Political Ideology

Originally Posted by Double A

It's hateful if you desire for that belief to be acted upon by others. IIRC, you not only believe gay marriage is wrong, but desire for it to not be made legal.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I have decided to change my stance on the topic of gay marriage from Anti-Gay and Anti-Gay-Marriage to Anti-Gay and Pro-Gay-Marriage.

My bad then. I apologize.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

Voluntary economic association is Capitalism.

Not necessarily, no. Capitalism is simply private (or corporate) ownership of the means necessary to generate wealth, and the creation of wealth and services for the sake of profit. Voluntary economic association is neither required, nor sufficient, for an economic system to be defined as 'capitalist'.

Capitalism is not about big business, its about the freedom to choose your own destiny, without the government there to tell you otherwise.

Yet, history shows that those who become financially vastly more powerful than others will, with great expedience, employ every means to monopolize their exalted position in society. Capitalism, by it's very nature, invites to massive concentrations of wealth (look at distribution of wealth in your own country, for example, where the poorest 150 million people control 2,5% of GDP), and thus leads to monopolies. How would a right-libertarian society prevent the establishment of monopolies, and how would it alleviate the massive socioeconomic fallout from having the kind of massive gap between rich and poor that, as a rule, would emerge?

Furthermore, aren't there enough studies showing a negative correlation between uneven wealth distribution and social mobilityin 1st-world nations for you to reconsider the idea that a right-libertarian society would create an enviroment where the Average Joe was 'free to succeed'?

And Libertarianism is essentially the epitome of Capitalism;

Surely, that would be laissez-faire or anarcho-capitalism, wouldn't it? I mean, saying for the sake of argument that less government intervention = "more capitalist"

I have no master. An employer is not a master, and he oppresses no one.

You don't even realize how funny that is.

He is part of a voluntary deal in which services are exchanged for money.

So were serfs. By the logic of capitalism, were these also 'free'? In both cases, the 'free choice' is between selling your labour to employer at a rate below it's value, or starvation.

The entire idea of Right-Libertarianism is not about protection from the system, that is the exact opposite off Libertarianism, which is about having no one to choose your destiny.

To even try to claim this, you are more or less implying that you deny the fact that humans are bound by their material conditions. The idea of everyone being equally free to make choices and to decide their own destiny within a capitalist society is completely undercut by the fact that there is no level playing field. Children from poor families live in poor areas and go to severely underfunded schools, and are lucky if they even get the opportunity to go to college (education, which is very expensive, being the key to social mobility). By contrast, a child of a rich family will be given all these things and more simply by virtue of birth. How dishonest do you have to be to claim that these two had the same chances of success?

Workers in a Libertarian Society could easily form voluntary unions to obtain better wages and treatment.

Considering the fact that the employer, when freed from those 'stringent government regulations' that (to a certain, but not sufficient degree) ensure the rights of the Worker, would most likely be free to fire these people at will for forming organizations that directly oppose his own interests as an owner of a means of production, the idea of a union (unless you want them to go back to the old 1800s way of things, where the the power of the union was backed solely by it's ability to wreak devastation upon the business itself) seems futile. A right-libertarian society would rob those who work (as opposed to those who merely own) of their most important, non-violent method of bettering their position, placing them even further under the will and whim of those who already have them in a chokehold. Say goodbye to worker's rights!

And while I know that Libertarianism was thought of by the left, Left-Libertarianism doesn't seem logical.

You mean by recognizing the capitalist workplace as being an autocratic institution, as opposed to a democracy, and striving towards giving the people increased power over their own lives through an expansion and refinement of the democratic process? Seems more logical than "The most powerful segment of our society isn't powerful enough, let's remove any incentive they have not to poison our water, pillage our enviroment, and any legal requirement they might have to treat their 'inferiors' with a minimum of decency, shall we?"

Also, by limiting the power of the one instution in society which is, in a certain degree, a democracy, without presenting any other alternative, can't a right-libertarian society be said to be less democratic than even the current system? A right-libertarian society would be, for lack of a better word, oppressive. A plutocratic cleptocracy, where a dollar is a vote.

There are only two ways to get people to collectivize their property; government force (not Libertarian) or people voluntarily choosing to give up everything they own to feed everyone else, including the lazy.

