this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
962 points (97.2% liked)

196

16813 readers
1270 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 29 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

“Because I was afraid.”

“Afraid?”

“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 days ago
[–] don@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago
[–] rational_lib@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Actual argument I had recently with a "libertarian" family member:
Libertarian: "Rent control shouldn't exist! It's wrong for big government to tell property owners and renters what kind of agreements they can enter!"
Me: "What are your thoughts on single family zoning that bans missing-middle housing throughout most of the US?"
Libertarian: "Well that's different! People choosing what kind of rules should apply to where they live is the epitome of freedom!"
Me: "Couldn't that same argument apply to rent control?"
Libertarian: "Wha...you have clearly been brainwashed by the woke mind virus! So sad!"

[–] lemmyseikai@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Clearly they are not a libertarian.

The correct reaponse is "The government would need to demonstrate a beyond reasonable need for that ban. Preventing industrial chemical plants from being built near housing, sure, types of housing, get out."

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Libertarian ideology is logically solid, but it has two minor problems:

  1. It heavily depends on assumptions that never hold in real life.
  2. Any other ideology, when confronted with bad outcome predictions of their models, will try to explain why their way actually prevents these bad outcomes. Libertarianism... prefers to explain why these outcomes are actually a good thing.
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 14 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Except it isn't logically solid, because the premise is that Governing bodies cannot be expected to provide for the general welfare because humans are naturally greedy and selfish, and the solution is that we abolish all social safety nets and instead rely on voluntary charity to solve the problem of poverty...

But what voluntary charity exists if by Libertarian's own logic: Humans are too greedy and selfish to give to the poor even when they're literally mandated to do so?

[–] jessca@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It also seems to assume perfect knowledge and that all harms can be compensated for.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago

The lives Brian Thompson measured in dollars were priceless to the families they said goodbye to.

Luigi, number one!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Milton Friedman, my favourite libertarian, advocated for a negative income tax as the best form of social safety net. It means that the minimum amount of money any person gets is not zero!

He also liked to point out that a lot of other government programs were in fact regressive: paid for in taxes by working class people and providing the benefit to middle class and up. A classic example of that is funding for higher education. It’s pretty darn regressive to pay for higher education with taxes collected from working class people whose children don’t even attend higher education!

He has a lot of other arguments that make a ton of sense. He is against any and all forms of subsidies for large businesses and he is against laws which create and protect monopolies and oligopolies.

The one thing I’m not clear on is how to organize society to protect against future government interference and especially corruption by special interests.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You need solid anticorruption laws the same way you need solid antitrust laws and they need to be liberally enforced. The problem is that neither have been since the 70's. Regulatory capture by big business is a massive problem, and I am not sure if it is possible to 100% defend against.

I self identify libertarian but lean left. I'd argue that while things like funding higher education may currently be regressive, if free education extended from the current cap of 12th grade to encompass at least an associates level degree you would have a lot more lower and working class taking advantage of it and making it less regressive. With the country having jettisoned it's manufacturing and blue collar industry, I would further argue this is necessary for the country to compete on the international stage.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Germany has government funded education throughout. It’s still regressive! They stream people into either working class tracks (hauptschule and realschule) or academic (gymnasium). In effect, this means working class students have far less opportunity to go to university in Germany than they do in the US, despite the latter’s problems with affordability.

Friedman would go 100% the other way and abolish public schools entirely, along with abolishing the minimum wage, subsidies for universities, subsidies for business, and tariffs. His argument is that the minimum wage puts a floor on the productivity of a worker which means many people who could be hired at a lower wage and be trained on the job instead do not get hired at all and have to pay for their own training through school (either directly with tuition or indirectly through taxes).

The current system ends up creating large classes of people who get an education in subject matter that’s totally irrelevant to their career (like someone studying sociology in order to work in HR). Why should we, as taxpayers, be paying for this? Employers should be paying to train their own workers on the job!

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

There is some merit to that, and free education has the same issues in other countries besides Germany. My planning process was to treat the 2 year associates degree like we do with high school, no performance testing or path tracking. Everyone is entitled to a high school diploma of they want one, and with an associates degree being the new high school diploma it makes sense to include it.

It is what we as a society have determined makes the bare minimum education standard for then learning the rest on the job. The employment sector has moved this bar from high school graduate to associates degree, and the education system should reflect that.

