losers'.

Or defining "winners" and "losers" by economic status.

There's a lot of book there and some is relevant, some isn't. I sure wouldn't put my faith in Ayn Rand's engineering ability. But, the book makes you think. It does make you wonder how well the policy of economically rewarding losers and economically punishing winners will work over the long term. I'm sure we're on different sides of that issue, too. I do think that the economy would work a lot better if the winners, innovators, successes, etc were rewarded for their success and the losers were just tolerated with a subsistence level of welfare.

A society in which people who look pretty in front of a camera or play games while occasionally making news with scandalous behavior make substantially more money than school teachers isn't a society rewarding losers and punishing winners?

Let's look at the Pilgrims... They were started as a collective society. They almost did die that first winter. After Bradford allowed them to work for themselves, they flourished. That's the executive summary, anyway... Today, the static electricity motor would be replaced by solar power, wind power, maybe cold fusion eventually. Maybe even dirty old coal for that first year or two?

With limitless energy, I'm sure you could make ANY crazy political system work. It completely rewrites the fundamentals of any economics that underpin it, for starters.

With limitless energy, I'm sure you could make ANY crazy political system work. It completely rewrites the fundamentals of any economics that underpin it, for starters.
Aye, there's plenty of post-scarcity fiction, from all sorts of political viewpoints.

The Culture series, for an example from the other side of the tracks.

I know they are. Unfortunately, so is a majority of the US Congress.

We're already in a situation in the US where 5% of the population pays 60% of the income tax - and 30% pays nothing at all in income tax.

What's funny is that when polled, Democrats have no idea that the top 5% are paying so much - they believe that they are paying less than half as much.

Which explains their urge to raise taxes - thinking that there's much further to go.

There isn't. Between the taxing and the borrowing, there isn't any room left - the spending has to stop.

Now, tell the massive numbers of people on the Federal tit that the money is going to be cut off. Because there isn't any more money.

The argument y'all are making about how their objectivist society completely centers around the static electricity generator is absurd and besides the point. The point of the book is not to show how such a society would function, but to attempt to demonstrate her point, which is that a society which rewards the leeches of society for being losers at the expense of the hard workers of society because they are deserving and hard-working is doomed to failure, as demonstrated by the crappy situation the world is in right now. By the way, there has never been a pure capitalist economic system, so there is no way in hell you can say whether or not such a system would work.

By the way, there has never been a pure capitalist economic system, so there is no way in hell you can say whether or not such a system would work.

Yes, there has.

Yes, there has.

Has there?

The point of the book is not to show how such a society would function, but to attempt to demonstrate her point, which is that a society which rewards the leeches of society for being losers at the expense of the hard workers of society because they are deserving and hard-working is doomed to failure, as demonstrated by the crappy situation the world is in right now. By the way, there has never been a pure capitalist economic system, so there is no way in hell you can say whether or not such a system would work.
Perhaps, but we are perfectly able of critiquing her thinking that folks are divided into 'winners' and 'losers', and that those who aren't rich are just lazy ne'erdowells.



Has there?
I'd second this query.

We're already in a situation in the US where 5% of the population pays 60% of the income tax - and 30% pays nothing at all in income tax.As well they should be, given the large amount of total money that top 5% has.

We're already in a situation in the US where 5% of the population pays 60% of the income tax - and 30% pays nothing at all in income tax.


But think about the concept of diminishing marginal utility. An extra hundred thousand dollars to a billionaire is hardly going to serve any utility to them, compared someone who is poor and probably takes 10 years to make that much money.

Yes, there has.

When and where?

Read Robert Heinlein's Coventryhttp://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/shortstories/coventry.html. It's a short stroy about a "libertarian paradise." It is, like Atlas Shrugged, a work of fiction. Heinlein's story offers a far more realistic idea of what would happen in such a place.

Reading that synopsis instantly told me that this is tripe, although I'd have to read the book to make sure. A true libertarian system would never force someone into a "coventry" of that sort. Libertarians believe in punishment of criminals, not an absurdly corrupt court system that completely violates the rights of the prosecuted.

A society in which people who look pretty in front of a camera or play games while occasionally making news with scandalous behavior make substantially more money than school teachers isn't a society rewarding losers and punishing winners?

:fluffle:

When and where?



Industralized Britian shortly after said Industrial Revolution.
Industralized America shortly after said Industrial Revolution.

Also, Rand was ironically very much against the libertarian movement and hated libertarianism.

This is true, but if I recall correctly, it existed largely from Rand's misidentification of libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism.

What a bastard that Roosevelt was, dragging the US out of a depression caused by the laissez faire bullshit espoused by libertarians...

Far from it, Roosevelt actually turned what should have been a sharp but necessary 13-month recession into a devastating 13-year depression.

Economics > wishful thinking and feel-goodery, you know.

We're already in a situation in the US where 5% of the population pays 60% of the income tax - and 30% pays nothing at all in income tax.

Appropriate, consider the top 5% of the population controls 60% of the wealth:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

My political leaning is towards anarcho-syndicalism, not a million miles away, I just think that extreme individualism is a fantasy. As a species we have got where we are by working together not as an 'agglomeration of individuals'.

Wrong.

An individual who chooses to transact with others because he finds it beneficial to him, and does so of his own volition, is still acting primarily and fundamentally as an individual.

Please don't be so simplistic in your interpretation of concepts next time.

Far from it, Roosevelt actually turned what should have been a sharp but necessary 13-month recession into a devastating 13-year depression.

Economics > wishful thinking and feel-goodery, you know.

Huh, you know, I never heard that the 1940-1953 was a devestating depression.

But then, what would historians and people who lived through that know?

Industralized Britian shortly after said Industrial Revolution.
Industralized America shortly after said Industrial Revolution.
I believe even then the UK and US imposed protectionist measures.

George Monbiot (I know, I know) writes that:

"Britain discovered its enthusiasm for free trade only after it had achieved economic dominance. The industrial revolution was built on protectionism: in 1699, for example, we banned the import of Irish woollens; in 1700 we banned cotton cloth from India. To protect our infant industries, we imposed ferocious tariffs (trade taxes) on almost all manufactured goods."

(Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/09/eu.globaleconomy))

I'd imagine the US was just the same; governments don't like submitting to market fundementalism.

The argument y'all are making about how their objectivist society completely centers around the static electricity generator is absurd and besides the point. The point of the book is not to show how such a society would function, but to attempt to demonstrate her point, which is that a society which rewards the leeches of society for being losers at the expense of the hard workers of society because they are deserving and hard-working is doomed to failure, as demonstrated by the crappy situation the world is in right now. By the way, there has never been a pure capitalist economic system, so there is no way in hell you can say whether or not such a system would work.

The static electricity generator is absurd. That's why the book is made even more absurd by the fact that her utopian society is completely reliant upon it.

And the point of the book was not only to criticize her vision communist societies, but also to put forth the proper alternative. The problem is that the entire book relies on the idea that anyone espousing even a slight socialist bent is pure evil, while anyone who is pure capitalist has a heart of gold. In her book, a steel worker rejoices in the fact that someone is going to come take his business away from him because that someone is better at it than him. How often do you think that really happens in the real world?

Which brings us to the reason that pure capitalism, like pure communism, would never work. Both rely on human beings to be better than they've ever been - to be satisfied with things that most human beings simply wouldn't put up with.

Perhaps, but we are perfectly able of critiquing her thinking that folks are divided into 'winners' and 'losers', and that those who aren't rich are just lazy ne'erdowells.

I'm not a big fan of the realism in that book, but the point remains the same, such that societies built on punishing the rich for being rich is a system that will result in no one being rich, or even well off.

Industralized Britian shortly after said Industrial Revolution.
Industralized America shortly after said Industrial Revolution.

What do ya know, you're right, although it seems there were still some slight restrictions... Looking at the information in front of me, however, I see that the revolution was a huge benefit to all involved. I'll have to do more research to be sure, of course.

But think about the concept of diminishing marginal utility. An extra hundred thousand dollars to a billionaire is hardly going to serve any utility to them, compared someone who is poor and probably takes 10 years to make that much money.

Too bad most of the US's income tax credits are regressive.


Far from it, Roosevelt actually turned what should have been a sharp but necessary 13-month recession into a devastating 13-year depression.

Economics > wishful thinking and feel-goodery, you know.

So why didn't the rest of the world recover in after those 13 months?

What do ya know, you're right... Looking at the information in front of me, however, I see that this was a huge benefit to all involved. I'll have to do more research to be sure, of course.

No, no there wasnt. The gap between rich and poor was disgusting.

Also, Rand was ironically very much against the libertarian movement and hated libertarianism.

Yes, she had some personal issues with the libertarian movement (mostly with some of the major personalities involved in it), and decried the idea that she was a libertarian.

Nonetheless, she was, regardless of what she or the Anti-Reason Institute's talking heads may say to the contrary.

:fluffle:

Mmm... kitty fluffle.

Yes, she had some personal issues with the libertarian movement (mostly with some of the major personalities involved in it), and decried the idea that she was a libertarian.

Nonetheless, she was, regardless of what she or the Anti-Reason Institute's talking heads may say to the contrary.

if you want to talk about Ayn Rand, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

The static electricity generator is absurd. That's why the book is made even more absurd by the fact that her utopian society is completely reliant upon it.

And the point of the book was not only to criticize her vision communist societies, but also to put forth the proper alternative. The problem is that the entire book relies on the idea that anyone espousing even a slight socialist bent is pure evil, while anyone who is pure capitalist has a heart of gold. In her book, a steel worker rejoices in the fact that someone is going to come take his business away from him because that someone is better at it than him. How often do you think that really happens in the real world?

