in which brute says things about libertarianism

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Hobbes
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Hobbes » Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:21 am

BRUTE wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:59 pm
the biggest subjection to despotic government will come in the form of property taxes.
In the context of free markets, yeah, I agree.
BRUTE wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:59 pm
the more brute thinks about this, the more he gets confused. is Hobbes saying he wants a political system that guarantees the right to land ownership to all humans? what land? where? how much? what if they don't like that piece of land in Montana, but would prefer prime Manhattan real estate? what if the parcel is just 3x3ft? must it be enough to grow food on it? how much food?
More a system where everyone starts off (ie, at the onset of legal adulthood, say) with autonomy, and then can choose to remain autonomous or enter the job market as they wish. Make the job market truly optional, in the sense that there is a viable, livable alternative to the job market that is in some sense guaranteed. How this could be achieved I don't quite know.
But I can see now I've transitioned from actual questions on libertarianism to more of a utopia, I suppose.
BRUTE wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:59 pm
yet this is the basis for taxation. the government has a gun to Hobbes' and brute's head and therefore Hobbes and brute pay taxes.
It would appear that way. It's unfortunate.
BRUTE wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:59 pm
brute agrees in general, but it seems that the definition of "long term" is of importance here.
Sorry :oops: , you see, I am Buddhist, so a part of my training (if you will) is to always look at the long term, by which I meant quite a few decades in this particular case. I mentally simulated the slow progression of changes that would occur if a sufficient number of people started cheating, and saw the downward progression of it; which meant that I as an individual shouldn't cheat, least I contribute to tipping that balance (in addition to other considerations, such as, you know, the ill effects of robbing people in general :D ).

Thanks for giving me so much food for thought on this topic. As I said once before, I've mostly avoided it, and this has helped me clear up some delusions I didn't even realize I was carrying around with me. But, seeing as I'm not even talking about libertarianism anymore, and its more you revealing areas in my thought that aren't quite so practical (the whole utopia business), I don't really feel as I have much to contribute to this thread anymore.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:45 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:17 pm
Communitarian in the streets.
Gross.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:55 am

Hobbes wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:21 am
More a system where everyone starts off (ie, at the onset of legal adulthood, say) with autonomy, and then can choose to remain autonomous or enter the job market as they wish. Make the job market truly optional, in the sense that there is a viable, livable alternative to the job market that is in some sense guaranteed. How this could be achieved I don't quite know.
brute knows how this is easily achieved: when productivity is so high that work becomes optional for the average human. unfortunately, global productivity levels are not quite there yet.

this is the irony of UBI: if a society is so productive that it can afford a useful UBI, it doesn't matter anyway, because everything will be practically free.

does Hobbes want to guess which political/economic system brute suggests for increasing productivity to such a level?

Hobbes
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Hobbes » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:22 am

BRUTE wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:55 am
brute knows how this is easily achieved: when productivity is so high that work becomes optional for the average human. unfortunately, global productivity levels are not quite there yet.

this is the irony of UBI: if a society is so productive that it can afford a useful UBI, it doesn't matter anyway, because everything will be practically free.

does Hobbes want to guess which political/economic system brute suggests for increasing productivity to such a level?
The same one where the robots are going take all the jobs, and hence nobody has any purchasing power ;) ?
More seriously, I don't understand how productivity being high would equate with work being optional, even if goods are very cheap. If you don't work, where does the money come from?

FBeyer
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:25 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by FBeyer » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:32 am

BRUTE wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:55 am
this is the irony of UBI: if a society is so productive that it can afford a useful UBI, it doesn't matter anyway, because everything will be practically free.

does Hobbes want to guess which political/economic system brute suggests for increasing productivity to such a level?
I find that insight very appealing. If you can afford UBI it doesn't matter. But I feel like there is something missing.

If the productive part of the population is distributed more like a Poisson distribution, not like a Gaussian, then the majority of the productivity would have to be carried by the absolutely most productive individuals. To make their money society's money you'd have to tax the SHIT out of them, which would then likely cause them to leverage their resources and divert their money where it won't be stolen from them. You know, like we're already seeing.
I believe there is plenty of money in society right now to reach something that is much closer to that utopia, but the median citizen is so far from that kind of responsibility, agency, and capability that it looks like we're not there yet.

