Journal Roblimo's Journal: Why Libertarians and Communists are Both Wrong 30
In a fantasy libertarian paradise, each citizen works hard out of enlightened self-interest. No one uses force on anyone else, since my rights stop where your nose begins. If you accumulate a whole bunch of property, bully for you! If I fail in business or some other endeavor and suddenly have no money for food, clothing or medical care, too bad for me. Maybe some of my enlightened neighbors, out of self-interest, will help me out with voluntary donations. And maybe they won't. Under communism, the opposite is true. Each citizen works to his or her maximum capacity in order to benefit society as a whole, and society as a whole owns the major means of production, including farms, factories, and mines. No one goes without the basics of life, and the idea of any one person owning a yacht disappears, because no citizen needs a private yacht when he or she can freely use state-owned boats for anything from fishing to partying. Under either system, everyone is happy and fair and treats other members of society with respect.
But both philosophies suffer from a problem. That problem is human nature. I'm sorry, but there are hardly any instances in human history (or pre-history) where applying an essentially utopian political or economic philosophy has resulted in a utopia. In the modern world, we have Somalia as an example of extreme libertarianism in practice, and North Korea as an example of extreme communism in practice.
"But...but...but," the libertarians stammer, "we don't want anarchy like Somalia. We believe in having enough government to serve as referee in disputes, and we don't believe violence is a valid basis of society." I hear you, folks. Unfortunately, plenty of people do not hear you, and in a situation where government is weak, will inevitably exert their will through force. It doesn't take a high percentage of the population to believe that power comes from the barrel of a gun to destroy even the rosiest libertarian paradise. And, as we have witnessed in the U.S. over the past few decades, many of the people who talk loudest about deregulation and freeing themselves from burdensome laws essentially want to be able to steal from their fellow citizens without risking prison sentences when they do.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the street, the communists are apoplectic with rage at the very idea that any sane person could conflate their inevitable workers' paradise with North Korea's brutocracy. Or Cuba's repressive regime. Why, those countries don't represent communism any more than Somalia represents libertarianism! True. But in real life, communist revolutions have almost always led to dictatorships of one sort or another. And, as a little-noted side effect, endless, mind-numbing speeches by the dictators. Even mild communists like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez (who calls himself a Bolivarian and denies being a doctrinaire communist) can go on TV and spout drivel for hours on end, and has enough control over the airwaves that you can't necessarily change the channel and catch a soccer game or telenovela instead.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.
Under a truly libertarian capitalist system, if some people become so wealthy that they can afford personal airliners while a few miles away, others live in
grinding poverty, that's fine. Under the Soviet Russian (communist) regime, party leaders have always had sumptuous dachas where they lived in luxury, far from the prying eyes of ordinary citizens who typically lived in crowded communal housing.
In other words, neither system serves most people very well, although adherents of both philosophies will spend as many hours as you let them (and then some) telling you why theirs is better for you than the other one.
As an American, what I really want is the best parts of both systems. I want the income security of communism, or at least of its milder cousin, socialism, while at the same time I want libertarian-style personal freedoms. I realize that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, so I am happy to have you pay taxes to support our government. (I also believe I should be exempt from most of them, just as I'm fine with laws that restrict any of your behavior I may not like, but none that restrict my behavior.)
Do I sound spoiled, hypocritical, cynical, or all three?
Or do I just sound like a normal American?
The reality is that no system will work perfectly as long as it is run by human beings. Private industry screws up all the time, and big companies often turn into impenetrable, inefficient bureaucracies -- as do government agencies that don't get constant oversight from concerned citizens. Even science-fictional computers running a large society are likely to screw up, since they would be built and programmed by fallible humans.
So what is the solution?
I' m a mild believer in what some call the Third Way. Neither leftists or rightists (in old-fashioned politics-speak) like or respect moderation. I do. Nobody goes away happy, but we manage to generally keep everyone's unhappiness level low enough that we transfer power after elections without blood in the streets, and tend to have excesses of socialist-leaning presidents and Congresses muted by the libertarian-leaning ones that almost inevitably follow them -- and vice versa.
This kind of compromise is the American way. Our founding fathers didn't agree on everything. They compromised, and our Constitution was the result of that compromise. Let's carry on that tradition!
(Now we will all rise and sing the national anthem together.)
More drivel at Roblimo.com
Third Way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish you'd grow a pair.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah (Score:2)
No one uses force on anyone else, since my rights stop where your nose begins.
No one uses force, except to prevent people from harming others, right.
If you accumulate a whole bunch of property, bully for you! If I fail in business or some other endeavor and suddenly have no money for food, clothing or medical care, too bad for me. Maybe some of my enlightened neighbors, out of self-interest, will help me out with voluntary donations. And maybe they won't.
Nope. The idea of enlightened self-interest is that people WILL provide for others in need. You are, frankly, misrepresenting the ideology.
But both philosophies suffer from a problem. That problem is human nature. I'm sorry, but there are hardly any instances in human history (or pre-history) where applying an essentially utopian political or economic philosophy has resulted in a utopia.