Which brings us to the reason that pure capitalism, like pure communism, would never work. Both rely on human beings to be better than they've ever been - to be satisfied with things that most human beings simply wouldn't put up with.

Like I said earlier, my biggest problem with this book is realism, but that doesn't change the core principles of the book, being that government has no right to punish people for productivity or reward people for being poor, and that such a system will fail hideously.

I'm not a big fan of the realism in that book, but the point remains the same, such that societies built on punishing the rich for being rich is a system that will result in no one being rich, or even well off.

And when someone can show us a society built upon punishing the rich for being rich, that point might be relevant.

What do ya know, you're right... Looking at the information in front of me, however, I see that this was a huge benefit to all involved. I'll have to do more research to be sure, of course.

Ah yes, a huge benefit to the people who were practically slave labor - people with no protections for their health, guarantees of fair wages, or even independence from their companies.

No, no there wasnt. The gap between rich and poor was disgusting.

No system is perfect, unfortunately. However, the beauty of a capitalistic system is that anyone who applies themselves is capable of rising to whatever he chooses.

I'm not a big fan of the realism in that book, but the point remains the same, such that societies built on punishing the rich for being rich is a system that will result in no one being rich, or even well off.
I don't see how that point is confirmed.


An individual who chooses to transact with others because he finds it beneficial to him, and does so of his own volition, is still acting primarily and fundamentally as an individual.
But s/he is interacting with other persons; they do not exist within a vaccuum, and must rely on others for their wealth-generation.

Please don't be so simplistic in your interpretation of concepts next time.
One should follow one's own advice.

Rand wanted to show that it would work, so she created a universe in which it worked. It's the ultimate dues ex machina. It worked in a book that was written specifically to have it work. You can't use the fact that "it worked in Atlas Shrugged" as being in any way indicative that it would work in real life especially due to the fact that Galt's Gulch only managed to exist as a totally independent commune because it was wired into Galt's infinite energy device.

No serious reader doubts that Rand's characters were little more than idealized archetypes, and that the world she described bore little relation to the world as it was at the time she wrote (or even the world as it is now).

That's not the point.

She wrote novels not to describe a practical world but to inflame spiritual passions. She was a romanticist; the very essence of romantic writing is idealization of concepts, to demonstrate their essence that, admittedly, it is unlikely anyone would ever achieve in practice.

No system is perfect, unfortunately. However, the beauty of a capitalistic system is that anyone who applies themselves is capable of rising to whatever he chooses.

Anyone? Nah.

Like I said earlier, my biggest problem with this book is realism, but that doesn't change the core principles of the book, being that government has no right to punish people for productivity or reward people for being poor, and that such a system will fail hideously.

TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AtlasShrugged) has a rather accurate Cliff Note synopsis of Atlas Shrugged and highlights all the tropes it trips.

No system is perfect, unfortunately. However, the beauty of a capitalistic system is that anyone who applies themselves is capable of rising to whatever he chooses.

Which is why capitalist countries are mostly made up of billionaires?

A society in which people who look pretty in front of a camera or play games while occasionally making news with scandalous behavior make substantially more money than school teachers isn't a society rewarding losers and punishing winners?

Sure it is.

The former produce the most utility, after all.

"Utility," after all, is just "whatever a given individual decides he wants." Only a megalomaniac would think he's entitled to override that decision.

However, the beauty of a capitalistic system is that anyone who applies themselves is capable of rising to whatever he chooses.

bullshit.

And when someone can show us a society built upon punishing the rich for being rich, that point might be relevant.

How about the progressive income tax, built to take a far larger proportion of income from those who make more than from the poor, who can get away with paying ZERO money and can even get money back from the government?


Ah yes, a huge benefit to the people who were practically slave labor - people with no protections for their health, guarantees of fair wages, or even independence from their companies.

Like I said, no system is perfect. Besides, if they really wanted to, they could work towards whatever they set their minds to. If, of course, it truly was a pure capitalistic system.

Wrong.

An individual who chooses to transact with others because he finds it beneficial to him, and does so of his own volition, is still acting primarily and fundamentally as an individual.

Please don't be so simplistic in your interpretation of concepts next time.

To reduce everything to the action of individuals is the simplistic interpretation

No serious reader doubts that Rand's characters were little more than idealized archetypes, and that the world she described bore little relation to the world as it was at the time she wrote (or even the world as it is now).

That's not the point.

She wrote novels not to describe a practical world but to inflame spiritual passions. She was a romanticist; the very essence of romantic writing is idealization of concepts, to demonstrate their essence that, admittedly, it is unlikely anyone would ever achieve in practice.

So basically her novels weren't intended as an examples of libertarian ideas in the real world and shouldn't be used as such.

How about the progressive income tax, built to take a far larger proportion of income from those who make more than from the poor, who can get away with paying ZERO money and can even get money back from the government?

Damn those poor people. They get all the breaks!

I'm curious though, those who complain that "the poor don't pay anything in taxes!" I wonder, exactly what would you like them to pay taxes....with?

No system is perfect, unfortunately. However, the beauty of a capitalistic system is that anyone who applies themselves is capable of rising to whatever he chooses.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Hehehehehe! Ahahaha. Ha. Ha.

*wipes tear*

Man, that was a good one. Tell us another!

But think about the concept of diminishing marginal utility. An extra hundred thousand dollars to a billionaire is hardly going to serve any utility to them, compared someone who is poor and probably takes 10 years to make that much money.

The problem with that argument is that marginal utility is an economic (non-normative) concept, not a moral one.

Since the proper argument against taxation in any form is a moral argument, economic arguments are irrelevant.

The decline in marginal utility of an additional dollar in no way diminishes his moral right to every last bit of that dollar. They're entirely separate.

As several of y'all have claimed that what I said was "bullshit", tell me why on earth a hard working man in a capitalistic society can't rise to whatever height he sets his mind to?

Which is why capitalist countries are mostly made up of billionaires?

How does that help you? All that shows is that people in capitalistic societies are allowed to thrive.

"Utility," after all, is just "whatever a given individual decides he wants."
Only if one is a hedonistic utilitarian.


As several of y'all have claimed that what I said was "bullshit", tell me why on earth a hard working man in a capitalistic society can't rise to whatever height he sets his mind to?
Because he is prevented from doing so by not able to afford education, the bank refuses his required business loan, and others -- who have had a head start in life within the inegalitarian system -- beat him to the push. There's many reasons for being unable to 'rise to heights'; capitalism is full of them.

Folks don't have an equal start in life, and thus don't have an equal opportunity to do for themselves.

yeah, we remember how well that went.

He loved the people; he was a visionary.

Huh, you know, I never heard that the 1940-1953 was a devestating depression.

I'm talking about 1928-29 to 1931-32, as I'm pretty sure you well know. Don't be dense.

Damn those poor people. They get all the breaks!

I'm curious though, those who complain that "the poor don't pay anything in taxes!" I wonder, exactly what would you like them to pay taxes....with?

Their bodies of course! Either as labor force, prostitution, or organ donors.

Throw in Penn. and you got a deal.

Never!

]No system is perfect, unfortunately. However, the beauty of a capitalistic system is that anyone who applies themselves is capable of rising to whatever he chooses.

Not in a purely capitalist system, in which those already at the top have ample power to keep others from rising to their level.

Again, we get to the problem of people being "better than they've ever been". Real human beings generally aren't going to be happy about losing their market share to someone else - even if that someone else is better at it than them. So they will do everything within their power to keep it from happening.

Real human beings aren't generally going to pay fair wages just out of the goodness of their hearts. We've seen that when such things were not guaranteed. We saw the Pinkertons used to try and keep workers from daring to attempt collective bargaining with the owners of corporations - at those owners' behest. In reality, corporations would rather keep people in abject poverty - perhaps largely in debt to said corporation - than pay fair wages to their workers.

No serious reader doubts that Rand's characters were little more than idealized archetypes, and that the world she described bore little relation to the world as it was at the time she wrote (or even the world as it is now).

That's not the point.

Ah, but it is. Or, at least, it needs to be, if the books are going to be useful in philosophy.

She wrote novels not to describe a practical world but to inflame spiritual passions. She was a romanticist; the very essence of romantic writing is idealization of concepts, to demonstrate their essence that, admittedly, it is unlikely anyone would ever achieve in practice.

And therefore making them useless in any kind of practical sense. One may just as well look to The Lord of the Rings for economic and philosophical guidance. But, then, the LotR tends to be better reading...

No, no there wasnt. The gap between rich and poor was disgusting.

Which is preferable: a situation where I have six utilons and you have five, or a situation where I have 200 utilons and you have 20?

As several of y'all have claimed that what I said was "bullshit", tell me why on earth a hard working man in a capitalistic society can't rise to whatever height he sets his mind to?


1) inability to afford education
2) unable to achieve education due to other alternatives (IE children, family obligations, etc)
3) inherent bell curve distribution system of capitalist economies that require, for the system to function, that the very rich be in the minority

That's just it to name a few. If "everyone could get what they put their mind to" then the system itself would collapse.

I'm talking about 1928-29 to 1931-32, as I'm pretty sure you well know. Don't be dense.

Yeah, the 13 years between 1929 and 1931 were terrible!

On the bright side, they really flew by quickly...

As several of y'all have claimed that what I said was "bullshit", tell me why on earth a hard working man in a capitalistic society can't rise to whatever height he sets his mind to?

Because more often than not a faceless corporation or something else will steal his ideas and claim credit for it to profit from. Does the name Robert Kearns ring a bell?

How about the progressive income tax, built to take a far larger proportion of income from those who make more than from the poor, who can get away with paying ZERO money and can even get money back from the government?

The US is failing horribly? The US is not an innovative nation?

Read The Growing Public (http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Public-Spending-Economic-Eighteenth/dp/0521529166). It shows why even though the welfare state has grown in all industrialized nations why these nations aren't poor.