First off, there is a distinction between personal possessions and private property. You are aware of this, right? The idea is that ownership of the means of production should be in the hands of those who operate them. Your founding fathers took control of an entire country a few hundred years ago. What's so hard about taking control of a place of work? Those of us who would benefit from such an arrangement are the ones who work, and without them not a single wheel will turn. A general strike. No government intervention necessary.

This seems both highly idealistic and completely impractical. What if someone doesn't want to share, are you going to use coercion to make him?

Justice outweighs injustice, and need outweighs greed.

I consider myself a conservative, but agree with the liberals on one issue. Legalizing weed. Other than that, I'm a conservative.

I consider myself a conservative, but agree with the liberals on one issue. Legalizing weed. Other than that, I'm a conservative.

Legalizing marijuana is a stance held by many US Libertarians (who are considered 'conservative')

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 PM ----------

to Skoomy and Slur;

I come from a working family in a poor area. My father has been working for those with more than him since he was nine and ranch work is no walk in the park. My older brother is now sixteen and works in any free time he has (by choice)

ALL of us are in support of capitalist Libertarianism. My father would rather work himself to death for an unfair employer by his own choice than give his life to the government to decide its fate. My older brother holds more resentment for those precious "workers rights" that keep him from being able to do a lot of things he wants to do, than he does for any employer he has worked for.

We aren't rich. we aren't advantaged. We are right Libertarian because we think that is what best serves the interests of the working class and thus society as a whole. Life isn't fair, but capitalism is as fair as it gets

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I come from a working family in a poor area. My father has been working for those with more than him since he was nine and ranch work is no walk in the park. My older brother is now sixteen and works in any free time he has (by choice)

Any social mobility to speak of? Also, conservatives seem to have this fetish of telling us how hard they work and how little they receive for it. That is not a good thing. You do realize you're just highlighting the very same problems that we on the left keep talking about?

ALL of us are in support of capitalist Libertarianism. My father would rather work himself to death for an unfair employer by his own choice than give his life to the government to decide its fate.

Implied false dichotomy, and an absurd one at that. Ever noticed how neither Slur nor I, both being left-libertarians, even mentioned the role of government? I'd rather be kicked in the stomach than in the groin, but that doesn't justify violence. Also, considering how ranches are heavily subsidized by the federal government (in order to keep the industry competetive and viable), wouldn't right-libertarianism be the death knell of your father's place of work?

My older brother holds more resentment for those precious "workers rights" that keep him from being able to do a lot of things he wants to do, than he does for any employer he has worked for.

Oh yeah? Please, enlighten me.

We aren't rich. we aren't advantaged. We are right Libertarian because we think that is what best serves the interests of the working class and thus society as a whole. Life isn't fair, but capitalism is as fair as it gets

I say, someone who thinks right-libertarianism serves the interests of the working class? Again, I'm going to have to ask you for an argument to back that up. I'd also like it if you looked at mine. Personal anecdotes and appeals to emotion are good and all, but nothing is really gained here, is it?

Furthermore, "the working class, and thus society as a whole"? The traditional view of right-libertarians is that it is the interests of the rich that should be served, and that this is what benefits society as a whole. Are you promoting trickle-up economics?

*gasps*

I say, someone who thinks right-libertarianism serves the interests of the working class? Again, I'm going to have to ask you for an argument to back that up. I'd also like it if you looked at mine. Personal anecdotes and appeals to emotion are good and all, but nothing is really gained here, is it?

We are talking about an issue of right or wrong. The working class (or at least EVERYONE I know who falls in that category) prefers to be "oppressed" by the laws of the market than by a government (or societal coercion, which would be necessary to create and maintain a left-libertarian nation)

Furthermore, "the working class, and thus society as a whole"? The traditional view of right-libertarians is that it is the interests of the rich that should be served, and that this is what benefits society as a whole. Are you promoting trickle-up economics?

