Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what you're saying is that in fact the farmer was only rumored to be offering $2 per bushel, not actually offering $2 per bushel.
What I'm saying is that the land owner offered a daily rate of $2.00 a bushel. Migrant workers traveled to his farms and worked at the proffered rate. More migrant workers showed up and the land owner, facing a localized surplus of labor (and knowing that such would happen) then cut the offered daily rate to an amount below what would sustain life in the long term, knowing that the only alternatives to the workers were to starve quickly or starve slowly.
Quote:
Contract isn't theoretical, do you have an employment contract today? How theoretical is it? Wanna test how theoretical it is by taking a dump on your bosses chair?
Do you have a job yourself? Because the above statement, assuming an employment contract, leads me to believe that you don't.
I did read the responses, including yours which stated that libertarians don't believe that people are all good, which is why you don't trust government.
However, my premise and agreement with that poster is based upon the fact that I personally do not see any difference between government and capitalists. Both are run by people. As stated - all people are sinners and will take an advantage to do whatever they want to do if left unchecked. They also are not going to agree to your NAP. If they do, they will re-interpret it to benefit them and not you, like people/humans are apt to do. This is basic human behavior and is the reason why we dominate the globe over the other animals. We are better at exploit and we will find an advantage that benefits us over anyone else.
Due to that, I feel that people who would like a libertarian style government/society, want to trade the cronyism and fraud that they see in government to benefit themselves and their capitalistic goals.
People will always be selfish and will not give you your freedoms you so hold dear exactly the way that you want them. People will never totally leave you alone because people are just not like that.
That is what I agreed with in regards to that post and that I believe many libertarians are naive about. You all have these great ideas/goals just like the communist did as was mentioned in this thread; however, people are not all "good." People are not going to just let you have your freedom so it is better IMO to have one system oppose the other.
And FWIW I don't think any government can be entirely 100% accountable. Just like I don't think that any capitalist can be held 100% accountable for their misdeeds either. So IMO it is better to have a robust economy based on capitalism along with a strong government. They keep each other in check. For me it is very odd that so many libertarians have this great view of the "free markets" as if free markets aren't run by people who are out for profits at all costs and who will do whatever they feel they must do to get their profits, including doing all they can to hide the "bad" stuff they do that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of the populace. Government officials can and will do the same thing. Neither is better but both serve a purpose.
Alright, well first I'd say that your point about people re-interpreting the NAP is a rational concern. I think that will definitely happen. In order for it to work, you need enough people in your society who don't buy into those twists of logic, and will not let their aggression slide.
The reason I'm optimistic is that people already follow the NAP in their daily lives (obviously no one follows it perfectly, but the point is that they don't think it's okay to attack, steal, etc.) which means the only thing that needs to change is that they stop selectively exempting the government from those rules. The government isn't special. The rules apply to them too.
I'd also use the slavery analogy as a comparison. Abolitionists just wanted people to stop supporting slavery, and they we're told it was just a natural part of life. Humans enslave other humans, it's always been that way, and even if you got rid of it, there would still be groups of people who band together to enslave others.
Those people are correct that that could still happen today, but the thing preventing it is that enough people see slavery as an unacceptable evil. I think something similar needs to happen with statism.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the difference between government and capitalists is force, and that's a major major distinction. 100% government vs. 100% capitalism is a group with total control over your life backed up by force vs. a group that can influence you, but can't force anything on you.
What I'm saying is that the land owner offered a daily rate of $2.00 a bushel. Migrant workers traveled to his farms and worked at the proffered rate. More migrant workers showed up and the land owner, facing a localized surplus of labor (and knowing that such would happen) then cut the offered daily rate to an amount below what would sustain life in the long term, knowing that the only alternatives to the workers were to starve quickly or starve slowly.
Yes and they should have had a contract prior to traveling. Not the owners fault the travelers chose at personal expense to move there without any guarantee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
Do you have a job yourself? Because the above statement, assuming an employment contract, leads me to believe that you don't.
Sure I do and doing that would illustrate the termination clauses of the contract. Jeez you're a person who'd travel a thousand miles on the rumor of $2/bushel but no guarantee aren't you?
The farm owner could only kick off those workers if the contract permitted it. Otherwise he'd have to abide by the terms of that contract.
YOU are the one that raised unionization. I talked contract they're not the same thing. That's the straw man you constructed that I mentioned, NOT, the scenario you presented.
You spoke of collective bargaining, which is organized labor.
Sure I do and doing that would illustrate the termination clauses of the contract. Jeez you're a person who'd travel a thousand miles on the rumor of $2/bushel but no guarantee aren't you?
Yes and they should have had a contract prior to traveling. Not the owners fault the travelers chose at personal expense to move there without any guarantee.
Sure I do and doing that would illustrate the termination clauses of the contract. Jeez you're a person who'd travel a thousand miles on the rumor of $2/bushel but no guarantee aren't you?
It's what desperate people do for the chance of survival. It's easy to smugly say that you'd never do it while living a relatively comfortable and secure life.
Alright, well first I'd say that your point about people re-interpreting the NAP is a rational concern. I think that will definitely happen. In order for it to work, you need enough people in your society who don't buy into those twists of logic, and will not let their aggression slide.
The reason I'm optimistic is that people already follow the NAP in their daily lives (obviously no one follows it perfectly, but the point is that they don't think it's okay to attack, steal, etc.) which means the only thing that needs to change is that they stop selectively exempting the government from those rules. The government isn't special. The rules apply to them too.
