|
I can't speak to ancient Athens or some of the more specific debates about women in medieval society, since I actually haven't read much of medieval women's social history, however McAlister's argument that the Industrial Revolution and modernity "set women back" is not really unfounded. Carole Pateman's fantastic The Sexual Contract made this argument in 1988, though from a legal perspective rather than an economic one. Early modern and modern historians have similarly argued that modern political institutions systematically disenfranchised women by formalizing and standardizing informal social and political practices which previously allowed women significant economic, social, and political freedom in the pre-modern world. Chad Black's The Limits of Gender Domination is also really wonderful and deals with the same issues in the Andes at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, where Pateman studies British Empire and the early US. These are pretty well-accepted narratives among historians of the period.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Let's be clear: we're talking about the substitution of one form of subjugation for another. At no time in the medieval period in Europe, or in industrial society, did women enjoy comparable rights to men. At best the argument is that they have not entirely overlapping forms of authority, an argument that is more practical than legal or theoretical. To the extent that women did enjoy rights in the medieval period superior to those of industrial women, the theoretical basis of that empowerment was generally highly questionable. Classical women is a different question. A number of classical thinkers regarded women as at least intellectually equal to men (Aristotle - some people believe his view may have been secretly more generous, because he does not as deeply argue the question of the inferior authority of women as he does for other classes), if not altogether equal with regards to political participation (Plato). Greek (and other classical Greek to varying degrees) thinkers could therefore engage in the question of female equality in a more developed manner than the dominant Christian thinkers of the medieval period (that is to say, Augustine and Aquinas). Rome is somewhere inbetween; the Roman law was quite unfavourable to women, but its intellectual tradition could embrace a broader range of views on women than the medieval intellectual tradition, generally speaking. In both the Greek and especially Roman case, however, the principle form of unfreedom is slavery; women slaves at the Roman law are treated as fatherless precisely because a father would have had absolute authority at Roman law to dispose of his daughter as he willed (including the right as paterfamilias to sell his children into slavery). This is an important consideration even in later conversations about the rights of women, particularly A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792 - a more or less pre-industrial text), in which Wollstonecraft argues that women are essentially slaves in more or less Roman terms - they are entirely subject to the arbitrary will of others. It seems to me that if you are thinking about freedom in that way, there is no real time one can speak of in European history in which women are not by definition unfree, because the rights enjoyed by women (often highlighted in texts of social history) that aren't in effect merely privileges afforded by a master. I think part of what is making this debate a little garbled is that nobody can decide what form of freedom or equality they are really talking about, and accordingly what kind of empowerment. Edit: I should be clear that I'm not arguing that industrialisation was good for women. In fact, it's strongly argued by a number of social and economic historians that it was very bad on most levels for almost everyone involved until at least the 1850's, if not as late as the 1880's (in the British example). It is probably worth considering whether the same forces that subjugate women in the early stages of industrial capitalism also liberate them later, though. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
I'm talking about the specific and nuanced (but I'd argue very profound and real) ways in which women's subjugation was systematized and exacerbated by industralism and the modern political order, not any supposed "invention" of subjugation in the 18th century. Of course to what extent the status of women changed during the period depends on how broadly you're looking at different criteria, and what you consider meaningful change between periods. Yes, there were forces which kept women's status in Europe relatively below that of men in obvious ways before the 18th century, however it would be an oversimplification to assume this inequality operated uniformly or exactly as we'd expect it to operate from a modern perspective. I think it's pretty dismissive to say it's "theoretically highly questionable" that modern political and economic orders represent a profound shift in the extent or nature of inequality between men and women in Western society, unless you've read the books I linked to or other similar works, and would like to comment on them specifically, because they're compelling and well-supported. Particularly Black's book, which points to really very significant economic autonomy for Andean women even into the modern period. Unless you view all intellectual and cultural history as suspect for not being strictly materialist? Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 12:04 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 12:01
|
|
