Libertarianism - the perpetual motion machine of U.S. politics thread

[YoungGriff89]

So, what is the actual complaint, here?

I also think you're shifting the context of the story. In the beginning, you didn't say that I have enough capital to monopolize the real estate market at a location. You told me that there are rental properties that are renting to tourists who would pay a rate that is higher than what local residents could afford, and that this creates a problem because the people who work in this area all have to live further out and drive in to work.

Your original point was that if a price is too high then it would inevitably have to lower, I used a real world example to show that that idea isn't really a definite because somebody will pay whatever you're asking regardless of what would actually be best for a majority. In context, if someone is a property owner already who artificially inflates the price beyond what's locally sustainable and outsources the cost (catering to tourists for example) and it works then their status as a property owner gave them that ability to not necessarily monopolize but lower a flood gate allowing others to inflate prices too. Which disadvantages those who don't own property. The end result is money, and the property owners making the money don't have an incentive to help the working class, who is going to?

But I never even mentioned the other point which is, "unreasonable" doesn't have to be an astronomical amount of money. 2 billion a month on a two bedroom in Illinois is unreasonable. So is $850 for a one bedroom plus a $600 application fee and $850 deposit, in a location where the best wage you could hope for is $13.00 an hour. And that's after ten years of experience with the company. But does the location go out of business? No. Does the price inevitably drop? No.

But where I might be totally wrong here is assuming libertarianism would mean: believing in a market free enough from regulation for this scenario to not only play out, but encourage this scenario to play out since a small number of people can make a lot of money. Sounds like if that assumption is correct libertarianism (at least from the fiscal pov) sucks for you if you're not already rich or at the bare minimum own property.

[Alarich]

But I never even mentioned the other point which is, "unreasonable" doesn't have to be an astronomical amount of money. 2 billion a month on a two bedroom in Illinois is unreasonable. So is $850 for a one bedroom plus a $600 application fee and $850 deposit, in a location where the best wage you could hope for is $13.00 an hour. And that's after ten years of experience with the company. But does the location go out of business? No. Does the price inevitably drop? No.

Well, there you go with your crude homo sapiens way of thinking in territorial terms. My job, my appartment, my prices, foreingers go away. The new and improved species of homo oeconomicus would in your position just accept it as a given fact, that enough other homo oeconomicus with different cost/benefit functions for housing have invaded his geographical spot and thus moved the local market balance away from his own cost/benefit function for housing. He would then simply get another job and/or place to live, thus choosing a new perfect geographical position where his individual cost/benefit functions for labor and housing meet the market balance. Unless killing enough of the invaders to move the market balance back to its original spot is more cost efficient than relocating. In any case, he has the option of moving, whereas the housing doesn't. Which makes it hard for the landlord to maintain a price beyond the natural equillibrium of supply and demand.

[YoungGriff89]

Well, there you go with your crude homo sapiens way of thinking in territorial terms. My job, my appartment, my prices, foreingers go away. The new and improved species of homo oeconomicus would in your position just accept it as a given fact, that enough other homo oeconomicus with different cost/benefit functions for housing have invaded his geographical spot and thus moved the local market balance away from his own cost/benefit function for housing. He would then simply get another job and/or place to live, thus choosing a new perfect geographical position where his individual cost/benefit functions for labor and housing meet the market balance. Unless killing enough of the invaders to move the market balance back to its original spot is more cost efficient than relocating. In any case, he has the option of moving, whereas the housing doesn't. Which makes it hard for the landlord to maintain a price beyond the natural equillibrium of supply and demand.

Ah yes, the old "don't like it? Then get out" argument.

[Alarich]

Only slightly better than the old "I don't like you, stay out" argument :-p

[BloodRider]

This is illustrated by Bloodrider admitting that he's basically lumping all of us under the An-Cap umbrella. Anyone who has confessed to just being "libertarian-leaning" in this thread, rather than LIBERTARIAN, has been told that they have nothing to contribute.

Well that's just a bold faced lie. To whit I never claimed that he had nothing to contribute, just that a discussion of his or anyone's particular point of view as it diverges from what is made public by the movers and shakers in the Bert world is off topic. I then invited him or anyone to show me where our assessment of mainstream libertarianism was wrong.

Since it happens ALL THE TIME in a discussion of libertarianism (big or little l) it really appears to be an attempt to derail the discussion in order to avoid asking the hard questions. It's like you don't really want to have a conversation about your core beliefs, Without any touchstone, I can claim that I have "libertarian-leanings" and therefore all that I have said about Libertarianism is just as valid as the ideas Scott or you have put forth. But fer realz, there HAS to be something that allows you to be part of this category, unless the whole thing is a "false karass" to get donations and PAC money.

So maybe I'll try with you. What are, in your opinion, the main tenants of Libertarianism. And how do you differ from those, and why?

[Commodore]

As a property owner, I am here to make a profit, not to provide affordable housing to people who work full-time.

This is a mischaracterization of libertarianism.

Libertarianism has nothing to say about how you dispense with your property, but rather only that the choice should be yours.

