Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government • Hacker News Board

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#61

Post by ac132 » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:32 AM UTC

dstorrs wrote: post #57

snitko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).

Let me preface this by saying that I'm actually pretty much onboard with a lot of the Libertarian policies that I've heard. Like anything, of course, I think it can be taken too far. So, when you ask for a "very specific example", this is the sort of thing that comes to mind: - City governments have health inspectors that check local restaurants, and food-product companies to ensure they are using good ingredients, t…

I was in china for a month and had a great time eating at local restaurants that weren't monitored by health inspectors.

Most of the developing world does not have health inspectors monitoring restaurants because it's not that important of a thing to do.

The lack of food regulations in China made it possible for lots of amazing restaurants to exist because local people don't worry about regulations. If they want to sell you food, they just do it. Somehow, society manages to exist in this manner and it's actually quite nice.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#62

Post by herdrick » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:37 AM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #9

ataggart wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's certainly letting his voluntarist-anarchist flag fly: "What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of governmen…

"What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. No, my objection is that Ron Paul wants to pretend property titles are not acts of aggression backed by the state. I'm no anarchist, but…

Sore about all that angry starving masses server downtime?

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#63

Post by mkr-hn » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:38 AM UTC

ac132 wrote: post #61

dstorrs wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm actually pretty much onboard with a lot of the Libertarian policies that I've heard. Like anything, of course, I think it can be taken too far. So, when you ask for a "very specific example", this is the sort of thing that comes to mind: - City governments have health inspectors that check local restaurants, and food-product companies to ensure they are using good ingredients, t…

I was in china for a month and had a great time eating at local restaurants that weren't monitored by health inspectors. Most of the developing world does not have health inspectors monitoring restaurants because it's not that important of a thing to do. The lack of food regulations in China made it possible for lots of amazing restaurants to exist because local people don't worry about regulations. If they want to s…

Spotty enforcement isn't the same as lack of regulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safety_in_the_People%27s_R...

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#64

Post by baddox » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:39 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #58

snitko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all. Generally, I think the idea that the majority of people can vote for something and restrict freedoms of other people who opposed the idea is something completely crazy and it's so sad that a l…

Well, what's the alternative to having majorities vote? Since I gather you're a libertarian, let's make a market-based argument. There will always be some demand for violence (meaning the application or threat of force to cause other autonomous agents to act a certain way), and there will always be suppliers of violence. The question then becomes of market structure: do we want decentralized and competing suppliers o…

> Having a monopoly supplier, however, gives that supplier an incentive to maximize the net economic value of its customers: this allows it to extract more of that value

Could you explain this claim? I wouldn't agree with it if you we're talking about fulfilling the demand of other sectors (like music or food), so I'm curious why it would apply to violence.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#65

Post by snitko » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:40 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #58

snitko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all. Generally, I think the idea that the majority of people can vote for something and restrict freedoms of other people who opposed the idea is something completely crazy and it's so sad that a l…

Well, what's the alternative to having majorities vote? Since I gather you're a libertarian, let's make a market-based argument. There will always be some demand for violence (meaning the application or threat of force to cause other autonomous agents to act a certain way), and there will always be suppliers of violence. The question then becomes of market structure: do we want decentralized and competing suppliers o…

I think you're assuming that violence is somehow more profitable than no violence. I disagree. In fact, I think it's the opposite: violence is much less profitable than a non-violent solution. Violence only becomes more profitable when you have a monopoly to it: it doesn't cost you anything to use it, because you know no one is even gonna try to challenge you.

On the other hand, when you don't have a monopoly, even if the other side is weaker than you are, you would still have to factor in your potential losses and see if you can strike a deal that would allow you to avoid violence and, thus, losses completely.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#66

Post by astrodust » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:40 AM UTC

snitko wrote: post #38

astrodust wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is Ron Paul is a crazy guy. He's trying to rigorously apply principles from the 1700s to today's world. He's not willing to compromise in the face of evidence that contradicts his firmly held opinions. I've studied Libertarianism to the point of finding out that, not unlike other extremist philosophies, it's too far-fetched to ever work. People are too "human" for Libertarianism to ever work. It's too eas…

I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).

Others have chimed in with similar explanations but it often revolves around the principal problem of how do you allow "freedom" without infringing on someone else's?

For instance, if I want to drink radiation laced water, Libertarians would think I have the right. They'd also say I should have to pay for my own medical treatment resulting from that. Reasonable enough.

However, if I drank radiation laced water because a chemical company was disposing of their waste in my backyard and I didn't know, Libertarians would tell you it's your fault for not having the proper testing equipment or paying a company to run these tests for you.