I don't think you're understanding me, which may be at least as much my fault as it is yours (although I think it's hilarious that you have me pegged as materialist after writing a largely typically intellectual history-ish answer). Cognac McCarthy posted:I'm talking about the specific and nuanced (but I'd argue very profound and real) ways in which women's subjugation was systematized and exacerbated by industralism and the modern political order, not any supposed "invention" of subjugation in the 18th century. Of course to what extent the status of women changed during the period depends on how broadly you're looking at different criteria, and what you consider meaningful change between periods. Yes, there were forces which kept women's status in Europe relatively below that of men in obvious ways before the 18th century, however it would be an oversimplification to assume this inequality operated uniformly or exactly as we'd expect it to operate from a modern perspective. I know that's what you mean, and I don't necessarily disagree. In fact, if you re-read my post I show signs of agreement. Cognac McCarthy posted:I think it's pretty dismissive to say it's "theoretically highly questionable" that modern political and economic orders represent a profound shift in the extent or nature of inequality between men and women in Western society, unless you've read the books I linked to or other similar works, and would like to comment on them specifically, because they're compelling and well-supported. I think this is my fault. What I meant to say is this: to the extent women may have been empowered in pre-Industrial society, in the European example, that emancipation was not strongly supported by the ethical and political superstructure of the time. The dominant belief is still geared towards the total servility of the female. In any event, I was outlining an approach to the question of the emancipation of women that one sees to some degree in Wollstonecraft which to some degree disregards the practical situation of women and sees gender relations as relations of power, partly using a Roman legal vocabulary: at Roman law a slave can in practical terms be more powerful than a freeman, and live a more unhindered life. To the law that person is still unfree, since that slave's ability to exercise that freedom is totally contingent on the arbitrary will of the master, and thus the freedom is merely a privilege. From that perspective, of course there is room for a wide range of experience, from crushing servility to a relatively normal life. It's the contingency that matters more (to the question of freedom) than the material circumstance. I'm not even saying this is a right perspective to take, but I think that would be a question you would have to deal with in your argument that would come from some types of feminism and some theorists of liberty. quote:Particularly Black's book, which points to really very significant economic autonomy for Andean women even into the modern period. Unless you view all intellectual and cultural history as suspect for not being strictly materialist? I was talking principally about the European experience, since I'm totally unqualified to comment on the experience of Andean women. The materialist comment...that may be the first time anyone has called me that. Just because I wrote a long post about Marxism... Disinterested fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Sorry, I was confused about how my first post came across. I think we're largely in agreement, and it's largely a matter of framing. To clarify, the book about the Andes is still a "European" case study in that it's about (mostly white and indigenous) women's navigation through the Spanish colonial legal framework, which is generally much closer to what I would consider myself an expert in. Women in early modern Spanish history is an interesting topic because it's arguably there that you see the most pronounced autonomy for women. If it's less common in early modern England that could be why we see things differently, as I'm much less familiar with the rest of Europe. That said, the litigiousness of early modern Spanish society is pretty unique from what I can tell, so it may not be unreasonable to apply some of the conclusions historians have been able to draw from the source base to the rest of Europe where similar sources may not be available to the same extent. I can't pull up my books or notes right now because I'm living in another country, but if I recall correctly this is the book I was thinking of with regard to women's political agency in early modern Europe. Women aren't the focus of the book but it does touch on them with regard to official and semi-official (and in all cases protected) legal autonomy and agency in municipal political matters. Also the materialist comment was because what I read above was largely about the economic status of women, and I wasn't sure exactly what you meant by "theoretically questionable" claims from scholarship about early modern women.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I understand completely where you are coming from. I sang from the same hymnal when I was younger. The problem was I had life experiences that didn't line up with predictions. When reality doesn't adhere to your predictions reality is right and your predictions are wrong. You must then strive to understand why your predictions were incorrect. I have come to understand that this type of talk is propaganda much like talking about how poorly women are treated someplace else. Its a way of telling me to shut up and be grateful for what I have because everywhere/when else it was totally worse. You seem to be easily amazed, and prone to selective amazement. I am familiar with Orthodox Judaism, if not with the Amish. Did you know that in Orthodox Judaism, only men are allowed to hold any form of public power? That none of the strictly Orthodox Jewish parties in Israel will allow women to be Members of Knesset, and the only concession made to a growing women of rebelling women is to provide a Women's Advisory Council to appease them, that this is a change brought about by modernity and the influence of this modern society you are disparaging? Did you know that only men are allowed to rule about Halacha, that is, be any kind of religious authority? That it is a constant struggle for women there to learn anything other than the fundamentals, that most Rabbis will refuse to allow women to learn Gemara, for the fear they will not know their place? Did you know that in Orthodox Judaism, women