"Freedom" thread or something

Awesome video.  I love Wal-Mart and will continue to shop there.  I love that video even more because it throws out the silly "These six people control more wealth than the bottom 30% of the US." 

Well, of course they do.  If you have $10 in your pocket and no debt, then you are wealthier than 25% of the US. 

Talking in a funny voice isn't an argument against Libertarianism.  Neither are statistics that actually demonstrate (in a roundabout way) what we're saying here.  Remember, we're not Republicans.

Do you know who else qualifies for welfare?  Full time public school workers. 

thellama73 wrote: Rob, that anthology looks awesome. I am glad it has Herman Melville in it. He is my favorite American novelist.

A professor once asked me to read Moby Dick.

I replied, "I would prefer not to."

(I did indeed abandon Moby Dick and still got an A in the course).

thellama73 wrote: So if America before Walmart was this mythical faerieland of high wages, mom and pop store and plenty of jobs, how did Wal mart find workers to accept their horribly low wages so that they could charge low prices so that they could drive everybody else out of business and ruin America? Why didn't people just keep working at those amazing Mom and Pop stores that were making everybody rich?

Edited by Argonaught - July 29 2013 at 06:52

dtguitarfan wrote:   Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.

I'd even argue that what free market is resulting in in some countries (those where they are not constrained by guvernamental and social forces or they can simply buy them off) is not too far from modern slavery. See many examples of big corporations activities in Africa and Asia.

dtguitarfan wrote: So let me rephrase the question then, into two questions: 1) Why is it that Libertarians feel that "letting the free market do its thing" would be a better solution to slavery than an organizational structure stepping in and ruling that it is against the law? 2) Why is it that we don't see, historically speaking, any countries universally giving up slavery voluntarily because they saw the light and realized that it would benefit them economically?  Why is it that it seems to be that everywhere slavery was abolished, it was because of laws?

As I've sad a number of times, libertarians don't oppose laws. You could substtute the word "kidnapping" for slavery in your question and there would be no difference, only it would lack the emotional resonance you're trying to create. I am not a historian or an expert on the on slavery, but have you considered the possibility that slavery only persisted as long as it did because there was a central government structure willing to enforce the "rights" of slave owners?

dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: Awesome video.  I love Wal-Mart and will continue to shop there.  I love that video even more because it throws out the silly "These six people control more wealth than the bottom 30% of the US."  Well, of course they do.  If you have $10 in your pocket and no debt, then you are wealthier than 25% of the US.  Talking in a funny voice isn't an argument against Libertarianism.  Neither are statistics that actually demonstrate (in a roundabout way) what we're saying here.  Remember, we're not Republicans. Do you know who else qualifies for welfare?  Full time public school workers.  Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.  You live in a fantasy world where anything that can be called Libertarian and didn't actually work is not really Libertarian, because that's the only way to protect your already fully formed viewpoint that doesn't match up to reality.

Government did not "step in" like some hero in abolishing slavery.  The American government had innumerable laws protecting the horrid institution.  The American colonies were the subject of Great Britain, and as such, imported a large number of their customs and European traditions. 

You mention the US Constitution as though the Thirteenth Amendment existed prior to 1865.  Article 4 of the Constitution contains the fugitive slave clause, and the US government passed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.  In other words, the US Constitution gave the government the power to enforce and regulate slavery, not abolish it.  Even after 1865, black people still couldn't vote.  You know what prohibited blacks from voting?  Laws passed by government.

That you argue that Libertarianism is compatible with forced servitude is demonstrative of your inability to grasp even the most basic premise of our philosophy. 

dtguitarfan wrote: So let me rephrase the question then, into two questions: 1) Why is it that Libertarians feel that "letting the free market do its thing" would be a better solution to slavery than an organizational structure stepping in and ruling that it is against the law? 2) Why is it that we don't see, historically speaking, any countries universally giving up slavery voluntarily because they saw the light and realized that it would benefit them economically?  Why is it that it seems to be that everywhere slavery was abolished, it was because of laws?

1. Because there would be no legal protection for slave owners from the outset.  Slaves would have no legal obligation to continue in servitude.  If a slave ran away, the government mandated that slaves be returned.  By law.
2. Because slavery is a system of coercion, and so is most government.

Gay marriage is illegal in most states because various governments have declared it so.  Should those same governments get credit when they make gay marriage legal? 

Epignosis wrote: Government did not "step in" like some hero in abolishing slavery.  The American government had innumerable laws protecting the horrid institution.  The American colonies were the subject of Great Britain, and as such, imported a large number of their customs and European traditions.

Sure, you're correct.  But here's what I'm saying - you seem to think this proves that the answer is "no government".  What I'm saying is that no matter what, if you have a bunch of people organizing together to accomplish some goal (which is a GOOD THING.  GOOD THINGS are accomplished when people organize together to accomplish them.) you will inevitably have a form of government.  Corporations are little mini-governments.  The answer is not "no government" or even "small government".  The answer is "better government".  I understand the sentiment that we have too many laws and it's too complicated and we've made all of our own problems - I do, because I'm a computer programmer.  I write computer code (essentially a structure of laws) all day, and fix bugs, which are essentially problems in the cohesive structures of the laws other people (or often myself) have written.  And I hate when I come in to work on someone else's system to find that they have an overly complex system of code.  I try to write as little code as possible that accomplishes as much as possible - I try to write reusable functions so that I have less lines of code.  But say my boss asks me to fix a bug.  And say I spend a few weeks on it, and report to him that I have reduced the number of lines of code from thousands to hundreds.  And then he finds that the program is still behaving in the same manner - with the same bug it had before he gave me the assignment.  And he wanted to release the fix to the customer two weeks ago.  How do you think this will bode for me?

I run Linux. What are you talking about?

dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: Government did not "step in" like some hero in abolishing slavery.  The American government had innumerable laws protecting the horrid institution.  The American colonies were the subject of Great Britain, and as such, imported a large number of their customs and European traditions.  Sure, you're correct.  But here's what I'm saying - you seem to think this proves that the answer is "no government".  What I'm saying is that no matter what, if you have a bunch of people organizing together to accomplish some goal (which is a GOOD THING.  GOOD THINGS are accomplished when people organize together to accomplish them.) you will inevitably have a form of government.  Corporations are little mini-governments.  The answer is not "no government" or even "small government".  The answer is "better government".  I understand the sentiment that we have too many laws and it's too complicated and we've made all of our own problems

Libertarians have absolutely no problem with people voluntarily organizing together to accomplish goals and setting up by-laws and so forth.