I don't see a trickle either direction. The rich are beneficial to society and so are the working class, no one more than the other. If something benefits the rich, it also benefits the working and vice versa. there is no 'us vs them'

And bottom-line is afaik the working class want right-Libertarianism (at least in the US), which should come before any half-assed economic theory

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

We are talking about an issue of right or wrong. The working class (or at least EVERYONE I know who falls in that category) prefers to be "oppressed" by the laws of the market than by a government (or societal coercion, which would be necessary to create and maintain a left-libertarian nation)

So you do not wish any longer to debate the merits of right-libertarianism or left-libertarianism? The arguments which I've presented regarding the inherent tendency in unregulated capitalism towards monopolies, the negative correlation between concentration of wealth and social mobility/societal well-being in 1st world countries, the idea of the capitalist workplace as a fundamentally autocratic enviroment, the collapse of worker's rights in a right-libertarian society and the rancher community's dependence on subsidies fly right out the window because your personal aquaintances still believe in the lie that modern America provides a level playing field and that the poverty and lack of social mobility that runs rife amongst the poor in America is something to be preferred to all other options?

I actually put some effort into responding to you, but everytime I do it seems the majority of my arguments are not even adressed. Are the arguments of your opposition completely irrelevant to you?

I don't see a trickle either direction. The rich are beneficial to society and so are the working class, no one more than the other. If something benefits the rich, it also benefits the working and vice versa. there is no 'us vs them'

Trickle-down economics is a rather vital part of current American right-wing rhetoric. Check it out.

This is rather easily refuted by pointing out that for the last three decades the top 1% in America have had it better than ever, while living standards among working- and middle-class Americans have either become stagnant or actually decreased.

And bottom-line is afaik the working class want right-Libertarianism (at least in the US), which should come before any half-assed economic theory

Half-assed economic theory? Like this, you mean? And no, nothing really seems to indicate that the working class strive for right-liberitarianism. Aside from personal anecdote, what are you using to back that up?

One point you seem to be missing is that it is possible for a left-libertarian sub-society to exist within a right-Libertarian nation because individuals would have the freedom to collectivize their property (and thus their means of production) so this would solve the problems of both sides.

Just curious, would you consider your views Proletarian?

---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

And I am well aware of trickle-down economics. In a sense it is true, because without the rich you would have no factories or other means of industry (without communism). But trickle-up economics are also important because those factories need workers, and someone to sell there product to. i don't know if there is a name for this opinion because it is a conclusion I came to on my own.

And to counter your argument, how exactly would a left-Libertarian society function? To collectivize ANYTHING (including the means of production) you need a) government coercion or b) societal coercion. Both of which are very unLibertarian

Also if you wish for better arguments for right-Libertarianism you should read about Murray Rothbard. He is more Anti-Statist than I am but the basic concepts are the same in right-Libertarianism

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

Voluntary economic association is Capitalism. Capitalism is not about big business, its about the freedom to choose your own destiny, without the government there to tell you otherwise. And Libertarianism is essentially the epitome of Capitalism

Capitalism merely means that the means of production are owned privately--kept out of control of the workers. Libertarianism is the maximisation of personal freedom and liberty, not just outside of the workplace, but in every facet of life. The worker should, therefore, be in control of the means of production instead of ordered how to go about his job, otherwise, where is the liberty?

I have no master. An employer is not a master, and he oppresses no one.

This is scary. Read what you said. An employer has so much control over a worker's life: if the employer fires or doesn't pay the worker, how will he eat or afford his shelter? Think of workers before working-hour laws were passed. What about the daily sexual and racial harassment from management toward employees? The firing or harassment of queer-identifying people? There is nothing Libertarian about oppressing minorities.


In regard to all of the quotes I have collected below: I want to challenge you to think OUTSIDE a liberal, Capitalist frame of reference before constructing your responses. Where have either of us made any reference to government? Centralised government/authority and Libertarianism are yet another contradiction in terms, just as Capitalism and Libertarianism are. Government is hierarchical.

And while I know that Libertarianism was thought of by the left, Left-Libertarianism doesn't seem logical. There are only two ways to get people to collectivize their property; government force (not Libertarian) or people voluntarily choosing to give up everything they own to feed everyone else, including the lazy. This seems both highly idealistic and completely impractical. What if someone doesn't want to share, are you going to use coercion to make him?

There is a big distinction between private property and possession. Private property is the private ownership of the means of production (a wage-master owning a machine that processes coal), something that is legally/state-protected that is used to exploit a human or land. Possessions on the other hand are things we accumulate throughout or lives that are not used to exploit others (a toothbrush or a home). Yes, a home is possession, but if that home were to be rented out, it would become private property.