must pray in a small enclosure, separate from the men, so that the former do not distract the latter? (The opposite is not nearly as important). Did you know that religious leaders frequently refer to women as fickle and non-dependable with impunity? That in some Orthodox communities women are relegated to the back of the bus and to the less comfortable side of the street, that this had to be fought very seriously by those inferior modern women you rail about? I know Orthodox Judaism by its interactions with the secular society, and also by dating a relatively modern Orthodox Jew a decade ago. And while she and her family had many powerful women, their power stemmed from their connection to modernity, and the limits were very clear. Honestly, this is the wrong thread for you. You should go shake up the Dark Enlightenment thread, I don't think there's been an actual neo-reactionary there to argue these points with a straight face. If you are going to stay here, I expect you to respond to my previous statement, which I reproduce here, and which you have not bothered engaging with: McAlister posted:Let's start simple. You are a shepherd who derives income through the sale of wool clothe that your Fixed that for you. Explain to me why your argument doesn't apply to chattel slavery, there's a good chap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I think what you're seeing is a typical conservative argument being made: namely, that men and women in these societies have non-overlapping fields of authority and spheres of influence, with the woman's control of the family's budget etc. Separate but equal, eh?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Oh come on fellow I enjoy my Thucydides and Herodotus too but that's no reason to die on the hill of 'but really the Athenians were sort of okay.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
What're some good data points to throw at a white libertarian who thinks there is no problem between police and minorities? Disproportionate minority criminality triggers immediate shut down and hand waving so I need to address that and then also the other things, like profiling. Ideally, there's something out there which addresses criminality in literally the first line. And does anyone have hilarious graphs about Stop-and-Frisk and the like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:23
|
|
Accretionist posted:What're some good data points to throw at a white libertarian who thinks there is no problem between police and minorities? Disproportionate minority criminality triggers immediate shut down and hand waving so I need to address that and then also the other things, like profiling. He seems like a really dumb libertarian. If you believe that the state is violence and every effort must be made to minimise its role in public life, it's not actually a very big leap to seeing that the state can be more violent to some than others. That's why some libertarians can be quite good on some racially involved issues - they often strongly emphasise civil rights. They are less good at emphasising positive rights that benefit the disadvantaged. But there is more than one type of libertarian, and a lot of people who call themselves libertarian who aren't really libertarian at all (particularly in the US example). The problem with a lot of libertarians is that, while they believe that the state is kind of evil in itself, they also believe that the law is capable of being some kind of neutral arbiter, rather than merely a snapshot of cultural values. That's often because, ultimately, a lot of libertarians (particularly American libertarian politicians) are incredibly pre-occupied with property rights over everything else. There are counter-libertarian argument resources in the OP that may help you.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
A large bat with the phrase "statistical evidence" written on it also may work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Speaking of the OP, if anyone wants me to add something to it feel free to message it to me or just respond to this post. I've been away from regular D&D posting for a long time until recently so haven't updated the OP, but I can if there are obvious omissions. Content: I've never actually heard a libertarian provide a proper explanation for why racism exists or how it operates. Don't most libertarians tend to operate under the assumption that power resides pretty much entirely within the state? What would a libertarian explanation for racism actually look like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:Speaking of the OP, if anyone wants me to add something to it feel free to message it to me or just respond to this post. I've been away from regular D&D posting for a long time until recently so haven't updated the OP, but I can if there are obvious omissions. Seems to be that the basic argument is, the state intentionally disadvantages people of color; which allows the state to feed off of their misery and prop itself up by proclaiming the state is protecting them. (Free votes). By disadvantages I mean, the state educates their children and doesn't let them die needlessly from exposure or starvation. Racism is only a word people throw around when they want to control another person's actions. Hence, you are the real racist. It is a circular and lovely argument, but they really seem to like it, and it does actually seem to have traction with the wider public. Pohl fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Can we be clear about something: not all libertarianism is right-wing, or pro-capitalist. I know a lot of our American comrades are used to watching Ron Paul on TV, but it's not like Noam Chomsky (just for example) isn't a libertarian of a certain type. It's a wide ideological spectrum, so there's more than one take. A lot of right-libertarian (AKA hello Ron Paul) takes are going to be simple: market forces should be left to do their business, and it isn't the job of the state to police opinions. The state should provide only the most basic legal protections and otherwise stay out of it and let people sort it out for themselves.