Damn those poor people. They get all the breaks!

I'm curious though, those who complain that "the poor don't pay anything in taxes!" I wonder, exactly what would you like them to pay taxes....with?

Now you're just being stupid. Of course someone who doesn't make anything can't pay anything! I'm referring to those who have any income below the poverty line or whatever the hell it's called.

As several of y'all have claimed that what I said was "bullshit", tell me why on earth a hard working man in a capitalistic society can't rise to whatever height he sets his mind to?Because he's the wrong skin color/religion/sexual orientation?
Because the market doesn't recognize his hard work?
Because the market doesn't value his hard work?
Because he had a horrible accident and can't work anymore?
Because he was born with birth defects and can't work as hard as other people?
Because there are many many other men willing to work just as hard as he is?

etc.

But s/he is interacting with other persons; they do not exist within a vaccuum, and must rely on others for their wealth-generation.

You missed my point, which is that what matters is the ultimate motive and reasons for acting.

I'm talking about 1928-29 to 1931-32, as I'm pretty sure you well know. Don't be dense.FDR wasn't president during those years. You can't blame the New Deal for that.

To reduce everything to the action of individuals is the simplistic interpretation

So there are magic fairies that come into play?

Seriously, what could anything be if not nothing more than the aggregate of individuals acting?

Now you're just being stupid. Of course someone who doesn't make anything can't pay anything! I'm referring to those who have any income below the poverty line or whatever the hell it's called.

I'm curious, do you know what the poverty line represents?

FDR wasn't president during those years. You can't blame the New Deal for that.

Err...yeah, you're right. I meant 1941-42, not 1931-32. Since, like, 28-32 isn't thirteen years, and all.

How does that help you? All that shows is that people in capitalistic societies are allowed to thrive.

It shows that people can't becomewhatever they like in capitalist societies. They have the possibility of becoming such, but even hard work and sacrifice can not guarantee becoming a billionaire.

Which is preferable: a situation where I have six utilons and you have five, or a situation where I have 200 utilons and you have 20?
Depends on what unit of utility you are talking about.

And, as any student of John Stuart Mill knows, describing utility as desire (as you are), then trying to quantify said desire, gets you into all sorts of trouble.

You missed my point, which is that what matters is the ultimate motive and reasons for acting.
Aye, but all the "ultimate motive and reasons for acting" are naught without society consisting of other persons.

How about the progressive income tax, built to take a far larger proportion of income from those who make more than from the poor, who can get away with paying ZERO money and can even get money back from the government?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with punishment or reward.

Like I said, no system is perfect. Besides, if they really wanted to, they could work towards whatever they set their minds to. If, of course, it truly was a pure capitalistic system.

They could work towards it, perhaps. But the system itself assured that they had little to no chance of rising at all. In order to work, they had to go deeply in debt. The corporations refused to pay them a living wage and intentionally kept them heavily indebted. If they dared try to better their working conditions, the corporations either simply fired them, or fired them and hired Pinkertons.

As several of y'all have claimed that what I said was "bullshit", tell me why on earth a hard working man in a capitalistic society can't rise to whatever height he sets his mind to?

The men already at the top do everything in their power to keep him from doing so, as that would take away from their own ability to make money.

Not to mention the fact that your place in life is always determined by what you are born into. A person born to money will always have an easier time of being successful in life than one born in a slum. And when we do absolutely nothing to help those born in a slum to be able to rise, we end up with a cycle in which the same family is there generation after generation, no matter how hard they work, while those born to money may never even have to learn the meaning of the word.

How does that help you? All that shows is that people in capitalistic societies are allowed to thrive.

Methinks you missed the point there.

Ah, but it is. Or, at least, it needs to be, if the books are going to be useful in philosophy.
But that wasn't her goal.

Rand didn't write novels to spread her philosophy; she developed her philosophy to provide a foundation and framework for guiding her novels.

Art has to represent something, after all.

The problem with that argument is that marginal utility is an economic (non-normative) concept, not a moral one.

Since the proper argument against taxation in any form is a moral argument, economic arguments are irrelevant.

The decline in marginal utility of an additional dollar in no way diminishes his moral right to every last bit of that dollar. They're entirely separate.

To an utilitarian the the two arguments are one and the same. Also, the vast majority of people don't consider taxation immoral. Since moral arguments rely of axioms the arguments can not show that other arguments are false since all are self consistent given the axioms. Consequentialist arguments are the most effective because they can be proven or refuted.

Art has to represent something, after all.
I'd entirely disagree, but philosophy of art is too off-topic.

Since the proper argument against taxation in any form is a moral argument, economic arguments are irrelevant.


So then is whining about what portion of society pays more then.

Not in a purely capitalist system, in which those already at the top have ample power to keep others from rising to their level.

Again, we get to the problem of people being "better than they've ever been". Real human beings generally aren't going to be happy about losing their market share to someone else - even if that someone else is better at it than them. So they will do everything within their power to keep it from happening.

Real human beings aren't generally going to pay fair wages just out of the goodness of their hearts. We've seen that when such things were not guaranteed. We saw the Pinkertons used to try and keep workers from daring to attempt collective bargaining with the owners of corporations - at those owners' behest. In reality, corporations would rather keep people in abject poverty - perhaps largely in debt to said corporation - than pay fair wages to their workers.

This is assuming that absolutely NONE of the afore-mentioned corporations actually reward those with innovation and/or hard work, which is ridiculous. Any smart businessman would reward those who work hard and succeed, in order to attract more of that sort of people, thus improving their business.

1) inability to afford education
2) unable to achieve education due to other alternatives (IE children, family obligations, etc)
3) inherent bell curve distribution system of capitalist economies that require, for the system to function, that the very rich be in the minority

That's just it to name a few. If "everyone could get what they put their mind to" then the system itself would collapse.

As to the education aspect, that is admittedly a hard thing to obtain, but it is very possible to work hard in low skill jobs to earn the money for an education required for a high skill job. Same with those extenuating circumstances, just needing more work. I'm not hugely into economics, however, so I can't answer your third point. How would the system collapse if people could get that which they want?

Because more often than not a faceless corporation or something else will steal his ideas and claim credit for it to profit from. Does the name Robert Kearns ring a bell?

Which is why we have a patent system. The smart people will use that system to guarantee and protect their ideas.

The US is failing horribly? The US is not an innovative nation?

Read The Growing Public (http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Public-Spending-Economic-Eighteenth/dp/0521529166). It shows why even though the welfare state has grown in all industrialized nations why these nations aren't poor.

I'll have to look into that book, but I don't think anyone could make a credible claim that the USA is the economic superpower it was before the New Deal took hold and strangled America's productivity.

Depends on what unit of utility you are talking about.
"Utilon" is just an abstract unit of utility.

And, as any student of John Stuart Mill knows, describing utility as desire (as you are), then trying to quantify said desire, gets you into all sorts of trouble.
"Utility" in the ethical sense and "utility" in the economic sense are two entirely different concepts. I'm talking about the latter. Sorry for any confusion there--I'll try to do better next time.


Aye, but all the "ultimate motive and reasons for acting" are naught without society consisting of other persons.
Why not? Is there not a sense of pride to be had in knowing that one has lived one's life properly, even in the absence of any other men to which he may compare his virtue?

But that wasn't her goal.

Then people need to stop acting like she was a philosopher.

Rand didn't write novels to spread her philosophy; she developed her philosophy to provide a foundation and framework for guiding her novels.

If she'd been even a nominal author, that might have been a good idea.

Most people try to explain the fact that her fiction was absolutely abysmal by claiming that the novels were just a conduit for her philosophy and weren't meant to be good at all.

You claim that her useless philosophy can be explained by the fact that it was just a tool for her novels.

Either way, it all comes out pretty much useless.

Wrong.

An individual who chooses to transact with others because he finds it beneficial to him, and does so of his own volition, is still acting primarily and fundamentally as an individual.

Please don't be so simplistic in your interpretation of concepts next time.

So there are magic fairies that come into play?

Seriously, what could anything be if not nothing more than the aggregate of individuals acting?

So you tell me I am too simplistic, then when I point out that you are being more simplistic you accuse me of invoking magic fairies.

I have never seen you on this board ever actually present any evidence. I have seen plenty of you just telling people they are wrong, plenty of empty assertions, plenty of ridiculing other points of view. But never one shred of evidence to back up what you say.

This is assuming that absolutely NONE of the afore-mentioned corporations actually reward those with innovation and/or hard work, which is ridiculous. Any smart businessman would reward those who work hard and succeed, in order to attract more of that sort of people, thus improving their business.
But that hard work may be replicated on the other side of the planet for cheaper, be swamped in the mass of other hard work, be against the interests of said corporations, or be currently unprofitable.

Which is preferable: a situation where I have six utilons and you have five, or a situation where I have 200 utilons and you have 20?Given that poverty is relative, the former situation is probably preferable.

Err...yeah, you're right. I meant 1941-42, not 1931-32. Since, like, 28-32 isn't thirteen years, and all.Yes, but since FDR didn't take office until 1933, the Depression had been going on longer than 13 months by then anyway. Therefore, you can't blame the New Deal for the Depression going on for longer than 13 months.

To an utilitarian the the two arguments are one and the same.
Utilitarianism is not a valid metaethics.

Also, the vast majority of people don't consider taxation immoral.
Popular consensus is not what determines what is and is not moral.

Since moral arguments rely of axioms the arguments can not show that other arguments are false since all are self consistent given the axioms.
What if I were to show you an ethical system built upon propositions that are inherently true: that is, they're not merely "assumed" to be true or taken for granted, but that one cannot deny without denying logic itself? Tautologies would be one subclass of this class of propositions, but there are others.