Property is something that is protected legally and by the state, and thus a reason why Capitalism cannot survive without the state, and another reason why Capitalism and Libertarianism are a contradiction in terms.

ALL of us are in support of capitalist Libertarianism. My father would rather work himself to death for an unfair employer by his own choice than give his life to the government to decide its fate. My older brother holds more resentment for those precious "workers rights" that keep him from being able to do a lot of things he wants to do, than he does for any employer he has worked for.

I don't think your family would be resenting precious workers rights if they were literally locked in a factory, working 16-hour work days, making only a couple dollars, while his boss is profiting like mad, surrounded by luxuries, and lobbying the government like hell to work against your mobility or escape from the system. Of course, much of this is still the reality. How is that suffering, that being a slave to your boss Libertarian?

We are talking about an issue of right or wrong. The working class (or at least EVERYONE I know who falls in that category) prefers to be "oppressed" by the laws of the market than by a government (or societal coercion, which would be necessary to create and maintain a left-libertarian nation)

Everyone? Really? You seem to be ignoring left labour movements all around the world. You seem to be ignoring the past couple centuries of the anarchist labour movement in the US. You're ignoring the Haymarket Affair, the Paris Commune, the Spanish anarchists, and all of the anarchist and left-wing movements in Asia and Africa and South America.

I don't see a trickle either direction. The rich are beneficial to society and so are the working class, no one more than the other. If something benefits the rich, it also benefits the working and vice versa. there is no 'us vs them'

And again, think outside a Capitalist frame of reference. In Libertarianism there would be no trickling because top-down hierarchical relationships would cease to exist. This basis of hierarchical relationships is the main reason why the two a contradictory--hierarchy not only limits freedom, but *enables* systematic and institutionalised oppression.

Are you equating libertarianism with anarchism, Slur? That seems a bit exclusionary. Certainly there are plenty of libertarians (not even R3B3L's kind) who are not anarchists.

Still waiting for R3B3LCAUSE to address even one of my arguments.

The methods through which left-libertarianism (or right-liberitarianism) is implemented can certainly be discussed, and I'll happily do so. After you respond to my arguments. If you're just not going to address them at all then I assume that their presence is not of much importance to you. I'd like to think my efforts were not for nought.

Originally Posted by Skoomy

Not necessarily, no. Capitalism is simply private (or corporate) ownership of the means necessary to generate wealth, and the creation of wealth and services for the sake of profit. Voluntary economic association is neither required, nor sufficient, for an economic system to be defined as 'capitalist'.

Alright so I will no longer call my self 'capitalist' as I believe in voluntary economic association AND privatization of the means of production

Yet, history shows that those who become financially vastly more powerful than others will, with great expedience, employ every means to monopolize their exalted position in society. Capitalism, by it's very nature, invites to massive concentrations of wealth (look at distribution of wealth in your own country, for example, where the poorest 150 million people control 2,5% of GDP), and thus leads to monopolies. How would a right-libertarian society prevent the establishment of monopolies, and how would it alleviate the massive socioeconomic fallout from having the kind of massive gap between rich and poor that, as a rule, would emerge?

It's simple; nothing (technically). The laws of the (free) market would prevent this. Small businesses appeal to consumers, that will prevent total monopolization. Businesses that give to charity also appeal to buyers, if there was no welfare this would become vastly more important and thus businesses that are more giving to the poor would thrive (the wealth would redistribute itself.

Furthermore, aren't there enough studies showing a negative correlation between uneven wealth distribution and social mobilityin 1st-world nations for you to reconsider the idea that a right-libertarian society would create an enviroment where the Average Joe was 'free to succeed'?

Addressed above, wealth would redistribute itself

Surely, that would be laissez-faire or anarcho-capitalism, wouldn't it? I mean, saying for the sake of argument that less government intervention = "more capitalist"

That would be an excellent way to simplify the conversation.

You don't even realize how funny that is.

Agree to disagree.

So were serfs. By the logic of capitalism, were these also 'free'? In both cases, the 'free choice' is between selling your labour to employer at a rate below it's value, or starvation.

