Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

tbp posted:

My primary concern would be with the overarching nature and power of the state.

Power structures will still exist sans a strong state, because power vacuums don't stay vacuums for long. The alternative to the 'tyranny of the majority' isn't some society of total liberty (which is ten times as utopian as communism), but a 'tyranny of a minority'.

# ¿ May 24, 2014 02:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:17

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

You can't really rely on self-defence though, because you could just be taken by surprise. For effective deterrence, you'll need someone to at least 'avenge' your death, and that leads to fun things like blood feuds.

tbp posted:

This is generally what I agree with, however I believe I am unable to effectively speak to the specificities unfortunately and would very much so like to discuss such a thing.

Then...discuss it? Use your words my friend.

Silver2195 posted:

I don't know about tbp, but I'm not quite cynical enough to think that relative balance between majority rule and minority rights, or between power structures in general, is impossible. A strong state is necessary, but only to a point. (Talking in generalities here because others seem to be.)

Except that 'minority rights' in this context means entrenchment of the rich and powerful, which must come at the expense of everyone else. The only way to protect powerless minorities (racial, sexual) is to have everyone willing to protect powerless minorities, regardless of the power structures you have. Ultimately, laws are just pieces of paper to be written and reinterpreted by people, and therefore subject to the social structures that already exist in society.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:44 on May 24, 2014

# ¿ May 24, 2014 04:37

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

tbp posted:

Times I have tried to in the past have led directly to South Park quotes.

Though I suppose it doesn't hurt to try again. I think that the mockable part of internet libertarianism (the bizarrely idealistic and naive kind derided in this thread) shares many similarities with the same kind of socialism expressed in this subforum (see the relatively recent "We must kill all bankers!" thing).

Umm...I don't agree? I also don't think that 'idealistic' is a descriptive term, because anyone can say that about their opponents on any economic issue ('the other is unreasonable with pie in the sky ideas, I am reasonable and pragmatic' is what basically all syndicated columnists say).

# ¿ May 24, 2014 05:40

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Yes and no, obviously it's possible to argue that the appeal of revolution is a kind of rapture narrative or whatever, where all wrongs are righted and so on. But I think that narrative itself, of the crazy radical, is used as a device to ignore actual reality: failure on the part of incremental reform to achieve progress, especially seeing reform and progress being rolled back effortlessly. The dynamics of the system right now are not towards are more equal society, but a more unequal one, and thus a break with the current dynamics, and therefore fundamental structure, are in some way necessary. A violent revolution represents an obvious way to do this. But you're right in that civil wars aren't exactly cut and dry affairs: there's always a certain amount of uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome, and what will happen in the mean time.

The main issue against reform is that it's by definition hard to take power from the powerful while not thoroughly disassembling those power structures - which necessitates the application of force. I don't really think there's an alternative.

I don't agree that libertarianism and socialism are somehow similar because they both what to create a society that doesn't currently exist - you could do that for any non-standard political ideology, your choice here is arbitrary. I therefore don't think that that comparison is informative.

Whether 'pitfalls' are ignored or effectively dealt with depends entirely on your opinion of the pitfall though! I mean everyone who's not a libertarian has got what they think is a 'fatal flaw' for libertarians, ditto with socialists, but you can do the same thing with the society we have now. If you don't like it, then you think it has a flaw that is either present and ignored or will manifest at some point. You can again play these relativism games with any political ideology.

So if you're going to compare political ideologies, you have to start with their conception of the person and society, and not necessarily how they hope to achieve that - their own opinions of the method will be informed by that perspective, because it acts as the foundation from which methods and outcomes are evaluated.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:24 on May 24, 2014

# ¿ May 24, 2014 06:14

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Tias, you should make another another anarchism thread.

# ¿ May 26, 2014 07:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:17

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Disinterested posted:

My response would be something like.

The argument boils down to this.

Everyone acts for the furtherance of their perceived interests (I mean, nobody goes out there to do something they think and know to be worse for them!)
Voluntarily agreed to trade is always undertaken, therefore, in the expectation of improving interests.

I think the first thing we have to think about is this concept of voluntary. What counts as voluntary? Does pointing a gun to someone's head and making them an offer they can't refuse? What about situations where your offer is for some reason the only eligible one - say, for example, you have a monopoly on a local vital resource (food? water? energy?) of which I am desperately or greatly in need?

Then, a seperate argument to do with the way we perceive our interests. How are interests are perceived by us entirely depends on how we have been socialised. At present, I would argue, many people are socialised in such a way that educates them that certain choices are in their interests when in truth they are not. Is the moral nature of an action undertaken under such a set of conditions unaltered? Is its freedom? I would say the equation is profoundly changed.

You don't need to question perception of interests or monopolies to undermine it. Even if you could make everyone purely super rational, and omniscient, and equal in power, it would still fail because a nash equilibrium =/= optimal outcome for everyone - that's literally the point of the prisoner's dilemma. The commons are undermined unless they are explicitly protected, whether that be air quality, food safety, animal ethics, food + health for the needy etc. Even if you could satisfy those utopian conditions, it doesn't matter, because it still fails. The sum of everyone's local maximized utility does not necessarily lead to the global maximized utility, or, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In a strictly mathematical sense, even taking into account its starting axioms, it cannot deliver what it promises.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:04 on May 31, 2015

# ¿ May 31, 2015 10:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!