Consequentialist arguments are the most effective because they can be proven or refuted.
They're irrelvant without an external means of deciding which outcomes are "good" or "desirable" and which are "bad" or "undesirable," are they not?

As to the education aspect, that is admittedly a hard thing to obtain, but it is very possible to work hard in low skill jobs to earn the money for an education required for a high skill job.

1) because something is "possible" doesn't mean that it WILL happen. You've predicated your argument that hard work and motivation is ALL it takes, that's not true, by your own admission.

2) it's mathematically impossible to save money, when the money you make only just covers your needs.


I'm not hugely into economics,

Fairly obvious, if you were, you wouldn't ask questions like:

however, so I can't answer your third point. How would the system collapse if people could get that which they want?


Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation)

Utilitarianism is not a valid metaethics.


And the same applies even more so to Objectivism.

This is assuming that absolutely NONE of the afore-mentioned corporations actually reward those with innovation and/or hard work, which is ridiculous.

No, just that most of them wouldn't. This can be demonstrated by the fact that, in a more laissez-faire society, most of them didn't.

In reality, corporations pay the absolute minimum they can get away with. And, if it's "take this meager wage or starve", most people will go with the meager wage.

Any smart businessman would reward those who work hard and succeed, in order to attract more of that sort of people, thus improving their business.

Unless what he really needs are grunts.

To take this to its absolute extreme, the Nazis actually had mathematicians who found that it was cheaper to work those in their labor camps to death and then simply replace them with new people than it was to properly feed, clothe, and house them.

Corporations tend to work by the same principles. The motivator behind corporate action is profit - plain and simple. The welfare of their workers matters only if it, in the end, affects their profits. In a purely capitalist system, most corporations would find that taking care of their workers would lower, rather than raise, their profits.

Of course, if we make sure that it is unprofitable to do so, through - say - regulation, then it suddenly becomes important to make sure your work force gets high enough wages.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with punishment or reward.

Of course it does! It taxes that which people earn, instead of what they consume, or something else of that sort. A system which taxes people on their productivity is, by definition, punishing hard workers



They could work towards it, perhaps. But the system itself assured that they had little to no chance of rising at all. In order to work, they had to go deeply in debt. The corporations refused to pay them a living wage and intentionally kept them heavily indebted. If they dared try to better their working conditions, the corporations either simply fired them, or fired them and hired Pinkertons.

And like I said earlier, there are always corporations that reward hard workers and smart people, and you could always go to one of those corporations.



The men already at the top do everything in their power to keep him from doing so, as that would take away from their own ability to make money.

Not to mention the fact that your place in life is always determined by what you are born into. A person born to money will always have an easier time of being successful in life than one born in a slum. And when we do absolutely nothing to help those born in a slum to be able to rise, we end up with a cycle in which the same family is there generation after generation, no matter how hard they work, while those born to money may never even have to learn the meaning of the word.

But your idea of "help" is taking money from the earners and giving it to the takers, merely because they are earners and takers. And besides, I have yet to hear of anyone in our society, who is fully capable of work, that was not able to rise purely off his own merits.



Methinks you missed the point there.

What is the point?

I wish I could stay and chat, but I've got to go. I'll be back.

Given that poverty is relative, the former situation is probably preferable.
Utility is an absolute term. It's not the same of money. Yes, if I have $6 and and you have $3, that's probably better for you than if I have $600 and you have $90, since prices of goods are generally contingent upon the total amount of money in circulation.

But wealth is not defined by the amount of money, but by the amount of utility.

Is it preferable all around for me to have six loaves of bread and you to have five, or for me to have two hundred and for you to have twenty?

This example probably illustrates the difference between "money" and "utility" better than my more abstract example earlier did.

Yes, but since FDR didn't take office until 1933, the Depression had been going on longer than 13 months by then anyway. Therefore, you can't blame the New Deal for the Depression going on for longer than 13 months.

Of course, but he can certainly be blamed for it lasting as long as it did.

"Utilon" is just an abstract unit of utility.
Aye, but I have little truck with abstract units of utility. How can I gauge an abstract, vague concept's worth to me?

Why not? Is there not a sense of pride to be had in knowing that one has lived one's life properly, even in the absence of any other men to which he may compare his virtue?
As I believe one's virtue is directly related to one's interaction and behaviour towards others, I'd say the question was mostly moot.

EDIT: Though there is something to be said for invirtuous behaviour towards oneself.

EDIT 2: And one's surrounding enviroment.

Then people need to stop acting like she was a philosopher.
She was, though.

Her career as a philosopher didn't begin until her career as a novelist had ended. Her novels were written when her philosophy was just something to guide her novels; she didn't begin engaging in serious philosophy for its own sake until after she stopped writing novels.

Of course it does! It taxes that which people earn, instead of what they consume, or something else of that sort. A system which taxes people on their productivity is, by definition, punishing hard workers

Taxes are not punishment.

And like I said earlier, there are always corporations that reward hard workers and smart people, and you could always go to one of those corporations.

No, you can't "always" do anything of the sort. The idea that any human being can just up and move without any current source of income is ridiculous.

But your idea of "help" is taking money from the earners and giving it to the takers, merely because they are earners and takers.

Not at all. My idea of "help" is to create a society in which the structure is actually there for anyone to rise. Those who are earning do pay for it (since those who aren't can't possibly do so). But any help given to those who are not earning would be help to make them self-sufficient, at which point they become earners who pay back into that same system.

And besides, I have yet to hear of anyone in our society, who is fully capable of work, that was not able to rise purely off his own merits.

Then you haven't been listening.

Of course, I've never heard of anyone who truly rose purely on his own merits. Everyone is a product of the society around them, and the support structures it offers. Unless, of course, you care to show me a billionaire who made all his money outside of society?

What is the point?

I wish I could stay and chat, but I've got to go. I'll be back.

The point was that, in a capitalist society, almost no one is actually wealthy. It's a very tiny percentage.

If your assertions were true, we should see a lot more wealthy people.

I'll have to look into that book, but I don't think anyone could make a credible claim that the USA is the economic superpower it was before the New Deal took hold and strangled America's productivity.

It actually loooks more at other nations but the US is included

Utilitarianism is not a valid metaethics.

Proof


Popular consensus is not what determines what is and is not moral.

True, but popular consensus is what determines what actually happens.


What if I were to show you an ethical system built upon propositions that are inherently true: that is, they're not merely "assumed" to be true or taken for granted, but that one cannot deny without denying logic itself? Tautologies would be one subclass of this class of propositions, but there are others.

Show me this system.

They're irrelvant without an external means of deciding which outcomes are "good" or "desirable" and which are "bad" or "undesirable," are they not?

They are relevant in that they are the most effective way, generally, of convincing people of whether something is desirable. So if one wishes for something to be put into practice one has to convince others that it is desirable. Do you want libertarianism to be put into practice or not?

And like I said earlier, there are always corporations that reward hard workers and smart people, and you could always go to one of those corporations.

...because they have infinite jobs that need filling! And infinite wages to pay! And they'll give you your own pet unicorn! Yay!

And besides, I have yet to hear of anyone in our society, who is fully capable of work, that was not able to rise purely off his own merits.

*waves*

Hi. I've been looking for a job unsuccessfully for the past several months. I am exceedingly smart and motivated. I am down to about $10 and would be starving on the street right now if my parents were not letting me live in their house. Now you've heard of me.

Proof
It's a normative ethical theory, not a metaethical one.

She was, though.

Her career as a philosopher didn't begin until her career as a novelist had ended. Her novels were written when her philosophy was just something to guide her novels; she didn't begin engaging in serious philosophy for its own sake until after she stopped writing novels.

So she jumped from one career in which she was absolutely abysmal to another in which she was at least as abysmal?

Poor woman.

Hi. I've been looking for a job unsuccessfully for the past several months. I am exceedingly smart and motivated. I am down to about $10 and would be starving on the street right now if my parents were not letting me live in their house. Now you've heard of me.

Youre clearly lazy and simply not applying yourself.

Aye, but I have little truck with abstract units of utility. How can I gauge an abstract, vague concept's worth to me?
Yeah, apparently that concept is a little more problematic than I thought. See my post immediately above yours (the one I'm replying to in this post) (if you haven't already).

Don't mean to come off as condescending; different people have different areas of specialization, and I shouldn't have assumed everyone was as familiar with one of mine as I am. That was an error on my part.

As I believe one's virtue is directly related to one's interaction and behaviour towards others, I'd say the question was mostly moot.
Would you agree with this statement: "A system of virtues is a system for, first, choosing one's values; and second, for discovering how best to achieve those values, in a manner such that in achieving one value a second value is not contradicted."?

Proof
A positive proof of X constitutes a disproof of ~X.

True, but popular consensus is what determines what actually happens.
And if what actually happens and what should happen are not the same, action needs to be taken to bring the former into line with the latter.

Show me this system.
Would you deny that there are certain actions a man must take in order to ensure his survival?

They are relevant in that they are the most effective way, generally, of convincing people of whether something is desirable.
But how is one to know that it is, in fact, desirable?

It's a normative ethical theory, not a metaethical one.

Oh, I see, but how does that make it invalid normative ethical theory?

Why doesn't the US create a reservation for libertarians?

An area of land could be put aside where libertarians could live separated from society as individualists. They could enter voluntarily and would be exempt from all taxes and free from laws, but in turn they would have to leave all the products of society behind when they entered (so no guns unless they mined the metal for it and the tools to make it, designed it and built it entirely by themselves etc.).

Wait, what's the point of this again? Apparently in your world, libertarians don't believe in trade?

Nonsense. You can't even stand to give them a chance in some hypothetical and silly scenario.