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Can we be clear about something: not all libertarianism is right-wing, or pro-capitalist. I know a lot of our American comrades are used to watching Ron Paul on TV, but it's not like Noam Chomsky (just for example) isn't a libertarian of a certain type. It's a wide ideological spectrum, so there's more than one take. Sure, Libertarianism was a very liberal ideal in the beginning, but the word has been taken over and nothing is going to bring it back. At this point, arguing what it means is just semantics, because the social and political understanding of what the word means has been entirely co-opted. I personally think it is a waste of time to try and pin down the exact meaning and cultural importance of what the word means and whom it represents. The value of the word has shifted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:39
|
|
Pohl posted:Sure, Libertarianism was a very liberal ideal in the beginning, but the word has been taken over and nothing is going to bring it back. At this point, arguing what it means is just semantics, because the social and political understanding of what the word means has been entirely co-opted. It has way more baggage in the US than elsewhere, and most of the baggage it has elsewhere is American. But I more or less accepted your point by giving a more or less typically right-libertarian answer to the question of what is to be done about racism. Explaining racism from a libertarian perspective is a lot harder, but (right-)libertarianism doesn't offer much of a hermeneutic for examining the world. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Even in major talking points, the ACLU will use a sort of detached ironic tone when describing themselves as "civil libertarians" and in situations where they don't have to use the term they don't, because it is pretty toxic now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:Content: I've never actually heard a libertarian provide a proper explanation for why racism exists or how it operates. Don't most libertarians tend to operate under the assumption that power resides pretty much entirely within the state? What would a libertarian explanation for racism actually look like? American libertarianism isn't that cohesive intellectually so you would get different answers depending on who you asked. Many libertarians, including some very prominent ones, are themselves racists: Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, etc. Hoppe's attitude is essentially that a libertarian society will "solve" racism by allowing it free reign. With no coercive state people will form contractual communities based on voluntary membership, which can exclude undesirable racial minorities if the members feel it necessary, so racism will be foundational to society but because of total segregation racial conflict will not be an issue. The excluded minorities can form their own communities, though in other contexts Hoppe has stated that he believes there is a natural hierarchy of talent among people and certain people will rise to the top and form a born aristocracy--one guess what color those people are. So presumably the black and brown communities would be poorer than the white ones. Anyway Hoppe's position is then that racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice aren't in themselves problematic, the real problem is that currently the state and society force people to be in contact with undesirables. And in fact Hoppe went on to argue that it was also imperative for the communities to crush freedom of speech and sever anyone who showed inclinations towards democracy or tolerance. This is all from Democracy: The God that Failed. So you can see that Hoppe is not only racist, but he commits so fully to the logic of libertarianism that he comes all the way around to a kind of sinister feudalism, even worse than historical feudalism because he refuses us even the slim consolations of noblesse oblige and traditional rights of serfs. Rothbard didn't advocate for such a complete revision of human society so his concept was less elaborate and less terrifying, but he also believed in the biological inferiority of non-whites. Apparently he vacillated on the topic of voluntary separation. Initially he thought it was a good idea to have separate societies for whites and blacks, but later he decided that the black nation-state would inevitably fail due to their racial inferiority and become a burden to whites. In this essay he goes on to say that it might be desirable to send them all back to Africa but laments that black perfidy would most likely cause them to refuse that gift: hosted on lewrockwell.com. In other essays he hints that his solution to that impasse is "libertarianism for me but not for thee": lewrockwell.com again posted:3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire "civil rights" structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American. You can check out the rest of that one, he basically says that his program is libertarianism for white men and fascist repression for everybody else. And of course Rothbard was very sympathetic to the Confederacy in the Civil War and regarded the abolition of slavery as illegitimate, and at other times he hinted that he thought slavery would be a necessary, even desirable feature of a post-libertarian free market economy (specifically he advocated for the sale of children). So to sum up his position as I understand it, rigorous racial separatism is desirable but unfeasible because non-whites are helpless without white supervision, and (this is more a reach on my part, extrapolating from other stuff he wrote) perhaps the revival of slavery would be the best solution. All well and good, but these two guys are not wholly representative of libertarianism, which as I said is not totally cohesive intellectually. There's room for variation, which is good, because the above people are obviously deranged and it would be very discouraging to think that they had a real following. You could also go to Ayn Rand, since