In my view It's not the average productivity we need to up, it's the median sense of responsibility for the nation's economic well being. IOW: it's a matter of mentality, not necessarily monetary productivity.

When it becomes embarrasing to say: "I am entitled to", because society has gotten used to asking "what can I do", then we'll get there fast! But of course, I am a hopelessly optimistic about what a proper mindset will do to a person. :roll:

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:44 am

@Hobbes

obviously, humans would need SOME purchasing power to buy goods and services. but high productivity typically leads to low prices. if the standard of living of humanity were fixed, annual productivity increases of ~3% (or whatever the number is that Dear Leader jacob likes to quote that is valid over millenia) would lead to prices dropping by 3% every year.

eventually, pretty much all humans could afford basic food, shelter, and clothing by working a few hours per month. or they could work for a year or two, and then FIRE forever. that's pretty close to stuff being free.


@FBeyer

maybe brute is naive here, but he's not that concerned about the distribution of wealth in society, if the society is sufficiently free. the distribution of wealth in current society is pretty extreme, but most humans are better off than any humans in any society ever before. brute likes absolute wealth more than relative wealth.

there is admittedly a potential tension. brute has argued before on this forum that what enabled all worker benefits ever was increased productivity, mostly through increased working capital. others have argued with brute that it was labor unions/government that then redistributed the increased gains from increased productivity amongst the non-capitalists.

brute is inclined to argue ideologically from a libertarian standpoint that that's not true, and a redistribution would've happened anyway. is it possible that brute is wrong, and capitalists would end up hoarding all the productivity gains? maybe.

undisputed seems that in order to redistribute more stuff, society first needs to produce more stuff. so brute is focused on that part.

there is also the train of thought in libertarianism (mostly left-libertarianism) that lack of economic freedom is actually what causes the wealth inequality. these libertarians argue that regulations, threat of litigation, taxes, IP law, reporting requirements, and much more, are what even causes large corporations to exist. in this theory, large corporations are like circled wagons against invasive government aggression: they can afford lawyers and regulation experts and accountants by sharing resources among thousands of workers. in absence of these market interventions, the added inefficiency from being a large corporation would make them uncompetitive.

brute likes to believe that this theory is true, but if the "union ripping productivity gains from capitalists and then all humans are happy" theory turns out to be true, brute would merely shrug and accept it.

Finn
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:18 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Finn » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:06 am

ThisDinosaur wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:40 am
@Finn
Libertarian ideology says that you don't have a 'right' to healthcare or education, except if you are willing and able to pay the fair market price. Libertarianism tires to maximize the choice optionality of the individual above that of the state. Since healthcare and education are provided by individuals, those individuals should have the right to choose the price for which they will provide their services.
But surely the libertarian ideology would not be okay with having an orphaned 13yo in the street selling a** to be able to afford food/doctor’s appointments/school tuition?

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:30 am

Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:49 am
Will the population taper, or will it overshoot and crash?
brute just stumbled across this from Bill Gates' website:
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/ ... hould-know
The statistic that I remember on population growth is the one that tells me that rapid population growth is coming to an end in this century. In the last 50 years the global fertility rate has fallen from 5 children per woman to less than 2.5 children per woman. In fifty years the fertility rate has halved.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:17 am

Finn wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:06 am
But surely the libertarian ideology would not be okay with having an orphaned 13yo in the street selling a** to be able to afford food/doctor’s appointments/school tuition?
libertarians typically argue against laws preventing child labor, and against laws preventing prostitution.

the combination is certainly a bit cringy, but probably beats starvation. the hope is that members of a libertarian society would be wealthy enough so they could easily donate enough money to feed and educate an orphaned 13 year old. lack of laws preventing child labor would also allow the orphan to work for a livelihood.

Finn
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:18 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Finn » Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:56 am

:shock: I guess freedom-from is not my highest value. Nor do I think it should be for human society. What you are suggesting is *highly* naive in light of history. So instead of "hoping that people will give money to orphans", let's look at what's actually happened:

In Finland, before the 20th century, orphans and abandoned children were usually auctioned off. It certainly was a market solution to the problem of orphaned children. Those kids became laborers for the people who were lucky enough to own land. Since humans are humans, sexual favors for the master of the house were often an unofficial part of this equation. And why not, since there was no concept of sexual abuse and very little entertainment. Many young girls who were auctioned or were servants, ended up killing their out-of-wedlock babies that were the result of these favors. This, of course, would lead to their own execution when caught***.