It's like "Hey, let's put all the socialists into a reservation. But, they will be stripped naked, coated in blood, and forced to run helplessly from thousands of angry and possibly rabid animals! THEY COULDN'T SURVIVE so socialism sucks lol!"

It's a normative ethical theory, not a metaethical one.

No, it's not.

It's a framework for developing a substantiative theory of ethics; it is not a substantiative theory of ethics in itself. So it is indeed a metaethical system.

Yeah, apparently that concept is a little more problematic than I thought. See my post immediately above yours (the one I'm replying to in this post) (if you haven't already).
You're talking about diminishing utility, aren't you?

Which I get, I just don't understand the move from 'real' utility (loaves of bread, say) to abstract utility (utilons).

Don't mean to come off as condescending
You're not, dinnie worry yersel.

Would you agree with this statement: "A system of virtues is a system for, first, choosing one's values; and second, for discovering how best to achieve those values, in a manner such that in achieving one value a second value is not contradicted."?
Yes, provisionally.

Though I'd add that any self-respecting system of values should have some way of evaluating said values.

No, it's not.

It's a framework for developing a substantiative theory of ethics; it is not a substantiative theory of ethics in itself. So it is indeed a metaethical system.
I think utilitarianisms such as J. S. Mill's or Peter Singer's are certainly normative, for they are themselves substantiative theories of ethics. Though I can see how a general, non-specific utilitarian theory could claim o be metaethical; but I'd have my problems.

Interesting topic.



Oh, I see, but how does that make it invalid normative ethical theory?
I don't think it does (though I think utilitarianism is invalid, or unhelpful, in other ways.)

It's like "Hey, let's put all the socialists into a reservation. But, they will be stripped naked, coated in blood, and forced to run helplessly from thousands of angry and possibly rabid animals! THEY COULDN'T SURVIVE so socialism sucks lol!"

Youre my favorite.

Utility is an absolute term.Really? So the same item gives two people the same amount of utility?

It's not the same of money. Yes, if I have $6 and and you have $3, that's probably better for you than if I have $600 and you have $90, since prices of goods are generally contingent upon the total amount of money in circulation.

But wealth is not defined by the amount of money, but by the amount of utility.Perhaps not, but money is objectively measurable (more or less). Utility is not.

Is it preferable all around for me to have six loaves of bread and you to have five, or for me to have two hundred and for you to have twenty?It might be preferable for me to eat the loaf of bread, or I might be able to trade that loaf for something else. I suppose it would therefore depend on what I could trade the bread for.
You would be more likely to trade for one of my loaves of bread if you only had six than if you had two hundred.

Of course, but he can certainly be blamed for it lasting as long as it did.Arguably. He could also arguably be credited for lessening the worst effects and preventing it from being more of a catastrophe.

Wait, what's the point of this again? Apparently in your world, libertarians don't believe in trade?

Not to speak for him, but I don't think that's a fair assessment of his argument.

As I understand it, what he's proposing is that, upon entering, everything from the outside world except (presumably) the knowledge held in the heads of particpants is left behind. Starting over from scratch.

A positive proof of X constitutes a disproof of ~X.

How does that show that utilitarianism is false?

And if what actually happens and what should happen are not the same, action needs to be taken to bring the former into line with the latter.

Isn't that what I said? :P


Would you deny that there are certain actions a man must take in order to ensure his survival?

When did you show that survival was morally desirable?


But how is one to know that it is, in fact, desirable?

LOL. That is the question.

A society in which people who look pretty in front of a camera or play games while occasionally making news with scandalous behavior make substantially more money than school teachers isn't a society rewarding losers and punishing winners?
Win.^^ :D

if you want to talk about Ayn Rand, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
Win Win.^^ :D :D

But that wasn't her goal.

Rand didn't write novels to spread her philosophy; she developed her philosophy to provide a foundation and framework for guiding her novels.

Art has to represent something, after all.
That just makes her philosophy even more useless because it's fake. It's a literary device, not a philosophy. What you're saying here -- I'm not sure if you realize this -- is that she invented Objectivism much the way L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology.

And inasmuch as Objectivism has not had the "legs" that Scientology has, that makes those who insist on claiming Objectivism as a philosophy that much more ridiculous-seeming.

...because they have infinite jobs that need filling! And infinite wages to pay! And they'll give you your own pet unicorn! Yay!


*waves*

Hi. I've been looking for a job unsuccessfully for the past several months. I am exceedingly smart and motivated. I am down to about $10 and would be starving on the street right now if my parents were not letting me live in their house. Now you've heard of me.
*waves as well* Now he's heard of two of us, because I'm in more or less the same position. Out of work, few job listings, and tons of competition for every measly, barely-paying, part time spot. I've got a little less than a year's worth of money left in my savings, and if something doesn't break before that's gone, I'll be dead broke. Not a dollar left.

Meanwhile, I've got 8 years experience as a legal secretary, 5 years experience as a corporate secretary, ~10 years experience as a proofreader/editor, and ~7 years experience in retail. But apparently so do all the other million of out-of-work Americans who are applying for the same jobs I am.

EDIT: [bloggy digression] Actually, I was just talking about this yesterday, and suggested to my friend that now, with not enough jobs, the economy plummeting, nobody buying anything, much less investing in anything, and me actually able to see the bottom of my money barrel, this might be the ideal time for me to try to start that publishing business I've been thinking of. Most Beneficial State of Mind(tm) #3 = Desperation, which broadens our horizons by encouraging us to try new things.[/bloggy digression]

*waves as well* Now he's heard of two of us, because I'm in more or less the same position. Out of work, few job listings, and tons of competition for every measly, barely-paying, part time spot. I've got a little less than a year's worth of money left in my savings, and if something doesn't break before that's gone, I'll be dead broke. Not a dollar left.

Meanwhile, I've got 8 years experience as a legal secretary, 5 years experience as a corporate secretary, ~10 years experience as a proofreader/editor, and ~7 years experience in retail. But apparently so do all the other million of out-of-work Americans who are applying for the same jobs I am.

You are clearly lazy and not applying yourself. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.

That just makes her philosophy even more useless because it's fake. It's a literary device, not a philosophy.
I don't see how something being a literary device cannot also be a philosophy, and, moreover, how it is thereby 'fake'.

Why doesn't the US create a reservation for libertarians?
...
Would they survive or just end up killing each other?

Yeah... let's call them tribal areas, it's got a sort of exotic sound... like Waziristan...

...would they survive? WHO CARES?

You're talking about diminishing utility, aren't you?
No.

In the hierarchy of economic concepts, the concept of diminishing marginal utility depends upon the concept of utility, but they are not the same thing. The concept of utility has other applications, too, throughout the whole realm of economics.

Which I get, I just don't understand the move from 'real' utility (loaves of bread, say) to abstract utility (utilons).

It basically gives us a way to quantify and therefore compare the utility provided by totally unrelated goods and services. So if I had a choice between a loaf of bread and watching a movie, then (theoretically) I would say, "Well, one more loaf of bread would provide me with X utilons, and watching one more movie would provide me with Y utilons" and then I would compare X and Y, and would choose whichever option provided me the greatest benefit for what I would have to give up in order to have it.

Obviously, the decision-making process isn't actually that explicit (that's why "utilons" are an abstract unit), but it provides a model for understanding human behavior on a rigorous level.

Not to speak for him, but I don't think that's a fair assessment of his argument.

As I understand it, what he's proposing is that, upon entering, everything from the outside world except (presumably) the knowledge held in the heads of particpants is left behind. Starting over from scratch.

I think I assessed the 'argument' pretty fairly. There is no point to this "starting over from scratch" idea, and it's even impossible to do since as you point out, knowledge and experience cannot be left-behind. It's just an unnecessary handicap. Not unlike being dipped in blood.

I don't think it does (though I think utilitarianism is invalid, or unhelpful, in other ways.)

The question was aimed at Bluth Corporation, and I agree.

Is anyone else getting an ad for Ayn Rand?

Is anyone else getting and ad for Ayn Rand?

I'm getting the "Free Grants for Republicans, Receive $10k - $100k in Gov Grants, Never Repay" ad. Which is pretty lolz.

How does that show that utilitarianism is false?
It doesn't. What it does do is explain why I'm not going to bother explicitly pointing out how utilitarianism is wrong, but instead show how a system that is completely exclusive of utilitarianism is right, and that will implicitly show that utilitarianism is wrong.

When did you show that survival was morally desirable?
Morality presupposes the desirability of survival, because it has no use to the dead.

I don't see how something being a literary device cannot also be a philosophy, and, moreover, how it is thereby 'fake'.
If she made it up only to provide a guiding framework for her books, then it does not refer to the real world at all. It is no more a real philosophy than an alternative history novel is real history.

Now, if anyone had then taken her fictional philosophy and applied it successfully to the real world as a socio-political philosophy then Objectivism would have been to Ayn Rand what Scientology was to Hubbard, or what the monster was to Frankenstein. Only nobody managed to make that work for Rand's poor little brain child.

If she made it up only to provide a guiding framework for her books, then it does not refer to the real world at all. It is no more a real philosophy than an alternative history novel is real history.
The reasons behind its initial development are irrelevant when assessing its validity.

Is anyone else getting an ad for Ayn Rand?
Yep. They're giving her ideas away for free, apparently. I wonder how many takers they've had. :D

You are clearly lazy and not applying yourself. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.

this calls for only one thing:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/aynrandposter3.jpg

I think I assessed the 'argument' pretty fairly. There is no point to this "starting over from scratch" idea, and it's even impossible to do since as you point out, knowledge and experience cannot be left-behind. It's just an unnecessary handicap. Not unlike being dipped in blood.