You've violated Daniel Dennet's first rule of criticism

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

• You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way."
• You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
• You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
• Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

[Crom Dubh]

Commodore, if those rules are important (and not just something arbitrary you picked up off the internet) how come you never use them yourself?

Also, how come we never discuss libertarian socialism? It''s a thing, there's a wikipedia article and everything!

[Suttree]

You've violated Daniel Dennet's first rule of criticism

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/

You violate pretty much every one on a daily basis(#3 especially as you never acknowledge when statements you make are unequivocally shown to be false) so I'm not clear where you're taking this?

[Kalbear]

See, Commodore is playing Terra and Terra is playing Commodore. It's a crazy cat eat dog world!

[The Marquis de Leech]

Also, how come we never discuss libertarian socialism? It''s a thing, there's a wikipedia article and everything!

Not to mention that libertarian socialism is significantly older than libertarian capitalism.

[The Fallen]

See, Commodore is playing Terra and Terra is playing Commodore. It's a crazy cat eat dog world!

I was unnerved when I noticed that. Hopefully, it's not permanent.

[TerraPrime]

Commodore:

You're right that Libertarianism itself doesn't mandate that the endeavors be for-profit, and that a property owner who wishes to engage in charitable contribution to his community may do so without running afoul of Libertarian ideals.

However, in this case, it is clearly not the example, because otherwise, the owners that YoungGriff was complaining about would have already offered affordable housing to the local populace. So, in extending the example being discussed, I applied the demonstrated motive of one actor in the Libertarian framework. If the question of "how could you morally justify renting a property at a rate that a family working minimum wage jobs cannot afford," the Libertarian response is "I have no moral obligation to offer affordable housing to you out of my own money. I may, if I want to be charitable, but I recognize no externally imposed obligations and I reject the use of laws and taxation to take my money to provide affordable housing to others."

I think that's an accurate and fair presentation of the Libertarian way of thinking.

[Commodore]

the Libertarian response is "I have no moral legal obligation to offer affordable housing to you out of my own money. I may, if I want to be charitable, but I recognize no externally imposed obligations and I reject the use of laws and taxation to take my money to provide affordable housing to others."

fixed

a libertarian might believe such a moral obligation exists

but there are noncoercive means of applying external pressure

[TerraPrime]

fixed

a libertarian might believe such a moral obligation exists

but there are noncoercive means of applying external pressure

Once again, I phrased it as such because in the scenarior provided, the landlord obviously did NOT feel morally obligated to offer charitable housing options.

Good grief.

[Commodore]

Once again, I phrased it as such because in the scenarior provided, the landlord obviously did NOT feel morally obligated to offer charitable housing options.

but that's not a description of a libertarian (who may feel morally obligated)

[TerraPrime]

but that's not a description of a libertarian (who may feel morally obligated)

Which I already addressed and articulated:

Commodore:

You're right that Libertarianism itself doesn't mandate that the endeavors be for-profit, and that a property owner who wishes to engage in charitable contribution to his community may do so without running afoul of Libertarian ideals.

So you just felt like reiterating what I just said?

[ants]

Well, if we want to pull this back into line with some of the discussions that have arisen in the politics thread, and a little out of the realm of philosophy, then we can discuss topics such as the ones below. I believe libertarians would be against all these positions:

• Forced minimum wages
  
• Allowing positive discrimination
  
• Forcing businesses to sell to anyone
  
• Forcing pollution, labelling, food and other standards on people, and anti-discrimination laws
  
• Forcing labour standards
  
• Criminalisation of drugs
  
• Criminalisation of prostitution
  
• Forced wearing of seat belts and other safety standards in cars and the work place
  
• Allowing "hate" crimes
  
• Allowing police forces to enter homes willy nilly with force, shooting people willy nilly, searching people with limited/no evidence, profiling to search flight travellers, etc.
  
• Intervening/meddling in other countries except in very limited circumstances (e.g. they attack the USA)
  
• Government spying on its own citizens
  
• Restrictions on the private right to bear arms
  

It was mentioned earlier on whether we should be talking about how libertarian thinking could influence the current real world. The above are (I think/believe) areas that libertarians would like to change. Some of them, if the Republicans took all three parts of government very well might change. Others are less likely. Some haven't changed even in Republican controlled states - although some of those clash with other areas of the Republican big tent.

Some of those have caused a lot of big arguments in the politics threads. And some have broad agreement from parts of the left.

[Commodore]

agree with all of those except pollution standards

as they exist today they are too restrictive and not localized enough, but not incompatible with a libertarian "protect individuals from harming each other" ethos

[ants]

agree with all of those except pollution standards

as they exist today they are too restrictive and not localized enough, but not incompatible with a libertarian "protect individuals from harming each other" ethos

Oh? I thought libertarians were against regulation and all for seeking damages afterwards, and didn't believe externalities should be regulated. What is the (generally accepted) position?

[Commodore]

Oh? I thought libertarians were against regulation and all for seeking damages afterwards, and didn't believe externalities should be regulated. What is the (generally accepted) position?

The externality would need to demonstrate physical harm to person/property (the minimum threshold of harm to justify regulation being up for debate)