The same thing shakes out for food. For employment. For air travel. For basically everything you do you're assumed to have done enough research to know the risks you're exposed to. Libertarianism also makes the enormous assumption that a safe option will always be available.

Since there's zero protection from monopolies in a pure Libertarian society, they will naturally occur, and the results will be overwhelmingly negative for all but a handful of people, the proverbial 1% if that.

Libertarianism also as much as endorses discrimination as it sees it as your absolute right to decide who you provide goods and services to. Idealists would have you believe that non-discriminatory companies will always out-perform their discriminatory counterparts, but history has proven the opposite. If people are racist, they will certainly pay a small premium for service that reflects their views.

It's this every-man-for-himself approach to living that quickly degenerates into pure Darwinism where the one with the most money, who can easily afford to build a protective bubble around themselves, thrives and the others live miserable, dangerous lives.

Basically a pure Libertarian approach has too many dangerous failure states for it to be taken seriously. There are arguments that can be made for a more or less libertarian approach to problems in society, but to go 100%, full-on is to miss the point.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#67

Post by baddox » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:41 AM UTC

ericHosick wrote: post #59

snitko wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing someone brought the non-aggression principle up. Personally, I don't believe in it. I mean, I think eventually the society becomes smart enough to understand aggression in any circumstances is both costly and immoral. However, I also recognize that it's a long way to go there. I think before we get there, we'd have to rely on some sort of protection and the monopoly which government has to provide it canno…

Non-aggression is not no-aggression. To summarize, using my understanding, is that it is unlawful to "aggress" someone until they "aggress" you. Many cultures are based on this concept. NAP allows for "retaliatory violence" (had aggression but as pointed out below is not the correct usage of the word aggression). One of the difficulties, as you point out, comes when people don't realize that they are aggressing other…

I think you're a bit confused about definitions. You seem to be using "aggression" to refer to violence, when it in fact refers to the initiation of violence. The NAP prohibits the initiation of violence, but not retaliatory violence.

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#68

Post by baddox » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:42 AM UTC

mbetter wrote: post #51

snitko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recognize very well that politics is not about logic. This is why I'm very pessimistic about prospects of libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism. Because especially the latter has nothing to do with politics at all. Generally, I think the idea that the majority of people can vote for something and restrict freedoms of other people who opposed the idea is something completely crazy and it's so sad that a l…

> why do you think it's a bad idea to argue with a libertarian? Every time I argue with a libertarian, it's an endless series of "No True Scotsman" arguments.

That's odd. Can you give me an example of a common libertarian No True Scotsman argument?

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#69

Post by astrodust » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:45 AM UTC

ac132 wrote: post #61

dstorrs wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm actually pretty much onboard with a lot of the Libertarian policies that I've heard. Like anything, of course, I think it can be taken too far. So, when you ask for a "very specific example", this is the sort of thing that comes to mind: - City governments have health inspectors that check local restaurants, and food-product companies to ensure they are using good ingredients, t…

I was in china for a month and had a great time eating at local restaurants that weren't monitored by health inspectors. Most of the developing world does not have health inspectors monitoring restaurants because it's not that important of a thing to do. The lack of food regulations in China made it possible for lots of amazing restaurants to exist because local people don't worry about regulations. If they want to s…

In China far more people die from eating food laced with toxins than do in countries with food inspectors.

Your argument is totally absurd.

So many people in Africa are dying of AIDS, malaria, and other diseases that have long been cured in western society, near apocalyptic levels of death by European standards, yet the population is growing and commerce is going on. Are you suggesting that this situation is "quite nice"?

When you eat at a restaurant that isn't expected you'll probably live, but if you die you'll just be a statistic. Is that any way to run a society?

Re: Ron Paul’s Farewell Address: The Internet Can Stop Big Government

#70

Post by snitko » Sat, Nov 17, 2012, 3:49 AM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #66

snitko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).

Others have chimed in with similar explanations but it often revolves around the principal problem of how do you allow "freedom" without infringing on someone else's? For instance, if I want to drink radiation laced water, Libertarians would think I have the right. They'd also say I should have to pay for my own medical treatment resulting from that. Reasonable enough. However, if I drank radiation laced water becaus…

You're assuming it's only the government which is interested in providing me the information about services I use and the environment that I live in. An implicit monopoly of information.

But I want to ask you this question: can you come up with at least one monopoly that existed naturally for a substantial period of time without any government support for it and without anyone being able to challenge it?