There is a point to the idea. All the tools, resources, et cetera that they would bring in would have resulted from a society that was not libertarian in nature. If one wishes to determine if a system can create a functioning and stable society, one cannot give the system a preexisting society. If one does, then all that could be determined is that it can keep a stable society stable.

Is anyone else getting an ad for Ayn Rand?

Apparently, the ad generator thinks we would do well to familiarize ourselves with her writings. ;)

The reasons behind its initial development are irrelevant when assessing its validity.
Right. Which is why I also assessed its validity outside her books. In addition to the criticisms posted by others, with which I agree, I also mentioned that no one has ever succeeded in making her ideas work in real-world application. That does not speak well for their validity, in my opinion.

The reasons behind its initial development are irrelevant when assessing its validity.

If it requires an unreal situation to be valid, it's probably not valid. Hope this helps.

Annexation!



Throw in Penn. and you got a deal.

No, we keep PA. But you can take Kansas, Oklahoma, W. Virginia, Missouri, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and the Dakotas.

No, we keep PA. But you can take Kansas, Oklahoma, W. Virginia, Missouri, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and the Dakotas.

No, they most certainly can NOT.

this calls for only one thing:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/aynrandposter3.jpg
Nice. Swiped. Lucky Ayn. She is finally getting the true recognition that she earned all those years ago. :D

If it requires an unreal situation to be valid, it's probably not valid. Hope this helps.
Yeah, this. ^^ *mutters, 'that's what I was trying to say'*

It doesn't. What it does do is explain why I'm not going to bother explicitly pointing out how utilitarianism is wrong, but instead show how a system that is completely exclusive of utilitarianism is right, and that will implicitly show that utilitarianism is wrong.

Demonstrate that your system is true, then.


Morality presupposes the desirability of survival, because it has no use to the dead.

Since when? While the vast majority of ethical systems presupposes the desirability of survival I don't see how the concept of morality presupposes this desirability.

No, they most certainly can NOT.

How about just Springfield, Poplar Bluff, and Branson?

There is a point to the idea. All the tools, resources, et cetera that they would bring in would have resulted from a society that was not libertarian in nature.

INCLUDING the skills and experiences and knowledge of the "reservation" members.

If you can't remove those, why remove anything else?

If one wishes to determine if a system can create a functioning and stable society, one cannot give the system a preexisting society. If one does, then all that could be determined is that it can keep a stable society stable.

Thus the whole concept is flawed from the start.

this calls for only one thing:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/aynrandposter3.jpg

Win.

Is anyone else getting an ad for Ayn Rand?
Folks still allow ads to be viewed on their browser?

:P

If she made it up only to provide a guiding framework for her books, then it does not refer to the real world at all.
But it is still able to be adapted to the real world.

Satre did something very similar, as did Rousseau, Voltaire, etc.

Right. Which is why I also assessed its validity outside her books. In addition to the criticisms posted by others, with which I agree, I also mentioned that no one has ever succeeded in making her ideas work in real-world application. That does not speak well for their validity, in my opinion.

No one's ever succeeded because no one's ever tried. No one's ever tried because no one's ever had the opportunity. No one's ever had the opportunity because the political status quo is such that any attempt would be violently crushed as soon as anyone indicated they were serious about making such an attempt.

That can hardly be considered a flaw of the philosophy itself.

INCLUDING the skills and experiences and knowledge of the "reservation" members.

If you can't remove those, why remove anything else?
You don't need to remove them. You just need about eighteen years of preparation.

Thus the whole concept is flawed from the start.
It has flaws, yes. It is, however, something that can be done. It's just extremely unethical to do so.

Break California off
Kill Everyone there
You got a Libertarian Island!
AND You get rid of all the Loony Liberals!

Folks still allow ads to be viewed on their browser?

:P
Yeah, they're funny, and they add color to the screen.

But it is still able to be adapted to the real world.

Satre did something very similar, as did Rousseau, Voltaire, etc.
Except of course for the fact that Objectivism is apparently NOT adaptable to the real world. At least, none of the shockingly few who have bothered to try has ever succeeded.

Also, Rousseau, I believe was a philosopher at the same time as he was a writer, not like Rand, according to Bluth Corporation, and Voltaire did not, strictly speaking, invent the ideas he wrote about.

*sings* One of these things is not like the others...*

You don't need to remove them. You just need about eighteen years of preparation.

Ah, so the "voluntary" experiment now requires raising children from birth to participate. Part of the contract means they will be physically prevented from learning anything at all from society. A quick lobotomy ensures our brave 3 year old volunteers will never infect the purity of our experiment.

It has flaws, yes. It is, however, something that can be done. It's just extremely unethical to do so.

Yeah but by now we're dealing with lobotomized children forced into what amounts to gulags ostensibly for the sake of carrying on political ideology... so it looks like what we're really testing is hardline communism! :p

No one's ever succeeded because no one's ever tried. No one's ever tried because no one's ever had the opportunity. No one's ever had the opportunity because the political status quo is such that any attempt would be violently crushed as soon as anyone indicated they were serious about making such an attempt.

That can hardly be considered a flaw of the philosophy itself.
Hahahahaha! Excellent! I love the "Well, it could work if The Man would stop keeping us down" excuse. :D

Yeah but by now we're dealing with lobotomized children forced into what amounts to gulags ostensibly for the sake of carrying on political ideology... so it looks like what we're really testing is hardline communism! :p
Somehow, everything always seems to end up that way. ;)

How about just Springfield, Poplar Bluff, and Branson?

Acceptable.

Break California off
Kill Everyone there
You got a Libertarian Island!
AND You get rid of all the Loony Liberals!

Great first post.:rolleyes: Welcome to NSG. You'll fit in well here.

Hahahahaha! Excellent! I love the "Well, it could work if The Man would stop keeping us down" excuse. :D

Where, exactly, is the error in the post you're referencing?

Break California off
Kill Everyone there
You got a Libertarian Island!
AND You get rid of all the Loony Liberals!
Aw, isn't it cute?

Aw, isn't it cute?

Canz we keep it? Ill walk it and feed it and....

Where, exactly, is the error in the post you're referencing?
Pffffft! *spits coffee dangerously close to keyboard* Don't type things like that while I'm drinking. :D

What they need is less a reservation, more a loony bin, amirite? :p

Or if they want a place with no government, colonizing an uninhabited -- or purchased -- island somewhere seems reasonable.

...because the reservations we've forced people into in the past have worked out SO well....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Casinos

Idk, I think it was a fairly good trade, lol...Payin em back one slot machine at a time, lol

Or if they want a place with no government, colonizing an uninhabited -- or purchased -- island somewhere seems reasonable.

Doesn't work like that.

Under current international agreements, any such place would instantly become the territory of whichever signatory is closest.

Whether that's the way it should be or not, is one thing. But unfortunately, they would lay claim to it and violently suppress any attempt at independence, and would be supported by pretty much the rest of the world.

Or if they want a place with no government, colonizing an uninhabited -- or purchased -- island somewhere seems reasonable.

Actually I have heard of plans by various froups to build some artificial islands for various social experiments.

Or if they want a place with no government, colonizing an uninhabited -- or purchased -- island somewhere seems reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva

Its been tried.....didnt work out so well for them, lol...

My response to Libertarians is this quote:

No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva

Its been tried.....didnt work out so well for them, lol...
Isn't that pretty much the point of the OP?

My response to Libertarians is this quote:

Yeah...but....but...b...THAT WAS MY CLOD OF DIRT!!!!:(

Isn't that pretty much the point of the OP?

Well, it was because Tonga invaded, not because Libertarianism didnt work out...

Tonga forced em off their island...

My response to Libertarians is this quote:
I think there are people to whom that quote is meaningful, and there are others to whom it is not. If it means anything to a person, they are unlikely to be making arguments that essentially boil down to "why should I have to care about anyone else?" If it doesn't mean anything to them, then telling it to them won't make any difference.

Well, it was because Tonga invaded, not because Libertarianism didnt work out...

Tonga forced em off their island...

So Libertarianism didn't work in the real world? I mean, if you can't defend yourself against Tonga....

Shocking revelation, that.

http://videoindex.pbs.org/resources/civilwar/images/cwmap02.jpg

Whoa, slow down there, maestro. There's a "New" Mexico?

So Libertarianism didn't work in the real world?

Shocker....

Nobody even read the article did they? :rolleyes:....

They never got the opportunity to find out...the Tongan Military invaded...

Isn't that pretty much the point of the OP?

Not at all. This way the US will be subsidizing their military. The whole reserve will be on this protective welfare.

Whoa, slow down there, maestro. There's a "New" Mexico?

Yeah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico

Nobody even read the article did they? :rolleyes:....

They never got the opportunity to find out...the Tongan Military invaded...

Yes, I read it.

Geez, if they have an army, they could have invaded and defended it. But That would require government, and taxes.....

It's not as if Tonga is a major military-industrial complex, is it?! Of all the opponents you have to beat....

An area of land could be put aside where libertarians could live separated from society as individualists. They could enter voluntarily and would be exempt from all taxes and free from laws, but in turn they would have to leave all the products of society behind when they entered (so no guns unless they mined the metal for it and the tools to make it, designed it and built it entirely by themselves etc.).
You forgot the God #2 of Libertarianism:

FREE TRADE without any state borders, hard or soft.

Nobody even read the article did they? :rolleyes:....

They never got the opportunity to find out...the Tongan Military invaded...
I read it. I lol'd. I especially liked the King of Tonga's declaration, essentially stating that the pretentious white-boys can get their sorry asses off their reefs, and the part about the founding CEO firing the democratically elected president of Minerva and the whole enterprise "collapsed in confusion." :D

Not at all. This way the US will be subsidizing their military. The whole reserve will be on this protective welfare.
Welfare -- the core of libertarian philosophy. :D

I think there are people to whom that quote is meaningful, and there are others to whom it is not. If it means anything to a person, they are unlikely to be making arguments that essentially boil down to "why should I have to care about anyone else?" If it doesn't mean anything to them, then telling it to them won't make any difference.