objectivism and libertarianism have a lot of overlap. Rand was opposed to racism because she believed it was irrational and, even worse, a form of collectivism since it implied that an individual person was a member of a racial community rather than a island separated from all other humans by a vast gulf of self-interest. Yet she was also of the opinion that the dispossession and (incomplete) extermination of Native Americans was necessary and good because they were "primitive" and Europeans could make better use of their property. There's some contradictions (i.e. hypocrisy) there but generally speaking she didn't appear to give any credence to biological racism and, in her sociopathic way, regarded people more on an individual level. And I think that's a position held by a lot of libertarians who aren't overtly racist, or who at least don't consider race a hugely important category. But then this practice of not seeing race, so to speak, leads to other places. For example you will get libertarians who argue that racism is enabled by the state. e.g. as a rational economic actor who owned a lunch counter in 1950s Mississippi, you would naturally want to serve both white and black customers because that would give you the most business, and it was only because the Evil State intervened with Jim Crow laws that discrimination happened. I think this is a topic that could be discussed in more depth but for now I would just characterize as the belief that it's unnecessary and, in fact, oppressive for the state to intervene against racism, because the libertarian has faith that (A) People are rational, (B) Racism is irrational, thus (C) Racism can only exist if the state forces it to do so. For a specific example you might see somebody argue that welfare disbursement is the real racism because it encourages black dependence. So maybe not actually mean-spirited, but naive and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I personally think it is a waste of time to try and pin down the exact meaning and cultural importance of what the word means and whom it represents. The value of the word has shifted. twodot fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:lewrockwell.com again posted: Isn't that the plot to Judge Dredd?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
I wonder if these libertarians, who're I heard are often anti-war, also include all the homeless veterans under their "get rid of bums" policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I wonder if these libertarians, who're I heard are often anti-war, also include all the homeless veterans under their "get rid of bums" policy. I alluded to this bit from The Ethics of Liberty (Rothbard) in the above post, but to elaborate a little more on what a reprehensible piece of poo poo Murray Rothbard was: Rothbard argued that parents had no moral responsibility to care for their children; on the contrary, compelling them to do so would be the very essence of immoral coercion. So he believed it was perfectly fine to abandon your child any time you felt like it, because you have the right to dispose of your private property however you want, and if you want to withhold resources from your child and condemn him to a slow and painful death from thirst/hunger/exposure (whichever gets him first) that's your choice. Of course your child also has the right of self-ownership and should be free to leave your home if he should so desire, so if you stop feeding your four-year old he just needs to bootstrap his way into a new and prosperous life. No charity cases, please. Rothbard goes on to argue that whereas this is all morally just fine, people who are worried about the plight of abused and abandoned children should rest assured--human beings are rational actors, and even if they hate their children and would like to see them dead that will be an unlikely outcome because there are economic incentives to keep the child alive. Namely, why let your kid die of neglect when you could sell him at a profit? No rational actor would choose otherwise, so clearly it would all work out for the best--the parents get the money, the pederast gets a four-year old, and the kid gets to avoid starvation, after a fashion, unless the buyer gets tired of him. It's really a pity that the state interferes with the free market by banning these sorts of transactions. So, to answer your own question after digesting the above, does Rothbard strike you as the kind of person who would be worried about homeless veterans getting exterminated with the rest of the riff-raff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:So, to answer your own question after digesting the above, does Rothbard strike you as the kind of person who would be worried about homeless veterans getting exterminated with the rest of the riff-raff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:At this point, he seems completely alien and incomprehensible to me. If you told me he also openly advocates the eating of babies, that wouldn't surprise me anymore than if you told me he openly advocates hiring more female CEOs. It's what happens when you get a very specific kind of ultra-privileged upper/middle class white person who is disposed to Aspergers and also being a smug poo poo. I went to a private school in an ultra-wealthy suburb of a rust belt city with huge poverty and racial issues whose board of directors was heavily connected to libertarian groups and pushed the ideology hard in school. These people were a dime a dozen, basically every single scholarly-inclined/intelligent/nerdy kid (except me, who was a punk who always hated the school establishment and who browsed D&D) was very successfully sold the ideology. If you're familiar with the book A Confederacy of Dunces, these people are Ignatius J Reilly clones. My English teacher in 11th grade was literally a pseudo-intellectual self-styled Catholic theologian who quoted Boethius and had us read GK Chesterson. It's an intellectual veneer specifically engineered to sell fascism to this kind of person, and with the right audience it's wildly successful. Internet nerds tend heavily towards the same stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:At this point, he seems completely alien and incomprehensible to me. If you're interested in going down the rabbit hole, here it is: Libertarian, An Cap and Jrodefeld appreciation station. It's huge and a majority of the posts are just people echoing their contempt for libertarianism, but you could do worse than just filtering to posts by the OP (Caros).