"You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize."
I also wish they'd get their economics straight. Exploitation is not "capitalist". Exploitation tends to occur even more in non-capitalist economies. In fact, exploitation of others is directly contrary to Smithian capitalism and free markets, which depend on purely voluntary exchanges. Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options(see modern human trafficking for details), or when you're compelling them in ways that don't happen to be illegal. The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism. I don't disagree with your implied premise that other systems such as fuedalism, Stalinism, or slavery exploited people in far worse ways, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a path where free-market capitalism is the ideal.
"You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options"
Nonsense. That isn't "consent". There's nothing "voluntary" about that at all. Coerced behavior is not "voluntary", in any sense of the term. They are mutually exclusive.
"The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism"
Smith described the provably best economic system the world has ever seen, which led to a smaller percentage of people starving than ever in history. Can you somehow show that is not true? I doubt it, since it is a fact.
Even China has fewer starving people now that it has adopted more elements of Capitalism.
You're reaching. It comes off as "Consent is defined the exactly the set of things I need it to be for my world-view to be ideal, rather than the conventional definition"
Nonsense. Those people are forced into suboptimal actions by others taking actions which limit their choices, for their own benefit. It's exploitation, there is no consent in that situation on any side.
"Voluntary" means something you VOLUNTEER to do. If you are forced or coerced into it, that isn't volunteering so it isn't voluntary. It's that simple.
Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion, and the libertarian crowd would be all for it.
"Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion"
As long as there are people constraining you to those choices, yes it does. In fact what you describe is very close to the definition of coercion.
"and the libertarian crowd would be all for it."
Nonsense. That is exactly the kind of situation that Libertarians are vehemently against. Again you demonstrate that you don't know the slightest thing about what you're talking about. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Libertarian party website and read about their actual position on force and coercion.
Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. Postmodern liberalism is much closer to the philosophy you're ascribing there.
"Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. "
Then you haven't been listening to "real" Libertarians. By that I mean people who are members of the actual party, or who are familiar with and subscribe to its actual principles.
Of course, it also depends on whether you are speaking of "libertarian" (a general attitude) or "Libartarian" (an actual philosophy and political party). It is unclear which because you have spelled it both ways.
Many people call themselves Libertarians who aren't. Just as many people who call themselves Republicans are really
"Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsmen put sugar on their oatmeal. I know."
Except it's not a "true Scotsman" argument. Because I'm not just defining "Libertarian" off-the-cuff, as would be required for a True Scotsman argument. The Libertarian party has a very definite, written, official platform and it is there on their website for anybody to read. So there is no ambiguity about what a "true" Libertarian is. It is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. Therefore it's not a "true Scotsman" situation at all.
Seriously, man. Take a class on debate. Learn how to tell the REAL
Except during that time, the majority of the world embraced the opposite side from that, where the state owned everything, and 'planned' the economy. All it did was result in shortages, starvation, and misery.
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.
Congratulations. (Score:5, Funny)
You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize.
Re: (Score:2)
"You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize."
I also wish they'd get their economics straight. Exploitation is not "capitalist". Exploitation tends to occur even more in non-capitalist economies. In fact, exploitation of others is directly contrary to Smithian capitalism and free markets, which depend on purely voluntary exchanges. Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
Re:Congratulations. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options(see modern human trafficking for details), or when you're compelling them in ways that don't happen to be illegal. The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism. I don't disagree with your implied premise that other systems such as fuedalism, Stalinism, or slavery exploited people in far worse ways, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a path where free-market capitalism is the ideal.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe exploitation isn't a strictly either-or concept.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options"
Nonsense. That isn't "consent". There's nothing "voluntary" about that at all. Coerced behavior is not "voluntary", in any sense of the term. They are mutually exclusive.
"The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism"
Smith described the provably best economic system the world has ever seen, which led to a smaller percentage of people starving than ever in history. Can you somehow show that is not true? I doubt it, since it is a fact.
Even China has fewer starving people now that it has adopted more elements of Capitalism.
History doesn't lie: no eco
Re: (Score:2)
You're reaching.
It comes off as "Consent is defined the exactly the set of things I need it to be for my world-view to be ideal, rather than the conventional definition"
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Those people are forced into suboptimal actions by others taking actions which limit their choices, for their own benefit. It's exploitation, there is no consent in that situation on any side.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion, and the libertarian crowd would be all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion"
As long as there are people constraining you to those choices, yes it does. In fact what you describe is very close to the definition of coercion.
"and the libertarian crowd would be all for it."
Nonsense. That is exactly the kind of situation that Libertarians are vehemently against. Again you demonstrate that you don't know the slightest thing about what you're talking about. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Libertarian party website and read about their actual position on force and coercion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. Postmodern liberalism is much closer to the philosophy you're ascribing there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. "
Then you haven't been listening to "real" Libertarians. By that I mean people who are members of the actual party, or who are familiar with and subscribe to its actual principles.
Of course, it also depends on whether you are speaking of "libertarian" (a general attitude) or "Libartarian" (an actual philosophy and political party). It is unclear which because you have spelled it both ways.
Many people call themselves Libertarians who aren't. Just as many people who call themselves Republicans are really
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsmen put sugar on their oatmeal. I know.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsmen put sugar on their oatmeal. I know."
Except it's not a "true Scotsman" argument. Because I'm not just defining "Libertarian" off-the-cuff, as would be required for a True Scotsman argument. The Libertarian party has a very definite, written, official platform and it is there on their website for anybody to read. So there is no ambiguity about what a "true" Libertarian is. It is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. Therefore it's not a "true Scotsman" situation at all.
Seriously, man. Take a class on debate. Learn how to tell the REAL
Re: (Score:3)
Except during that time, the majority of the world embraced the opposite side from that, where the state owned everything, and 'planned' the economy. All it did was result in shortages, starvation, and misery.