The complete abolishment of public everything and allowing the market to dictate and provide is great in theory, but the same was Marxist communism is. There are always those that will break the system for personal gain.

There are also efficiencies of scale that business in a healthy, non mono/duopolostic environment can't take advantage of that the government can. This is why I put education and healthcare under the "provide for the common defense and well-being of the people" that it exists for. This is why we the taxpayers should be paying for education in what may be or appear totally irrelevant: it results in a net gain as far as expenditure across the country as a whole and makes companies better able to train workers on the job. It also allows easier job transitions allowing more economic mobility, and also helps maintains balance of power between the worker and the employer.

In a libertarian ideal the worker is not trapped working the job or for the specific employer because that is the only job they are trained for and where their healthcare comes from. It is a contract of mutual gain. It is unreasonable for a worker to start over from scratch to change jobs if an employer is not maintaining market wages. It also allows a worker to more easily become an entrepreneur and open his own company, as this requires a broader education basis to succeed at than the job he does for another.

Strong but limited regulation is need to keep markets free. Regulations preventing pollution of the environment as a common resource, truth in representation of goods and services, prevention of anticompetitive actions and regulatory capture., etc. Without this markets inevitably fall to monopoly and the system switches from mutualism to parasitism.

There is a careful balance to maintain and government overreach is just as easy in the other direction. This is true is any economic and sociological system though. Perfectly free laze fair markets do not exist the same way perfectly egalitarian communism doesn't exist above the small commune level and for the same reasons. Or perfect democracy where everything is voted on by everyone and everyone is making fully informed and educated decisions. If none of these are possible in the real world, all we can do is take the best parts and attempt to create the best possible real world results.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Friedman actually has replies to many of the issues you’ve raised. He is not convinced that government can do anything efficiently and his argument rests on Darwinian principles: government employees are insulated from the consequences of their failed policies in a particular way that biases them towards towards inaction, inefficiency, and even waste.

For example, he talks about the bias of the FDA towards rejecting new drugs over approving them. If the FDA approves a new drug and it kills a handful of people it makes the front page of every newspaper in the country and becomes a huge scandal that costs the FDA heads their jobs. However, if the FDA rejects a drug that could have saved a million lives over several decades then nobody even knows about it!

So the FDA is extremely biased towards rejecting anything and everything that comes their way. But since companies can sue the FDA if they don’t exactly follow the law when rejecting drugs, the FDA has developed extremely long and detailed and cumbersome documentation processes. The forms and the trials are so extensive and cumbersome they take years and billions of dollars to complete. And the end result is that many drugs never even start the process because the companies have no guarantee of being able to recover their investment!

His alternative to all this is simple: tort law. A robust tort law allows people to sue drug companies for selling harmful drugs. This is actually how things worked before the FDA existed and it led to drugs such as Aspirin that might never have existed in today’s regime!

Anyway, the hardest thing about trying to evaluate Friedman’s arguments is that each one is pretty compelling in isolation but the sum total of all the changes is such a radical departure from what we have now that it’s hard to fathom.

I think I’m coming around to it though. One thing that’s indisputable is that our current governments have totally betrayed us and left everyone polarized, isolated, angry, and utterly lacking trust in societal institutions.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, I am finding this very enjoyable and educational.

I agree with Friedman in principle, but then I look at Ford and the other car companies with the Pinto and Takara airbags, etc. The cost of paying lawsuits gets factored in and until the cost point breaks over the deaths and injuries are just a cost of doing business. With regulation that actually has teeth and enforcement, just doing the bodies-to-profits calculations becomes an untenable solution and the recalls happen even if they aren't profitable. I don't think a private tort system is capable of having the teeth to achieve this in the real world. It is why Libertarianism still has a central government. It will have its inefficiencies, but it's a right tool for the right job kind of thing.

Same with asbestos, lead, fillers in food, etc. The damages from them are so divorced from the product that many may not know who or what caused it. Lawsuits have a hard time with those kinds of things even if you know exactly which business is the cause. Look at tobacco and leaded gasoline and myriad others where lawsuits failed initially because damage was difficult to prove before the government stepped in. If fossil fuel companies can pay for the science that muddies the water on climate change, what chance does John Doe have doing enough through a lawsuit to stop DuPont from flooding the planet with forever chemicals?