True enough. I've never figured out an effective way to answer "why should I care about anyone else", because to me it's self-evident.

You forgot the God #2 of Libertarianism:

FREE TRADE without any state borders, hard or soft.

Elaborate, please.

Well, it was because Tonga invaded, not because Libertarianism didnt work out...

Tonga forced em off their island...

Tonga told them to get out and they did.

If Libertarians won't fight for their land, do they really value it?

Tonga told them to get out and they did.

If Libertarians won't fight for their land, do they really value it?

Nope, not profitable, :p

Tonga told them to get out and they did.

If Libertarians won't fight for their land, do they really value it?

Ironic considering that libertarians are supposed to be gun nutty folks who will violently resist any seizure of their property.

Elaborate, please.
The whole point of libertarianism as an economic concept is that you never have to "mine the metal, make the tools, design and build it entirely by yourself". On the contrary, libertarians advocate zero tariffs and zero taxes exactly to allow for an increase in labor specialization. The libertarian idea would be rather extremely active, untaxed trade.


Example 1, current situation: You and Bob both earn the same, say $50/hr, but you can fix your car in 8 hours, while Bob can in 5 hours (including the trip).
However, if you hired Bob to do it, in a legal manner, and paid $400, he would have to pay a plethora of taxes and fees, so he'd only get $200 out of it. Thus, it's unprofitable for him to spend time this way (he'd get $250 on the main job), and it's unprofitable for you to pay more than you'd earn on the main job.
As such, 8 man-hours are spent to fix the car.


Example 2, libertarian situation: You and Bob both earn $50/hr, but you can fix your car in 8 hours, Bob in 5 hours.
You hire Bob to do it for $325, and go to work as normal, saving $75. He also earns $75 over his normal pay.
Each of you is $75 richer now. And, as only 5 man-hours are spent to fix the car, the society as a whole is better off, since more work can be done with the same effort.


Note that the extra money didn't come from the taxes; the bonus came from you both spending your time more efficiently, thus having extra 3 hours of productive labor with the same effort and time spent.

Example 2, libertarian situation: You and Bob both earn $50/hr, but you can fix your car in 8 hours, Bob in 5 hours.
You hire Bob to do it for $325, and go to work as normal, saving $75. He also earns $75 over his normal pay.
Each of you is $75 richer now. And, as only 5 man-hours are spent to fix the car, the society as a whole is better off, since more work can be done with the same effort.

Of course, in a society without taxes, the job that is currently $50/hr would become more like $25/hr instead.

Note that the extra money didn't come from the taxes; the bonus came from you both spending your time more efficiently, thus having extra 3 hours of productive labor with the same effort and time spent.

So the thesis is that people would work more efficiently if there were no taxes?

And why are you paying Bob more money than his work is worth?

"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question: Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose----- Rapture. A city where the artist would not fear the censor. Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality. Where the great would not be constrained by the small. And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well."

Jesus, did everybody fire up Bioshock to celebrate the Obama inauguration and decide to post threads about it? I've heard of life imitating art...

The whole point of libertarianism as an economic concept is that you never have to "mine the metal, make the tools, design and build it entirely by yourself". On the contrary, libertarians advocate zero tariffs and zero taxes exactly to allow for an increase in labor specialization. The libertarian idea would be rather extremely active, untaxed trade.


Example 1, current situation: You and Bob both earn the same, say $50/hr, but you can fix your car in 8 hours, while Bob can in 5 hours (including the trip).
However, if you hired Bob to do it, in a legal manner, and paid $400, he would have to pay a plethora of taxes and fees, so he'd only get $200 out of it. Thus, it's unprofitable for him to spend time this way (he'd get $250 on the main job), and it's unprofitable for you to pay more than you'd earn on the main job.
As such, 8 man-hours are spent to fix the car.


Example 2, libertarian situation: You and Bob both earn $50/hr, but you can fix your car in 8 hours, Bob in 5 hours.
You hire Bob to do it for $325, and go to work as normal, saving $75. He also earns $75 over his normal pay.
Each of you is $75 richer now. And, as only 5 man-hours are spent to fix the car, the society as a whole is better off, since more work can be done with the same effort.


Note that the extra money didn't come from the taxes; the bonus came from you both spending your time more efficiently, thus having extra 3 hours of productive labor with the same effort and time spent.

There is no 'extra' money. The value of goods and services would decrease to meet the status quo, and with no governmental capacity to buffer or mitigate (since you'd have just bankrupted it) your newly depreciated currency would be worthless on the international market.

No one would be richer. Everyone would have less intrinsic worth, and less potential to exchange supply and demand.

Congratulations - you've found the most efficient method to poverty for all.

When and where?



Reading that synopsis instantly told me that this is tripe, although I'd have to read the book to make sure. A true libertarian system would never force someone into a "coventry" of that sort. Libertarians believe in punishment of criminals, not an absurdly corrupt court system that completely violates the rights of the prosecuted.

Even in the synopsis it states that he had a choice, he wasn't forced. The courst system violated no rights. The point of the story was that the system (and I use the word system advisedly) won't work because you're depending on people to just, ethical and respectful - and they aren't.

Even in the synopsis it states that he had a choice, he wasn't forced. The courst system violated no rights. The point of the story was that the system (and I use the word system advisedly) won't work because you're depending on people to just, ethical and respectful - and they aren't.

Precisely. A system which relies on human beings to be better than they've ever been isn't going to work.

And both pure communism and pure capitalism would do so.

Example 1, current situation: You and Bob both earn the same, say $50/hr, but you can fix your car in 8 hours, while Bob can in 5 hours (including the trip).
However, if you hired Bob to do it, in a legal manner, and paid $400, he would have to pay a plethora of taxes and fees, so he'd only get $200 out of it. Thus, it's unprofitable for him to spend time this way (he'd get $250 on the main job), and it's unprofitable for you to pay more than you'd earn on the main job.
As such, 8 man-hours are spent to fix the car.

what a bullshit hypothetical. Why is Bob suddenly getting taxed when I hire him, but not on his normal job?

I mean, sure it's easy to point out the inefficiencies in the tax system when you, ya know, ignore how it works.

There is no 'extra' money. The value of goods and services would decrease to meet the status quo, and with no governmental capacity to buffer or mitigate (since you'd have just bankrupted it) your newly depreciated currency would be worthless on the international market.

A dollar that isn't wasted is a dollar that can be spent on something else. Unless the government is spending those taxes in a manner as efficient or more efficient than the market, it's just going to reduce the optimal level of output and possibly imbalance things even further thanks to all the agency costs associated with government spending.

And remember, the value of services won't decline forever. Eventually, if prices do decline they will reach a point where suppliers are pushed out, creating a price floor that's likely equal to the most efficient supplier in the market. Now, in a market that's difficult to enter, that's usually where monopolies come from (and that's precisely how Standard Oil and US Steel did it), but in the case of the service industry it's very rare. Anyone can fix a car or repair plumbing with a comparatively low amount of capital so it's easy for new competitors to enter.

A dollar that isn't wasted is a dollar that can be spent on something else. Unless the government is spending those taxes in a manner as efficient or more efficient than the market, it's just going to reduce the optimal level of output and possibly imbalance things even further thanks to all the agency costs associated with government spending.

And remember, the value of services won't decline forever. Eventually, if prices do decline they will reach a point where suppliers are pushed out, creating a price floor that's likely equal to the most efficient supplier in the market. Now, in a market that's difficult to enter, that's usually where monopolies come from (and that's precisely how Standard Oil and US Steel did it), but in the case of the service industry it's very rare. Anyone can fix a car or repair plumbing with a comparatively low amount of capital so it's easy for new competitors to enter.

'A dollar that isn't wasted'.... is a nonsense. The idea that you can reduce the price of everything to 50%, and everyone becomes 100% 'wealthier' is the kind of logic you might expect out of first grade math. In reality, the 'waste' of a dollar can be more valuable than the 'saving' of it.

Halving the price of every product and service, equates to reducing the value of your currency to half of it's current value, at one stroke.

I almost wish Libertarians had some real potential to run anything, or be elected... watching people start starving within a week of the elections would be the kind of kick in the head that the ideology needs.

The idea that you can reduce the price of everything to 50%, and everyone becomes 100% 'wealthier' is the kind of logic you might expect out of first grade math.

That's nice, nobody is saying that however.

That's nice, nobody is saying that however.

You didn't read Vault's posts?

Precisely. A system which relies on human beings to be better than they've ever been isn't going to work.

And both pure communism and pure capitalism would do so.

No, see, humans engage in rational self-interest.

Those two things blend so seamlessly, it can't not work.

You didn't read Vault's posts?

Well, I meant Vetalia wasn't saying that (or at least I'm pretty sure he wasn't), which is whom I thought you were referencing.

No, see, humans engage in rational self-interest.

Those two things blend so seamlessly, it can't not work.

Ahhh. Then, being rationally self-interested, I can shoot you for being in my way and, if I don't get caught, it's all good.

Ahhh. Then, being rationally self-interested, I can shoot you for being in my way

...wait, what? Arbitrary homicide is rational behavior now?

No, see, humans engage in rational self-interest.

Those two things blend so seamlessly, it can't not work.

And that's why libertarianism has been in its position of dominant ideology all around the world for the past thousands of years, wait...

...wait, what? Arbitrary homicide is rational behavior now?

Of course it is. If rational self-interest is the basis for the rules of the game and it's in my best interests to eliminate someone, killing him/her is eminently rational.