That's the whole point of libertarianism: because human nature sucks, therefore we cannot trust other humans to have power of force over us. How is this any worse than what we have now?
In the modern world, we have Somalia as an example of extreme libertarianism in practice
No.
Unfortunately, plenty of people do not hear you, and in a situation where government is weak, will inevitably exert their will through force.
Then it is not libertarian. So ... you were, obviously, wrong when you said it was.
And, as we have witnessed in the U.S. over the past few decades, many of the people who talk loudest about deregulation and freeing themselves from burdensome laws essentially want to be able to steal from their fellow citizens without risking prison sentences when they do.
You forgot about the part t
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know?
Either you didn't read what I wrote because I am a bore, or you DID read what I wrote despite believing I am a bore, or you are judging whether I am a bore based only on this limited sample.
So, either you don't believe I am a bore based on good evidence, or you like read my posts despite believing I am a bore.
Either way, it's pretty sad for you.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that under capitalism, everyone is free to do as they please. If you don't want to be exploited by me, you can move, you can get a different job, you can start your own business.
That is a version of capitalism that has never existed anywhere for any significant amount of time to the best of my knowledge. Under the current US system - which has not changed significantly in the past 20 years - a worker who is being exploited by their employer has almost no mobility. The concept of being able to "move" is not true, because the worker cannot afford to do that. Similarly the concept of "get a different job" is not realistic either, as the worker does not have the time to seek traini
Re: (Score:2)
Under the current US system - which has not changed significantly in the past 20 years - a worker who is being exploited by their employer has almost no mobility.
False.
The concept of being able to "move" is not true
False.
Similarly the concept of "get a different job" is not realistic either
False.
And the idea of "start your own business" likely holds almost no water as well
False.
So in the third-world and developing countries where we are forcing capitalism
False.
And why wouldn't they?
Because such a society is not in their enlightened best interest. What is in their best interest is for everyone around them to be happy and prosperous and employed and healthy and so on. This increases their security, their opportunity, their happiness, and, of course, the prospects for the same for their children.
I am aware of some communist-like systems that failed when greedy individuals rose to power and distorted the aims.
But there is no such thing POSSIBLE as a pure communist system that DOES NOT have such individuals rising to power. In such a system (on a national scale, not tal
Re: (Score:2)
Under the current US system - which has not changed significantly in the past 20 years - a worker who is being exploited by their employer has almost no mobility.
False
I will presume that you are agreeing that the system in the US has changed almost not at all in the past 20 years, and you are objecting to my statement that an exploited worker has almost no mobility. I would very much appreciate you elaborating on how someone who is barely making enough money to eat could possibly have anything resembling mobility.
After all, mobility requires time and money. If you are working two minimum wage jobs just to be able to eat, you don't have time or money available.
The concept of being able to "move" is not true
False
How does one move without money? You can't just pack up and go. Even if you don't own property where you are, you still need to find someplace to live wherever you are going - which takes money. And if you are being exploited under the US system, your ability to leave for a different country is significantly hindered.
And why wouldn't they?
Because such a society is not in their enlightened best interest. What is in their best interest is for everyone around them to be happy and prosperous and employed and healthy and so on. This increases their security, their opportunity, their happiness, and, of course, the prospects for the same for their children.
Funny
Re: (Score:2)
you are agreeing that the system in the US has changed almost not at all in the past 20 years
False.
you are objecting to my statement that an exploited worker has almost no mobility
True.
After all, mobility requires time and money.
No, it doesn't require money. It does require time, which you have if you quit your job and collect unemployment.
You can't just pack up and go.
False.
Funny, that didn't happen in this country before we passed laws requiring it.
False.
People with lots of money are happiest when they have even more money.
False.
Marx himself never intended for communism to be applied to large countries
OK, but irrelevant to my point. Our context IS on the national level.
That sounds like a libertarian power grab ...
False.
... to me.
True.
(OK, you gotta admit that's funny right there.)
Although either way it is not true communism.
Again, this is about the context of a national level. Whether it is "true" communism or not, I am merely saying at the national level, it is an inevitable result of the application of the system, because at a national level you WILL have p
Re: (Score:2)
you are agreeing that the system in the US has changed almost not at all in the past 20 years
False
Then you could have chosen to do a favor for both of us and been more specific than just a five-letter response (with a period).
And you could at this point explain why you feel that the US system has in some meaningful way changed in the past 20 years.
After all, mobility requires time and money.
No, it doesn't require money. It does require time, which you have if you quit your job and collect unemployment.
No, mobility very much requires money. People who work minimum wage jobs receive nothing to almost nothing in unemployment. And if they want to go to a different job market they will need money to get to that other market.
Funny, that didn't happen in this country before we passed laws requiring it.
False.
Since you didn't include the sta
Re: (Score:2)
Then you could have chosen to do a favor for both of us and been more specific than just a five-letter response (with a period).
False.
That is, yes, I could have, but I saw, and still see, no need.
And you could at this point explain why you feel that the US system has in some meaningful way changed in the past 20 years.
Because God wanted it to? That's a tough metaphysical question, and that's the best answer I can come up with.