I appreciate freedom, especially freedom-to. Freedom to choose where I live, how I educate myself, who I marry, where and how I work, and the freedom to accumulate assets. I have those things. But ultimately I think only the dead are truly free-from. For the rest of us, it's always a balance. On that basis, I don't think that freedom alone can be a highest value. Values are a system, and in systems thinking we know that if we focus too much on one element of the system, the whole system will eventually collapse.

***Executions were a big day, where everybody would gather for a day of festivities. These executions were considered to be highly educational. People would learn not to kill each other that way. However, life was so hard back then that there was also a phenomenon where adults murdered their own, or other people's children in order to commit a suicide-by-execution. In the Christian belief, suicide was a sure way to end up in hell. However, if you were executed, and performed the correct rites beforehand, your sins were absolved. At death, then, these people were free from toil, disease, and natural disasters. This is recorded history (found in the records of our national church) that all occurred in the same country which now boasts child protection laws, no-tuition education and national health coverage. It's not in our "Protestant culture" or due to our "homogenous ethnicity" that we do these things. We used to suck. We treated each other badly. Then we chose differently.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by ThisDinosaur » Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:55 am

@Finn
A libertarian would be very cynical about suggestions to tax *other people* as a way to solve problems.
"Some one should DO something about this! Not me though. Tax the rich! They can afford it."

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5092
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:25 am

BRUTE wrote:obviously, humans would need SOME purchasing power to buy goods and services. but high productivity typically leads to low prices. if the standard of living of humanity were fixed, annual productivity increases of ~3% (or whatever the number is that Dear Leader jacob likes to quote that is valid over millenia) would lead to prices dropping by 3% every year.
Only if you don't consider the biological basis for these numbers. The reason 3% is valid over millenia is that it represents the average growth rate of timber. Imagine some 12th century landowner making a decision between harvesting X acres of trees this year and loaning out the resulting cash vs. simply letting his timber continue to grow. No matter how free, the rate of trade will obviously be increased as Pony Express gives way to internet trucking.

Ultimately, you can't get away from the land. It's trivial to suggest that a city-state, such as Hong-Kong, which does not grow its own food, mine its own resources, or even raise its own workers to adulthood, is the sort of place where libertarianism might thrive. Even if you detest the notion of a nanny-state, you can't have human life-cycle development without some nannies in the mix. So, who will be the nannies, and how will they be paid?
FBeyer wrote:I believe there is plenty of money in society right now to reach something that is much closer to that utopia, but the median citizen is so far from that kind of responsibility, agency, and capability that it looks like we're not there yet.
Yeah, for instance, your kid is definitely not pulling weight yet. My 87 year old friend who lives in an abandoned rust-belt city hotel converted into low-income senior housing, definitely not pulling his weight anymore. Me, if I choose to work for $20/hr teaching inner city kids to read vs. $40/hr performing statistical calculations for marketers of high fee annuity products, or $2/hr on my own permaculture project vs. $11/hr. selling Round-Up to hordes of clueless lawn owners, not so much contributing to bright utopia future, right?

Anyways, that's why the best solution (calculated compromise) I've been able to come up with is to open contract barter my 53 year old a** (and other expansive adult feminine qualities) to old, affluent men who would like to pay less tax, in order to maintain lifestyle I prefer while still having the time to engage in non-lucrative activities which I believe are of greater value than the market is currently able to proffer. Win-Win.

fiby41
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by fiby41 » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:31 am

Me: The market will regulate itself!
Libertarianism is the most efficient-----

*Medical bill for your annual checkup is : ₹27,832.81*

We have nothing to lose but our chains

Nurse: Sir pls

FBeyer
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:25 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by FBeyer » Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:41 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:25 am
FBeyer wrote:I believe there is plenty of money in society right now to reach something that is much closer to that utopia, but the median citizen is so far from that kind of responsibility, agency, and capability that it looks like we're not there yet.
Yeah, for instance, your kid is definitely not pulling weight yet. My 87 year old friend who lives in an abandoned rust-belt city hotel converted into low-income senior housing, definitely not pulling his weight anymore. Me, if I choose to work for $20/hr teaching inner city kids to read vs. $40/hr performing statistical calculations for marketers of high fee annuity products, or $2/hr on my own permaculture project vs. $11/hr. selling Round-Up to hordes of clueless lawn owners, not so much contributing to bright utopia future, right?
Sentences too long. Point lost along the way. Need help.