I like where Friedman is coming from, but I hold him at the same level as Marx or any other economic theorist: assuming a spherical cow, at a specific temperature, without friction, and without wind resistance. I like Henry George the same way. That's why I still claim to be a libertarian (just a left leaning centrist one), because I think Friedman and George are actually the better end result and closer to a workable solution than Marx. Marx was onto something though, and shouldn't be dismissed outright. I do think we have stuff to learn from all branches of economic theory, and subscribe to a "the truth will be somewhere in the middle" philosophy.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Thanks! I’m really enjoying the discussion too!

Friedman actually has addressed the Ford Pinto question directly. He makes the very good point that it’s not a matter of principle, it’s a difference of opinion on the cost-benefit analysis. The deaths that resulted from Ford’s decision not to install a $13/car shield to protect the gas tank were tragic and regrettable but the argument that we can’t put a price on human lives does not fly.

We HAVE to put that price on a human life if we’re going to use cost-benefit analysis as a tool to help allocate resources. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a communist government party official, a liberal democratic courtroom, or the CEO of a business. The calculation needs to be done because resources are finite.

Friedman makes the rather dramatic point of asking whether it would be worth it to spend a billion dollars to save a person’s life. No matter what number you might ultimately settle on, there will always be disagreement because there are always alternative ways to spend the same money that might save even more lives. It would definitely not be worth it to spend NASA money to make the world’s safest car if that means a million people starve to death due to that choice of resource allocation.

Friedman is not opposed to central government of course. He mentions it in that video that he believes in the court system. He also believes government is the right call for several other functions which he discusses in other lectures (national defence and of course legislation to protect people’s rights and resolve disputes and other issues that arise).

For what it’s worth, the amount of money Ford lost in the long run, from lawsuits and settlements paid, reputational damage, loss of marketshare, loss of R&D, and loss of consumer confidence was astronomical. Ford learned the hard way that marketing for automobiles is not about convincing a consumer to buy your car once, it’s about convincing them that they made the right decision to buy your car so that they continue buying cars from you for the rest of their life.

In other words, brand loyalty is absolutely everything to car manufacturers and if you abuse that trust you lose bigtime. Now the Ford Pinto will live on forever as an example of corporate shortsightedness and callousness. There are plenty of people who would never buy a Ford again for that mistake.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I remember those innocent days when I considered myself a libertarian. If you aren't part of a marginalized group, and you consider yourself smart and responsible, AND most importantly assume that other libertarians are arguing in good faith with good priorities, some of what they say can seem to make a lot of sense.

But then when you look at the real-world motivations and results, they start to look like people who are down to to smoke weed while licking the same boot as a brown person.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You had me til brown person. Not quite sure what you mean, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't meant as bigotry.

The whole libertarian movement smacks of the big brain thinking of entitled people in their 20s, and Joe Rogan's fan club.

It paints with the same broad strokes as communism and like it, fails to acknowledge the real world outcomes: only the ideology matters, and adherence to it. Ignore or prosecute those who don't implement it as intended or under the guiding assumptions.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 3 points 5 days ago

The brown person thing was me referring to them being "socially liberal," so they would share the same water fountain -- or boot -- as somebody of another race.

That quote refers to the "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" label that they like to use. Because part of the fun is saying that you love everybody and have no hate in your heart, but you definitely don't want to spend any money or enforce any regulations to help people's lives.

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Reminder: Ayn Rand died on public assistance.

They're only for freedom to gouge for water at the only source for a hundred miles when they believe they'll be the ones holding the ladle.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

You have to pay toll for the road first

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago

Libertarianism - The idea that a just society with fair rules is impossible because of the greed and selishness inherent in human nature. So by embracing this we can abolish all taxes and social safety nets, instead we would solve everyone's problems through voluntary charity work, as after all humans are naturally giving and kind.

Yeah, clown shoes seem appropriate. I can somewhat respect a philosophy that I disagree with by saying "Well, that's certainly a take, can't say I'm on board."

But I cannot if the problem isn't that I disagree, it's that it is self-refuting by its own logic.

Kinda like how Sam Harris' Free Will Denial nonsense is bullshit simply by my own ability to decide for myself that it's bullshit.

load more comments
view more: next ›