Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 10. (Read 24009 times)

"To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission. "

Who, exactly, makes things legal and illegal?

This, right here, is a large part of the problem from what you have described.

In this particular case, I think that is unlikely because the bus drivers are in the public view.

However, it raises an important issue. Contracts guaranteeing working conditions for indentured servitude are often unenforceable. I think unenforceable contracts should be outlawed. I also think States should set minimal contractual conditions to prevent incomplete contracts.

For example, consider the 3 year term imported bond servants in Singapore. Singapore is quite libertarian with respect to its treatment of foreign nationals. Paternalism only applies to citizens. The standard contract requires 3*24/7/365 service except for leave provided at the master's pleasure. To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission.

How does one seek contract enforcement from the confines of a cell? For example, lack of recourse in cases of rape is a frequent issue. How does one enforce protection from rape when the rape victim cannot lawfully communicate with the outside world? Moreover, contracts are always incomplete. If the contract does not prohibit an abuse, is that abuse then permissible? It is a simple matter to trick illiterates from Myanmar into signing incomplete contracts. We do it every day.

Everyone in Singapore lives in a skyscraper. Every year in Singapore, 20 domestic servants "fall" from skyscrapers to their deaths. That is an annual "fall from height" rate of about 1 in 15,000 per servant-year, or 1 in 5,000 per servant-contract. Two principal reasons:

1) Master requires domestic servant to clean exterior windows without safety equipment. Most maids survive and maids are cheaply replaced. Safety equipment is expensive.  
2) Domestic servants abscond from their cells via the windows. Death can be preferable to serving a contract term.

a) Is it really okay to force someone to choose between carrying out a contract and suicide?
b) If not, then how can a contract that cuts someone off from the outside world for 3 years be allowed? Such contracts will always result semi-frequent cases of (a).

Now, servants benefit from the contracts on average. They get higher wages and serious abuses occur in only a minority of cases. Does that make these contracts moral? I have to deviate from the free market logic here and say no. What do you think?

[Here is something very funny BTW. Singapore has a quasi-fixed exchange rate, so we can't do any Keynesian shenanigans. How does the state cool down inflation? Import foreign nationals to lower labor demand for citizens. How does the state stimulate a sluggish economy? Forcibly deport foreign nationals to raise labor demand. Unlike weak Keynesian states, we don't fuck with the money supply, no need lah. The state simply trades in poor people. It is a 'sound money' alternative to Keynesian stimulus. LOL as the Sing Dollar appreciates.]
 

Doesn't this just corroborate what I'm saying?


There are so many forum threads here where myself, or no longer existing members (I wonder why), or banned members pointed this out over and over - inadequacy regarding long term viability. Takeovers can occur from within or beyond.


I agree, to a point. Here's my version:

What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the society, which includes a smoothing of misfortunes which befall the unlucky, those born into lesser circumstances, etc., with the minimum of interference from government, but utilizes forward thinking which minimizes *borrowing from the future excessively due to excessive greed, opportunism, and ignorance of consequences within self serving groups, while also being able to protect that society from existential threats.

* Where borrowing from the future means depletion of natural capital in such a way that the future has less potential productivity. The use of the term potential productivity here is important, as opposed to the term productivity by itself.

Well said.

We are in the age of Statism. Like all other "ages", it seems it is the only way. This too shall pass.

This. Also, that last bit could probably be re-used for all of FirstAscent's posts.

I suppose he's already nagging Alcubierre about getting that engine built.

I consider libertarianism (and other similar ideologies) more as a signpost for the direction we should be traveling than as an ultimate destination.

First, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not the person to really argue this point.

Still, the answer is in the data.  The reason that the do not dominate our world despite their effectiveness is that they are not sustainable.  The Penn State example is perfect for this.  It was very anarchist and it was effective, it just didn't provide any resistance to other ideas, and thus ultimately, to the rise of governments.  There are other examples, but my point isn't that AnCap theories (or libertarian theories) on government should be discounted simply because they aren't perfect.  Nothing is.  Do you disagree with the root premises of AnCap?  I don't, I think that they are obviously correct, just not (as examples highlight) likely to result in a society with a vested interest in it's own long term viability.  Any force, foreign or domestic, capable of developing to a certain level is able to overtake it.  If the US was still under the Articles of Confederation, I think that we would have lost the war of 1812 and lost our independence.  We almost lost anyway, despite the advanced level of federal order that the US Constitution provided.  AnCap theories of government do not provide well for the collective defense of the founding ideas, be that a physical defense from foreign powers or the defense of ideas.  Hell, neither does libertarianism for that matter.  It's a contradiction that we all want to live in a free society, but also wish to be protected from risk for ourselves and our children.  What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the socity with the minumum of interference from government, while also being able to protiect that society from existential threats.

A couple hundred years ago the same could be said about democracies by people who supported monarchies. Dumb argument.

Really?

How about this: Why do we have a bunch of democracies and no systems like what the libertarians dream of? Where are they? We have a large sample set of non-libertarian nations. Why not the inverse, if it's supposedly so effective?

What I see is an impotent idea. Look at the world. It's self evident.

Then it will prove impossible to present you with a viable example, probably ever.  Hell, I can think of no form of government that realisticly could.

I would judge success based on a combination of several criteria:

- Significant in size relative to other democracies/nations/governments. In other words, not some tiny colony.
- Significant immunity to being overruled, changed, annexed, or taken over by another nation.
- Significant duration relative to other long enduring democracies

Furthermore, discount examples of isolated geographies in a historical world of low population and slow travel and communication times.

Well, forever, of course. 

How long do they have to last before you'd consider them a viable example?  Democracies don't last either, none have survived more than 200 years without significant internal strife, including the US (which isn't a democracy anyway).  Monarchies have better records than that, if sustainablity is the high mark of a society.  The longest lasting democratic republic, and the closest thing to an civilization without a central governmental authority, was The 'Old' Swiss Confederacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy) which lasted from 1307 to 1789.  Of course, even they had a period of civil conflict, so it's not a perfect example either.

What makes you think that the US will last longer?  Hell, I don't even expect the EU to finish the decade.

I noticed you provided your own speculative opinion on what in theory you think should happen in the face of lacking any real data on the subject, and then here pontificate how such speculations are facts.

All I see are failures and Somalia. Such promise! Nice try.

Notice how I explained why?

If you start up a reactor before you install the fuel system, and it shuts down because it ran out of fuel, is the reactor a failure?

Also, if you do a little research, you'll see that the Icelandic commonwealth lasted longer than the US has so far. Pretty decent track record, if you ask me.

Big letters. Tiny opinion. No one is burdened with doing anything here, did you know that? I will leave you to your current mind-state, as it is not my burden to provide you with further information. But maybe you learned something anyway - I didn't actually see you negate anything I said here. And I can't recall a single informative post made by you. All I recall was somebody named Rudd-O demanding that I cite sources, implying that one couldn't possibly find material on ice albedo feedback loops, glaciation, ocean densities, etc.

The world is out there beyond the little bubble you enshroud yourself in. Out of curiosity, do you have a favorite source you use for scientific news? It would be interesting to hear what it is.

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

That's actually one of the criticisms of the contractual society, that it would allow for these sorts of contracts. But it's voluntary, so I don't really have a problem with it. I don't think a lot of people realize that the US was built on indentured servitude. The trip over here was expensive, so many people, to pay for the trip, pledged a few years of their lives once they got here.