No. Comparing any element of (Right) Libertarianism to a past system isn't fair because the entire system must be in place for it to work, there is no halfway because it messes up the factors needed for the market to govern itself (not literally, the government would still exist to govern everybody, I hold more of a Minarchist position as opposed to Anarcho-Capitalist in that regard)

To even try to claim this, you are more or less implying that you deny the fact that humans are bound by their material conditions. The idea of everyone being equally free to make choices and to decide their own destiny within a capitalist society is completely undercut by the fact that there is no level playing field. Children from poor families live in poor areas and go to severely underfunded schools, and are lucky if they even get the opportunity to go to college (education, which is very expensive, being the key to social mobility). By contrast, a child of a rich family will be given all these things and more simply by virtue of birth. How dishonest do you have to be to claim that these two had the same chances of success?

In a Right-Libertarian society, higher education would be cheaper (and better) because there would be more competition (as a result of a freer market)

Considering the fact that the employer, when freed from those 'stringent government regulations' that (to a certain, but not sufficient degree) ensure the rights of the Worker, would most likely be free to fire these people at will for forming organizations that directly oppose his own interests as an owner of a means of production, the idea of a union (unless you want them to go back to the old 1800s way of things, where the the power of the union was backed solely by it's ability to wreak devastation upon the business itself) seems futile. A right-libertarian society would rob those who work (as opposed to those who merely own) of their most important, non-violent method of bettering their position, placing them even further under the will and whim of those who already have them in a chokehold. Say goodbye to worker's rights!

Treating workers well is something that appeals to consumers, and thus the free market would ensure workers rights. This is where the government does need to step in however; to ensure proper function of a free market transparency is necessary (and doesn't impede the markets function) so that would be something the government would do; keep businesses from lying about things such as worker treatment, pollution, and there product/service. They would not need to step in and fix these things however, because the truly free market would do this for them.

You mean by recognizing the capitalist workplace as being an autocratic institution, as opposed to a democracy, and striving towards giving the people increased power over their own lives through an expansion and refinement of the democratic process? Seems more logical than "The most powerful segment of our society isn't powerful enough, let's remove any incentive they have not to poison our water, pillage our enviroment, and any legal requirement they might have to treat their 'inferiors' with a minimum of decency, shall we?"

How do you suppose the democratic process be refined? It does seem to need some work (abolition of ballot options in favor of total write-ins to prevent the two party system would be a good start) maybe, in a certain sense we have some common ground here

Also, by limiting the power of the one instution in society which is, in a certain degree, a democracy, without presenting any other alternative, can't a right-libertarian society be said to be less democratic than even the current system? A right-libertarian society would be, for lack of a better word, oppressive. A plutocratic cleptocracy, where a dollar is a vote.

but according to the laws of the free market, someones will can be effectively expressed by their dollars, if people don't like something, be it a business tactic, a worker treatment policy, or anything else, that practice/product/policy will die or become less prevalent. That and of course the fact that such a society would still use a voting process to elect their leaders (who's power would be very limited)

First off, there is a distinction between personal possessions and private property. You are aware of this, right? The idea is that ownership of the means of production should be in the hands of those who operate them. Your founding fathers took control of an entire country a few hundred years ago. What's so hard about taking control of a place of work? Those of us who would benefit from such an arrangement are the ones who work, and without them not a single wheel will turn. A general strike. No government intervention necessary.

A strike is also possible in a Right-Libertarian society

Justice outweighs injustice, and need outweighs greed.

Relevance?

I apologize for not making effective arguments sooner, I am not accustomed to debating those who put depth of thought into their political views, and it took some time to formulate my thoughts

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

Alright so I will no longer call my self 'capitalist' as I believe in voluntary economic association AND privatization of the means of production

You misunderstood my point, which was that the concept of voluntary economic association does not necessarily imply capitalism, or vice versa.

It's simple; nothing (technically). The laws of the (free) market would prevent this. Small businesses appeal to consumers, that will prevent total monopolization.