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:At this point, he seems completely alien and incomprehensible to me. If you told me he also openly advocates the eating of babies, that wouldn't surprise me anymore than if you told me he openly advocates hiring more female CEOs. Jeez of course he doesn't advocate eating babies. He simply advocates a free market in babies, where they may be used as slaves, rendered down to create soap, or eaten, as well as being adopted or even educated!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
I have a question. I'm trying to understand the Libertarian's Ideal Utopia Scenario. I'm specifically interested in hearing their rationale for why/how it would work, would create more prosperity, would ultimately improve everyone's lives, etc. (assuming that last item is even a concern for them). At least I can feasibly see why someone might write-off the underprivileged segments of society with a Just World, "they'd-be-better-off-if-they-weren't-so-lazy" rationalization. But I have a harder time understanding what they expect would happen after, say: enormous environmental/finance/banking/trade deregulation and (most likely) a massive expansion of corporate power in government. We take it as a given that most CEO's, investment bankers, and 1%-ers don't have our best interests at heart, and seek only to hoard greater and greater shares of the wealth, stupid proles be damned. So why do Libertarians see this as a desirable scenario? Corporations, totally free of accountability, would wreck havoc with the world economy. How else could it possibly work out? Imagine how much of our workforce could be moved overseas to wages slaves in India. Imagine an actual "Fair Tax" being implemented. Imagine the total rape of the environment. Holy Hell, I just can't understand why someone would advocate for this, the logical conclusion of their ideology. Jrodefeld is an interesting case, but he never adequately explains himself, especially on these points. Does anyone have some insight into the Libertarian perspective on this stuff? Morton Haynice fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
You'll probably get a good response in either case but check the libertarian/AnCap thread too: it may depend on what sort of libertarian you're thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
I'll clarify that the "Ideal Scenario" I'm thinking of is basically the one I see most realistically happening. Spearheaded by the Kochs and others like them, planned exclusively to enrich and empower its architects, packaged and sold to the population through TV News. None of the "Will of the People" "Invisible Hand" nonsense you hear them always talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Morton Haynice posted:I'll clarify that the "Ideal Scenario" I'm thinking of is basically the one I see most realistically happening. Spearheaded by the Kochs and others like them, planned exclusively to enrich and empower its architects, packaged and sold to the population through TV News. Isn't there an image macro or something that says "Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people" ? I think that's a pretty concise statement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 20:18
|
|
Morton Haynice posted:I'll clarify that the "Ideal Scenario" I'm thinking of is basically the one I see most realistically happening. Spearheaded by the Kochs and others like them, planned exclusively to enrich and empower its architects, packaged and sold to the population through TV News. You're not really asking a theoretical question, more of a Machiavellian political one. I don't think the Koch brothers meaningfully represent any strand of Libertarian thought at all. I think they probably themselves have a limited idea of what they would do in a totally unrestricted scenario, but I think the non-Christian right wing of America's ideal utopia is something like: - Enormous tax cuts, principally on high earners. Possibly the creation of a flat rate income tax, with limited taxes that effect the accumulation of capital (inheritance tax, cap gains). - Massive lowering of the rate of corporation tax. - Defunding of 'non-essential' government programs like the NEA, etc. - Repeal of obamacare; totally privatised and deregulated healthcare sector - Limited anti-trust legislation - Massive oil drilling and resource extraction initiatives; building of pipelines - Removal of pollution and air-quality controlling legislation - Possible bombing of Iran; firm support for Israeli military action in Iran, as well as continued military action against Palestinians - Trade wars with China Then you'd see the right wedged on issues like the Patriot act. Koch brothers and libertarians are against. With someone like Ron Paul, you get some of the above, but you also get: - Abolition of the Federal Reserve (hahahaha) - Use of the Gold Standard (hahahaha) - More or less the abolition of most of the US military's offensive/expeditionary capability - Very limited foreign policy; removal of US troops from most key overseas bases; possible disentanglement from places like South Korea, Taiwan. - Drug legalisation
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:- Enormous tax cuts, principally on high earners. Possibly the creation of a flat rate income tax, with limited taxes that effect the accumulation of capital (inheritance tax, cap gains). Disinterested posted:- Repeal of obamacare; totally privatised and deregulated healthcare sector Disinterested posted:- Possible bombing of Iran; firm support for Israeli military action in Iran, as well as continued military action against Palestinians