I'd also use the slavery analogy as a comparison. Abolitionists just wanted people to stop supporting slavery, and they we're told it was just a natural part of life. Humans enslave other humans, it's always been that way, and even if you got rid of it, there would still be groups of people who band together to enslave others.
Those people are correct that that could still happen today, but the thing preventing it is that enough people see slavery as an unacceptable evil. I think something similar needs to happen with statism.
The bold is only applicable really to government sponsored slavery. Again, people run government and businesses. Society is made up of people and people will always shirk government influence and do what they want in some way.
Slavery still occurs today in the USA and it is called by a different name "trafficking" and affects just as many people as it did in the 19th century.
IMO slavery as an argument is a poor argument choice. Even with chattel slavery abolished, blacks were still enslaved by the government and by individuals in society for nearly another hundred years in an open fashion (chain gangs, share cropping, and even by families who refused to let their slaves go - many people in the 20th century had to "escape" plantations to participate in the Great Migration). Prisoners are still enslaved in a sense and the 13th amendment allows the enslavement of prisoners so we still do have a facet of government sponsored slavery.
I do think a majority of people just go about their daily lives, but those amongst us, and ironically it is usually the most talented and most ambitious amongst us, are those who usually cause the most harm and when they do - because of their talent and ambition they stand to ignore the NAP entirely. Those individuals due to their talents will run the show and basically sh*t on everyone else no matter what. That is how we are as a species and I know that this may come off as a negative view of humanity, but honestly, I am also an optimistic person. I just am also a realistic person and I know a lot about the history of our nation in particular and quite a bit of the history of the world. Slavery will always exist in the world and even in this country because someone will always want to take advantage of another person. So those abolitionists and slavery apologists back then, they were right. However, will note abolitionism was a social movement and people do forget that Lincoln and the Republicans were not focused on abolishing slavery. It only became an issue because the government wanted to use the moral emotional response to the condition of the slaves as a way to rally the nation behind a noble "cause" and use emancipation as a way to get more soldiers (primarily black soldiers by 1863) to join the army and unify the country.
Yes and they should have had a contract prior to traveling. Not the owners fault the travelers chose at personal expense to move there without any guarantee.
But we're talking subsistence workers here, not highly skilled professionals. And we're talking about actual events that happened, not theoretical situations.
Quote:
Sure I do and doing that would illustrate the termination clauses of the contract.
Then you're one of the few who do have an employment contract. Unless you're highly skilled, corporate, or union, then odds are that you don't have an employment contract. That's the situation for most people working today.
Quote:
Jeez you're a person who'd travel a thousand miles on the rumor of $2/bushel but no guarantee aren't you?
A personal attack? You do understand that's one of the signs of being on the losing end of a debate, don't you?
My scenario, an example of actual events, was to show that, IMO, the libertarian solution for the migrant workers was for them to either starve slowly or starve quickly, until the surplus had been removed from the labor pool.
So far, the only libertarians solutions offered up by others have been in the form "well, those migrants should of not have been in that situation in the first place"...
Indeed. That's why I believe in accountable government: we need government based on democratic elections that are free of corruption by special interests. Special interests like to use government to screw people. Unfortunately, libertarians want special interests to have the freedom to buy elections...because...you know...freedom!
Even if you could wave a magic wand & get rid of all special interest influence in government, it still would not fix the problem. Special interests aren't always businesses throwing their money & influence around. Individuals get elected/appointed & use their positions to attack those outside of government for personal reasons. You lefties complain about this all the time but you always have to tie the problem to a corporation rather than blame the individual for being a corrupt POS. Libertarians don't believe in government subsidies, or the government picking winners & losers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
Take it up with the Koch Brothers. They are the ones who bankroll libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation.
If you think that Cato and Reason are not representative of "true" libertarianism, then you need to send them some emails and inform them of their heresy. Good luck!
You are literally doing exactly what I was talking about in my post that you quoted. Please show me where the Cato Institute or the Reason Foundation has said something to the effect of "We believe that rich people should have the freedom to take away someone else's freedom". You can't, because you are trying to equate what you think the results of libertarian policies would be with what libertarians believe.
So you have an issue with think tanks? Or just ones that you disagree with? I don't see a problem with groups doing research on issues that they care about, conservative, liberal or libertarian. Sure, the partisan think tanks are biased, but there are usually truths in research from the good think tanks, no matter what side they are on.
I like a lot of libertarian ideas particularly their positions on bodily autonomy rights and basically keeping their noses out of people's business as long as they are not hurting anyone else. The government should not be in the business of "protecting" people from themselves, especially when that "protection" is often more harmful than the consequences of the bad decision the person is making in the first place (things like tossing people in jail for drugs basically making them unemployable for life). I think that taken to their extreme logical anarchist conclusion however is ignoring human nature and history. Like most things, there is a happy medium and compromise between not wanting the government poking their nose in most of your day to day life and full on anarchism. For one thing, libertarians are big on contract law, but in a society with no overarching power to enforce those contracts, each contract is only worth the amount of power the weakest party of the contract has available to them to enforce it. A large scale tax free society is a pipe dream that has never and will never exist, access to road infrastructure alone is worth the price of admission - but I am entirely open to negotiations and stripping down as much of the taxation as possible while still being able to keep the lights on, so to speak.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 10-20-2017 at 10:23 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