Total monopolization? Maybe not in the short run. But de facto? So far, I'm having trouble seeing how the consumer base's particular "like" towards the concept of small businesses really is much of a factor. Small businesses are frequently run into the ground by larger businesses, simply because, due to the huge advantage in capital resulting in more advantageous supplier-distributor agreements and the enhanced ability to advertise, are able to provide a more diverse set of services at competetive prices, with more visibility in the public sphere. Considering that even today, where we have regulations that hinder the establishment of monopolies and cartels, the only real competition for market share are between a very small number of very large, practically indistinguishable corporations. The consumer's particular "like" towards small businesses seems easily trumped by the ease of access, brand recognition and high level of visibility of exposure inherent in these large businesses, especially in the tertiary sector.

Businesses that give to charity also appeal to buyers, if there was no welfare this would become vastly more important and thus businesses that are more giving to the poor would thrive (the wealth would redistribute itself.

We've already discussed how charity is a woefully inadequate substitute for welfare, even if charity could grow to fill the shoes of social justice.

Charity has never been well suited to providing a basic safety net for the
poor. The four basic failures of private philanthropy in this
regard: It is insufficient, particularistic, paternalistic, and amateur. While conservatives may consider paternalism a virtue rather than a weakness, but you cannot ignore the inherent weakness of vesting all control of the resources spent on the poor with the wealthier Americans who donate to private charity. Private charity has a tendency to give religion, for example, an importance that is not present in welfare, as such an emphasis would be unconstitutional if mandated by the government.

Furthermore, it can even be (very strongly) argued that charity would not in fact, grow to supplant welfare, or at least not enough to provide a set of services even coming close to what welfare can do, as studies show that, as a rule, communities less generous in their state and local public-sector assistance for the poor are also less generous in their charitable contributions, even taking into account income and poverty rates.

Ironically, with right-libertarians preaching the imminent "return" of charity in lieu of evil government redistribution, you'd half expect their message to at least include some sort of semblance of a call for those who have to flock to the aid of those who have nothing. But it doesn't. In fact, libertarians seem more concerned with finding moral justification to turn their back on the poor. "It turns out, the poor are actually better off if we just keep our money."
"Brilliant! Chardonnay?"
"Oh, don't mind if I do."

Arguing why abolishing disability, for example, has some rather heinous societal implications, seem meaningless. I'm sure you can see the obvious moral flaw in telling disabled people to go ♥♥♥♥ themselves. But the abolition of public-sector assistance to those who are unemployed (or employed and needy, necessitating the search for further employment), for example, would have dire consequences for the entire working class, including those who are employed.

You see, in the capitalist system, one person's labour is a product to be bought and sold, and thus subject to the laws of the market, in particular supply and demand. Increasing the supply of low-paid, unskilled labour into a marketplace where, due to the recession, the supply already far outweighs the demand, would create even more fervent competition for the few jobs available. Also, a repeal of state-subsidies for the primary sectors of the economy would effectively put entire industries (like agriculture and ranching, to name a few) out of business, forcing even more people out to search for employment.

Right-libertarians often couple the call for a repeal of welfare with a repeal of the minimum wage. Considering the high amount of competition for the few number of jobs, this would make the wages of unskilled labour plummet, as if they weren't abysmally low to begin with. And, of course, as the competition increased, workers would be further discouraged from complaining or leaving due to abysmal working conditions or low pay.

A minimum wage today fails to even cover the full cost of living for a single adult, much less a family. This would result in a far more dire need for low-wage earners, as more and more people would have trouble even feeding themselves. Enjoy your massively increased levels of poverty and social unrest!

Furthermore, most economists today talk about a "natural" level of unemployment, to keep inflation and cost increase at bay. This is, depending on the economy, between 3 and 5 percent. Would these people, necessary to maintain the stability of the capitalist economy, be left to starve?

Addressed above, wealth would redistribute itself

As addressed above, this is BS.

Agree to disagree.

The idea of the capitalist workplace as an authoriatrian enviroment isn't something you can simply dismiss out of hand. Libertarian business structures greatly resemble government hierarchies (excluding of course the democratic formalities). It is contradictory to opine that citizens do not need rulers while maintaining that workers need managers, just as it is contradictory to equate taxation with theft, while not doing the same with profit.