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Morton Haynice posted:Obviously the intent is to force the reduction of government by "starving" it, but the byproduct of this would be huge instability & job loss. How do they see the situation play out? I just don't buy "The corporations will finally be free to expand their businesses, creating wealth and security for Generally I think people who want zero government and a completely free market are people who lucked out tremendously and assume everyone else could too if only they worked harder and stopped scrounging off the government. It's fairly standard applying your own situation as the universal standard, while failing to realise that your situation is necessarily better than the majority. Essentially the libertarian utopia appears to be a place where everyone in the world bootstraps themselves out of poverty into a life of consumption and free time, presumably supported by lots hand clapping and believing really hard in the invisible free market hand because all of that can just support itself somehow. It's a upper and middle class without any lower class to hold them up. Except replace poverty with 'could only afford one solid dinner a day and often skipped breakfast so I had to make do with snacks, and I had to get government funding for university and I didn't even go to oxford' OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
What libertarians like Rothbard basically want is a brutal corporate fascist state. To them though what they call the "state" means anything that pretends to be democratic or have any kind of accountability to the people as opposed to being the direct instrument of dictatorship by the randian ubermensch. They are opposed to anything that would impede the "freedom" of the deserving elite to do as they please with everyone else. That way they get to pretend to be anti-government while they fantasize about the unshackled (privately owned) police/military, justice system, prisons, schools, media, etc. their utopian society will have at its disposition to maintain order and punish the rabble. The whole liberty/freedom rehtoric is just Orwellian doublespeak, it exists because of the importance given to these ideals in US nationalist mythology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Just ask them how they think a country should deal with goods that have infinitely inelastic demand. They either have to reveal that they don't have the economic knowledge to answer the question (lol at getting a libertarian to admit not knowing something) or they try to bullshit around providing an answer. So you press them for an answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
The problem comes with defining what is and isn't libertarianism, and what type of libertarianism we're talking about. In the US 'libertarian' has become a poisoned term that sometimes refers to libertarianism, but also can refer to non-evangelical firmly right wingers around the Republican party, some of whom still support strong statism in some areas. There's just a tremendous problem of definitions here.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
I guess it's not fair of me to conflate the ideas of True Believers with the intentions of the forces that cynically exploit them. I just find it more important to focus on the ultimate result of the "Libertarian Agenda" as it exists in current politics. I feel like if we could successfully separate the rhetoric from the destruction it creates, it would be much easier to reach out to logically-minded conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Morton Haynice posted:It seems like their rationale is based on mystical Nash-equilibrium thinking, where somehow a CEO will say "I better not pollute Bob's water supply. Bob is a valued customer and I cannot afford to lose his business!" as opposed to "Hahaha. gently caress Bob. He can get a nice out-of-court settlement in 20 years. He oughtta thank us for the cancer!" I don't even think it's that because Nash-equilibria can easily settle into outcomes of second to worst possible of all outcomes for everyone involved. If the Libertarians actually understood game theory they'd understand that you need to intentionally rig things to keep things from going Mad Max after the first betrayal. For your specific example, the Nash Equilibrium would be "The company poisons the water and Bob cancels his service" That's the stable state. Bob looks back and says "Wow, I would be worse off if I had chosen to keep my service" The company looks back and says "Wow, I'm glad I made some quick cash by dumping waste into the river, Bob planned on canceling his service so I would have been really screwed if I'd paid to dispose of the water safely."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
I think it's important the only way that situation resolves (somewhat) happily is if Bob is fully informed of the pollution in time to save himself from getting sick. This is something I find less than plausible. Furthermore, it assumes that Bob and the company have equal bargaining power, and that the company couldn't, for example, use the media to discredit Bob and his fellow pollution victims as opportunistic scam artists. This reasoning is baffling to me because it seems to ignore really basic givens w/r/t motivation and behavior. Why do they give so much benefit of the doubt to people who would only lose out by being honest? Morton Haynice fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Morton Haynice posted:This reasoning is baffling to me because it seems to ignore really basic givens w/r/t motivation and behavior. Why do they give so much benefit of the doubt to people who would only lose out by being honest? I would wager that the idea is "Well I wouldn't lie, so nobody else will either."  Which of course ignores the many, many factors which lead almost everybody to lie under the right circumstances. Or possibly "The market will select the better business which is honest with its customers." which of course ignores the stability of the monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:42
|
|