No, mobility very much requires money.
False.
I strongly encourage you to read about worker's conditions prior to the first labor day in this country
That's MY line to YOU. Hint: your problem is that you incorrectly believe -- or at least, imply -- that the horror stories at the beginning of the industrial revolution represent the norm of the time.
To take just one example ...
No. A single example cannot back up your point, by definition, since you are making a generalization, which requires more tha
Re: (Score:2)
Then you could have chosen to do a favor for both of us and been more specific than just a five-letter response (with a period).
False.
That is, yes, I could have, but I saw, and still see, no need.
I don't understand why you feel such hostility is justified when I am asking you for your opinion.
And you could at this point explain why you feel that the US system has in some meaningful way changed in the past 20 years.
Because God wanted it to? That's a tough metaphysical question, and that's the best answer I can come up with.
If my question was not phrased clearly, I apologize. Sometimes the questions that I pose are clear to me but not to others, so I will try again. I was not seeking an explanation for how changes may have come about.
Rather my question to you is as follows. What changes have you seen to the American economic system (brought on by the federal government in particular) in the past 20 years that you felt were
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, what do you get when you cross pudge [wrongplanet.net] with damn_registrars [squidoo.com]?
Eliza [www-ai.ijs.si] talking to herself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for that link.
But what you seem to have missed is that you and pudge could both be said to have traits of Eliza and high functioning autism.
So I said it, regarding Eliza _talking to itself_.
This clearly adds something to the link you cite, and I posit that my comment does not show I am late to the party.
But opinions can differ.
Ciao,
James
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand ...
I don't care.
And I also don't care to read the rest of your very long comment.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care.
And I also don't care to read the rest of your very long comment.
That is an unfortunate turn of events and an unfortunate change of attitude from you. For a while we had something that almost resembled a reasonable conversation. If you had read the rest of my "very long comment" you would have perhaps even come to find that there were several areas where we either agreed on important items or were very close to agreeing.
It is unfortunate that you have again chosen hostility over reason.
Re: (Score:2)
change of attitude from you
False.
Change you can believe in... FALSE. (Score:1)
My friend:
Are you (here at [slashdot.org]) open (here at [slashdot.org]) to change at [change.gov] in the New Year?
Ciao;
Mr. P. Confirmer
Re: (Score:2)
My friend:
Liar.
Your next sentence is unintelligble. I try to fix thusly:
Are you open to change in the New Year?
No. I do not recognize any "new year" as having significance of any kind, so I cannot say anything about myself that is specific to any new year, other than raw mathematics.
If you had asked, however, whether I am open to change, irrespective of the calendar, then yes, always. I am, not, however, open to giving up more and more liberty in return for more and more government control.
Thankfully, most America
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for your answers. I confirm a light is dawning for me in this new year.
Seeing no questions from you, and being content with your interpretations, I remain
Your friend;
Mr. Confirmer
Power to the People! (Score:2)
Pudge, let me point out one sad fact to you:
The overwhelming majority of governments over the centuries and millenia have been dictatorships.
Some have used religion, i.e. "I am king by the will of God," to justify their ascendancy. Over the millennia various gods have been cited as the root of authority, but the end result is almost always the same: the people at the bottom get little or nothing while those at the top live high on the hog (or goat, if they keep Kosher or hall).
Some use philosophy -- Calling
Re: (Score:2)
The overwhelming majority of governments over the centuries and millenia have been dictatorships.
This has no relevance to anything I said. I am going to skip ahead until I find something relevant to what I said.
Both sides were fighting for freedom: one to free slaves, the other for freedom to own slaves.
Yeah, um, except that you already, yourself, recognized the view that the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins; so there is no legitimate freedom to own slaves. Again you're misrepesenting the view.
Now, if you want to talk about the right to SECEDE, rathe than the right to own slaves, then now you're talking about an interesting dilemma for libertarians. Of course, Lincoln didn'
Re: (Score:1)
Naive, or just blind. Due to your socialism, I can't even capture my own rain water: the government says they own it before it hits the ground. That this should even be a topic of discussion in the first place, that government could possibly consider this as reasonable, shows that I do not even have any claim to rights at all, according to the government. I am here, to them, only to support their system
Wait. What makes you think you own the rain? What gives you the right to reduce someone else's water supply? What gives you the right to reduce the yield of someone else's crops? See, we can go on and on about this, and get nowhere, because your problem with water table conservation, is wrapped up in absolutes, and not just absolutes, but absolutes of how it only effects you, rather than what the actual consequences of actions and policies are on shaping society.
The problem with conservatives, libertar
The problems aren't quite the same... (Score:2)
Libertarianism, though, falls to a different problem. While communism is fairly well defined, libertarianism is almost completely undefined. While many free-market conservatives try to hide behind the veil of "libertarianism", there are also moderate
The gaping hole in the 3rd way (Score:1)
For example, in a software system, a memory manager needs a garbage collector.
That feedback loop was wrecked in 1913 by Amendments 16 & 17, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Act.
A century and $12+T of debt later, here we are. Go figure.