No. Comparing any element of (Right) Libertarianism to a past system isn't fair because the entire system must be in place for it to work, there is no halfway because it messes up the factors needed for the market to govern itself (not literally, the government would still exist to govern everybody, I hold more of a Minarchist position as opposed to Anarcho-Capitalist in that regard)

Then your claims are without substance. If you cannot compare or equate elements of right-libertarianism with any past or present system, then there is nothing to back up it's claims. If you can't compare libertarianism to any other system or age (ex. Gilded Age-style liberalism) as a negative, then you're basically conceding that even discussing the merits of a 'freer' market economies vs. 'less free' market economies, because according to your argument, even examples of increased prosperity as a result of free market reforms could not be used as an argument in favour of your position unless every single criteria of your ideal society was realized. What I was discussing here anyway was the nature of employment, which will hardly change under a right-libertarian society.

In a Right-Libertarian society, higher education would be cheaper (and better) because there would be more competition (as a result of a freer market)

Institutions of higher learning in the US are dependent enough on private donations as it is, something which has had rather frightening implications for the intergrity of these instutitions. For example, Michigan State University currently has a deal with Bank of America, who gave the university an estimated 25.5 million to start selling the personal information of students, alumni and even season ticket holders to credit card companies. The university also receives money based on the amount of credit card debt racked up by these people, and encourage spending. To get funding, colleges are forced to work against the interests of their clients in the name of corporate interest.

BB&T donates money to colleges with the requirement that the school create a course on capitalism and teach from the insane objectivist lunacy of Atlas Shrugged. Yay for corporate takeover of education!

Treating workers well is something that appeals to consumers, and thus the free market would ensure workers rights.

Foxconn is the world's largest maker of electronic components, and make the products of Acer, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Toshiba, Sony and Samsung. Despite their well-known mistreatment of their employees, neither they, nor their associates seem to be doing worse.

This is where the government does need to step in however; to ensure proper function of a free market transparency is necessary (and doesn't impede the markets function)

Like enviromental regulations, labour rights and quality assurance, transparancy "impedes the market's function" by running contrary to business interests.

so that would be something the government would do; keep businesses from lying about things such as worker treatment, pollution, and there product/service. They would not need to step in and fix these things however, because the truly free market would do this for them.

So.. what? Governments should make rules to 'keep businesses from lying', but not step in to enforce these rules? The free market isn't Gandalf, it can't fix everything for you.

How do you suppose the democratic process be refined? It does seem to need some work (abolition of ballot options in favor of total write-ins to prevent the two party system would be a good start) maybe, in a certain sense we have some common ground here

Expanding the scope of the democratic process by establishing it in the workplace would be a good start.

but according to the laws of the free market, someones will can be effectively expressed by their dollars, if people don't like something, be it a business tactic, a worker treatment policy, or anything else, that practice/product/policy will die or become less prevalent. That and of course the fact that such a society would still use a voting process to elect their leaders (who's power would be very limited)

Nevermind that I've already explained how, in most cases, consumers seem far more interested in the service that is being provided than in the business that provides it.

Yes, someone's will can be expressed in dollars, and with the decimation of state power, which is (ideally) influenced by votes, which every citizen only has one of, in favour of corporate power, which is influenced by money, the power balance between voice and capital shifts rather firmly in the favour of capital. If the dollar supplants the vote as the supreme expression of will in society, only the illusion of democracy will remain, for one simple reason: Not everyone has the same amount of dollars.

The richest one percent in America control more than 40% of the country's wealth, whereas the poorest 50% (150 million people) control a mere 2,5%. This means that the "will" of the richest 3 million would, effectively, count more than 16 times as much as the will of the 150 million people. Hell, even the interests of the richest 0.1% would outweigh the ones of the 50%. Considering how the massive concentrations of wealth inherent in capitalism would most likely only increase under right-liberitarianism, this problem would only grow more severe. As if the power-imbalance between rich and poor in America wasn't bad enough to begin with!

Also, an interesting study, regarding your claim that the people "want" libertarianism:

A strike is also possible in a Right-Libertarian society

And what legal protection would be in place to defend the worker's right to strike?

Relevance?

My point was that the dire needs of the many outweigh the trivial needs of the privileged few, and if relieving the super-rich of some of their hoarded capital to ensure the life, liberty and the pursuit of all, then so be it.

I apologize for not making effective arguments sooner, I am not accustomed to debating those who put depth of thought into their political views, and it took some time to formulate my thoughts

Likewise

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

It's simple; nothing (technically). The laws of the (free) market would prevent this. Small businesses appeal to consumers, that will prevent total monopolization.