Well, I meant Vetalia wasn't saying that (or at least I'm pretty sure he wasn't), which is whom I thought you were referencing.

The central focus is Vault's unrealistic utopia. Vetalia expanded upon Vault's image with the 'dollar wasted' comment - but it is the eggshell platform on which it's all constructed that is the weak(est) link.

A dollar not wasted is a dollar that can be spent on something else... isn't a fundamentally flawed concept on it's own. When the idea is that that dollar can be preserved through devaluing the entire currency, it becomes flawed.

Neo is struggling to discredit Objectivism by saying it's fiction, rather than by discussing or arguing any real ideas he might have.

Maybe it's because he doesn't have any.

Hotwife, you've been repeatedly reminded and warned about flaming other posters. It seems the effect of the punishment hasn't worked, perhaps a 3-day ban may help you in understanding the rules here better.

Ahhh. Then, being rationally self-interested, I can shoot you for being in my way and, if I don't get caught, it's all good.

...wait, what? Arbitrary homicide is rational behavior now?

These questions and more are answered in my short story "Simonov Goes To The Store But Must Eat Cat Food Because Taxes Were Levied On The Cheerios To Pay For Free Cheese For Poor Children".

And that's why libertarianism has been in its position of dominant ideology all around the world for the past thousands of years, wait...

Libertarianism is just a crappy rip off of my brilliant, earth-and-reality-based philosophy, Objectivism.

It doesn't work without the things I've added just last century, like "A = A".

'A dollar that isn't wasted'.... is a nonsense. The idea that you can reduce the price of everything to 50%, and everyone becomes 100% 'wealthier' is the kind of logic you might expect out of first grade math. In reality, the 'waste' of a dollar can be more valuable than the 'saving' of it.

Everyone does become wealthier. Just look at computers or the telecommunications industry for that; their continuous price deflation over the past 30 years has enabled people to perform a lot more work in less time and has greatly accelerated any number of fields by massively reducing the cost to process information. Productivity improvements reduce costs, which in turn reduce prices. It's nonsense to suggest wasting money is somehow desirable because it means we are getting less utility out of our spending, which means our standard of living is lower than it could be if money were allocated more efficiently.

The thing is, deflation isn't always the same. There is a huge difference between falling prices caused by productivity, increased supply and technological improvements and deflation caused by a major contraction in the money supply. Since the money supply is unchanging in this hypothetical, the only way prices could fall is if there are other beneficial factors driving them down and that inherently benefits all consumers.

Halving the price of every product and service, equates to reducing the value of your currency to half of it's current value, at one stroke.

Purchasing power and exchange rates aren't the same; otherwise, China wouldn't be the world's third largest economy, not by a long shot. However, its currency's purchasing power is far greater than its exchange rate, which means their real GDP is far higher in terms of what they actually produce and can purchase with their incomes. The nominal value of the currency is meaningless if I can still get the same number of goods and services at the equivalent price in new units. For example, when Zimbabwe lops a dozen zeros off of its currency, it doesn't affect anything because the inherent purchasing power remains the same. If the inherent purchasing power remains the same, it is utterly meaningless whether an item is priced at $1,000 or $10...the only difference is the nominal number of units exchanged.

Of course it is. If rational self-interest is the basis for the rules of the game and it's in my best interests to eliminate someone, killing him/her is eminently rational.

That's a rather big assumption - that a homicide was in one's own interests. Killing another human is abnormal behavior, almost irrational by definition - at any rate, the way you described it made it sound completely random. Someone may "be in your way," but their dead body is going to leave you with more problems than solutions. Namely, any relatives or friends or associates of the victim wanting to seek revenge; people around you no longer wanting to associate with you at all (it's kinda irrational to hang out with someone who'll kill you for arbitrary reasons); the energy and risk inherent with trying to kill anyone in general. So no I don't think "you're in my way, I KILL YOU!" is rational behavior.

Why is Bob suddenly getting taxed when I hire him, but not on his normal job?
He is taxed on his normal job, the wage is given is after tax.



There is no 'extra' money. The value of goods and services would decrease to meet the status quo,
It wouldn't decrease. No one has printed any money in the example. On the contrary, extra goods and services have been produced, by an exchange of labor which produced extra 3 man-hours of productivity.


and with no governmental capacity to buffer or mitigate (since you'd have just bankrupted it) your newly depreciated currency would be worthless on the international market.
Most libertarians think the only proper currency is gold or strictly gold-backed notes.

It's nonsense to suggest wasting money is somehow desirable because it means we are getting less utility out of our spending, which means our standard of living is lower than it could be if money were allocated more efficiently.
To interject, exactly what do you mean by "wasting money"?

Everyone does become wealthier.


If you mean' has more paper money'... maybe.


Just look at computers or the telecommunications industry for that; their continuous price deflation over the past 30 years has enabled people to perform a lot more work in less time and has greatly accelerated any number of fields by massively reducing the cost to process information.


Price deflation has little or nothing to do with how telecommunications have linked to productivity.


Productivity improvements reduce costs, which in turn reduce prices.


Neither of those are implicit conditions.


It's nonsense to suggest wasting money is somehow desirable because it means we are getting less utility out of our spending,


Depends what you mean by 'utility'. We aren't talking about microeconomy. Our current economy actually requires waste - it is the MOST desirable utility.


...which means our standard of living is lower than it could be if money were allocated more efficiently.


Standard of living is not connected with utility of spending. If you have zero budget, and your cash is 100% invested in good projects... it's still zero.


Purchasing power and exchange rates aren't the same. The nominal value of the currency is meaningless if I can still get the same number of goods and services at the equivalent price in new units. For example, when Zimbabwe lops a dozen zeros off of its currency, it doesn't affect anything because the inherent purchasing power remains the same.

Which is why the economy of Zimbabwe rules the world, right now?

No - because a pissweak domestic economy is unlikely to have the knock-on effect of strong international exchange value. Which is why Vault's Utopia is a delusion.

That's a rather big assumption - that a homicide was in one's own interests. Killing another human is abnormal behavior, almost irrational by definition - at any rate, the way you described it made it sound completely random. Someone may "be in your way," but their dead body is going to leave you with more problems than solutions. Namely, any relatives or friends or associates of the victim wanting to seek revenge; people around you no longer wanting to associate with you at all (it's kinda irrational to hang out with someone who'll kill you for arbitrary reasons); the energy and risk inherent with trying to kill anyone in general. So no I don't think "you're in my way, I KILL YOU!" is rational behavior.

Ah, but once Objectivism is instituted, each person will be able to develop technology free from government interference. Thus, someone of average intellect, who is willing to work hard, will develop a disintigrator ray, cloaking device, and memory-eraser, and benefit from their own labor by being able to kill people rather than take a slight step to the left.

Of course, in a society without taxes, the job that is currently $50/hr would become more like $25/hr instead.
More like $75/hr.


So the thesis is that people would work more efficiently if there were no taxes?
Since taxes are taken from market interactions, they make these interactions less profitable, and as such less frequent.

Without taxes on market interactions (mind you: I'm OK with an alternate system), there would be more market interactions, which would allow for more labor exchange, and as such more efficient use of time.


And why are you paying Bob more money than his work is worth?
Because I still pay less than it would cost me to do it myself. Thus, an even split makes this good for both of us.

It wouldn't decrease. No one has printed any money in the example. On the contrary, extra goods and services have been produced, by an exchange of labor which produced extra 3 man-hours of productivity.


It would decrease. The fact that you think value relates only to the number of printed notes reinforces that you probably aren't qualified to discuss this subject.


Most libertarians think the only proper currency is gold or strictly gold-backed notes.

That's lovely. The whole thing is hinged on the necessity for 'currency' of course.

Since taxes are taken from market interactions, they make these interactions less profitable, and as such less frequent.

Exactly. The things done with taxes do nothing to increase the market, like infrastructure, and taxes are never spent by the government on things which are themselves market interactions.

You are clearly familiar with my work.

More like $75/hr.


Because, obviously, everyone will pay more for the same service, once the libertarian ideal takes hold and everyone is that much more competetive.

Do you even think about this as you type it?


Without taxes on market interactions (mind you: I'm OK with an alternate system), there would be more market interactions, which would allow for more labor exchange, and as such more efficient use of time.


Why would there be 'more market interactions'? People are going to buy more food than they can eat, just because the government doesn't tax it? Finite resources will become infinite, just because you and I work more productively?

It would decrease. The fact that you think value relates only to the number of printed notes
It doesn't. I merely use $ as a convenient measure.

We can measure it in man-hours. You agree with this measurement at least, right?


Exactly. The things done with taxes do nothing to increase the market, like infrastructure, and taxes are never spent by the government on things which are themselves market interactions.
That's not the point.

The point is what economists call deadweight loss: taxes not merely redistribute money from the people to the government, but also decrease the total amount of value produced.

We can measure it in man-hours. You agree with this measurement at least, right?


No. And neither do you.

That's not the point.

The point is what economists call deadweight loss: taxes not merely redistribute money from the people to the government, but also decrease the total amount of value produced.

Oh, I completely agree.

If I spend it on food myself, it goes to produce food.

If the government uses it to buy food for a poor child, no food is produced.

If I spend it on a plane ticket, aerospace is produced. If the government commissions a company to design and build a jet, nothing is produced.

If I spend it on a car, car value is produced. If the government spends it on a road, what do we have to show for it?

I'm agreeing with you.

Why would there be 'more market interactions'? People are going to buy more food than they can eat, just because the government doesn't tax it? Finite resources will become infinite, just because you and I work more productively?
And this is the problem with market-centric reasoning. Not everything in our world fits into simple economic models and there will always be aspects that money alone cannot take into account. Now if only we were to work in some physics, chemistry and biology instead of just economics...