Just to clear up the point I was trying to make. Saying we could have a UBI utopia (in the sense of a society affluent/productive enough to be able to afford, and thus not need UBI) if only we could produce more is half right. We have the money already, if only we could find a way to tax people without them objecting against it. Personally I find that plan of action disgusting, and probably also ineffective. So let's disregard that for now.

This might be my personal inner hippie, but whenever I hear 'higher productivity' I tend to hear more pollution too. Or just more destruction of resources. This is of course something I will have to deal with personally. So, born out of that ideosynchratic, and possibly misplaced, link between productivity and pollution I gave some thought to how many forests we'd need to level in order to live the UBI utopia, and my lame conclusion was that the current amount of destruction is probably way more than we really need. The problem in my mind is therefore not how many dollars we can extract from the ground, but how few capable citizens are willing to put the onus of welfare upon themselves, rather than outsource that to the government or to heavier taxation of those with more moolah than themselves.

That distribution is so heavily skewed that we need those richest of the rich to become even more disgustingly rich before 'the rest of us' are pulled out of the muck along with them. As I've stated elsewhere I don't mind the wealth gap, it benefits me too, whether former-socialt-FBeyer would like to admit it or not. With our current mindset towards how to live well in the world we NEED an insane gap between the haves and the have-nots because in aggregate we don't want to get off of our asses and provide real value to society ourselves.

So if you ask me, society will only truly get better the minute we start to detest entitlement and start encouraging agency. Yammering about the 1% will only makes that situation worse.

Willingly bartering your 50+ year old assets is a perfectly fine way to acquire the life you want to have. In fact I find your ability to strategize about your existence admirable. But lordy me I've come across a lot of people who really just want others to pay for what they felt entitled to, without ever thinking: "What can I do personally to make my life better". It's always someone else's money.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:29 pm

Finn wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:56 am
:shock: I guess freedom-from is not my highest value. Nor do I think it should be for human society. What you are suggesting is *highly* naive in light of history.
so clearly this former dystopia was libertarian, right?

brute would suggest it is highly naive that child prostitution stops because it is made illegal. plenty of countries with governments have banned child prostitution, yet it still haunts humanity.

what actually stops humans pimping out their children is being rich enough to have better alternatives.

brute is cynical about feel-good laws and moral outrage. he is inclined to think that humans are going to human no matter what the law is, and he likes to look at actual development instead of good intentions.

the countries that can afford not to have their children work terrible jobs are the rich countries.

does Finn want to guess which political/economic system makes countries rich?

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:31 pm

fiby41 wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:31 am
Me: The market will regulate itself!
Libertarianism is the most efficient-----

*Medical bill for your annual checkup is : ₹27,832.81*

We have nothing to lose but our chains

Nurse: Sir pls
^^

$404 if brute has calculated correctly. not that bad.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:36 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:25 am
So, who will be the nannies, and how will they be paid?
probably women who like to care for children and don't have other job prospects, like always. they'll be paid with the money that the parents make.

brute must be misunderstanding the question. he's read 7Wannabe5's post 3 times, and he's not sure what she's saying.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11317
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by jacob » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:38 pm

@brute - Insofar the number is correct that's about 8 months worth of median income (2013).

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 968_1.html

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:38 pm

note to brute: maybe consider not assuming how much money humans have

Campitor
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Campitor » Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:19 pm

It's 8 month's worth of income for that annual checkup but not if you live in a Western Democracy. I assume those 8 months refer to a medical bill in India.

India has a history of excessive regulation which hampered their growth but they are getting better. And the corruption in it's government makes entrepreneurship more difficult. Libertarianism would be the least of evils that India can adopt. Indian states that have adopted more economic freedom have experienced better growth.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rolling- ... ant-mishra
https://www.cato.org/economic-freedom-states-india

If you live in a Western Democracy, you've hit the lottery; to feel otherwise is just a consequence of hedonic adaption. Personally there are lot of Libertarian principles that mirror my political/economic philosophy. Limited government and personal freedom being one of them. No I don't want to see orphans and widows dying in the street but neither do I want to see economic policy that hampers growth, freedom, or promotes corruption and cronyism. I'll take Libertarianism over a State run economy any day.

Post Reply