That's never worked. Human corporate history consists almost entirely of, largely successful, attempts to monopolize. The thing is, once a business gets a slight advantage in size it can use that to buy its way to having more advantages until it has no effective competition. Inevitably, as soon as that happens they stop innovating, start raising prices, and generally make things worse for consumers.

Businesses that give to charity also appeal to buyers, if there was no welfare this would become vastly more important and thus businesses that are more giving to the poor would thrive (the wealth would redistribute itself.

Nonsense. Businesses pre-welfare didn't donate very much at all.

Addressed above, wealth would redistribute itself

...How do you explain all of human history, where that notably failed to happen, then?

In a Right-Libertarian society, higher education would be cheaper (and better) because there would be more competition (as a result of a freer market)

But you keep calling for the abolition of anything that would prevent monopolies, so no, the market would end up much less free.

Treating workers well is something that appeals to consumers, and thus the free market would ensure workers rights. This is where the government does need to step in however; to ensure proper function of a free market transparency is necessary (and doesn't impede the markets function) so that would be something the government would do; keep businesses from lying about things such as worker treatment, pollution, and there product/service. They would not need to step in and fix these things however, because the truly free market would do this for them.

Did you somehow never learn about the Gilded Age and the Capitalist Barons? Worker protection laws are in place because before they were written businesses routinely maimed and killed their workers without a second thought and no one cared.

There are some exceptions, but in general you don't get a law written until after the thing it criminalizes has occurred.

How do you suppose the democratic process be refined? It does seem to need some work (abolition of ballot options in favor of total write-ins to prevent the two party system would be a good start) maybe, in a certain sense we have some common ground here

Campaign finance reform (No campaign can accept donations above $X and/or no individual can donate more than $Y to any party) and abolish the first-past-the-post for something more representative (either preferential ballots or representative seats). Finally, get rid of the votes for every friggin' thing. Senators? Sure, vote for them. Congresspeople? Certainly. Dog catcher? No. Limit campaigning to one month before any election, at most.

That way money stops deciding elections, the pandering to the rich drops sharply, the two-party system becomes weakened so that new ideas can be heard, and voter fatigue drops off significantly.

Its late so I will just have a brief answer for now.

You seem to have the impression that I believe the dollar should replace the vote as the primary expression of will; I do not. I believe that the vote should govern the government and the dollar should govern the market.
Also I am not against (fair) taxation

And what legal protection would be in place to defend the worker's right to strike?

Unions and strikes would work differently in a right-Libertarian society. They would not have "legal protection" and would instead derive their power from numbers. it would be another way of ensuring workers rights by turning the essential manpower of industry into another form of 'vote'. It would give the workers a voice and allow them to get better contracts. If employees don't like their treatment they can all organize themselves to stop working until their demands are met.

Or until the employers call in people to break the strike. Which is historically what happened. Numbers don't mean a whole hell of a lot when the other side has guns and artillery.

Or until the employers call in people to break the strike. Which is historically what happened. Numbers don't mean a whole hell of a lot when the other side has guns and artillery.

Use of "guns and artillery" is a crime, no society allows people to force there will on others at gunpoint legally

How do you explain all of human history, where that notably failed to happen

Again I am referring to a government which hasn't yet been implemented, comparing it to feudalism or social conservatism is not accurate in the least. It would be like me saying that any collectivism will end up becoming a Stalinist dictatorship, which I am certain any left-Libertarian would agree with

One point I made that you all seem to have missed is that a collectivist or socialist set-up could exist within a right-Libertarian society. So even if capitalism is evil, anyone who actually wants to be part of a collective or worker-controlled-production could do so by joining a commune. This is more libertarian than forcing industry to be collective. And if so many people are socialists as you seem to think than they will all live happily in their communes, while the productive members of society prosper in the evil oppression of actually having to work! (sorry just had to add that last part , feel free to ignore it if you wish)

Originally Posted by Darth Yoshi

Or until the employers call in people to break the strike. Which is historically what happened. Numbers don't mean a whole hell of a lot when the other side has guns and artillery.

Can you show us an example where a democratic society (as in, no Nazi Germanies please) has experienced mass murder being used to break up strikes?