
Jasper wrote:I'd like to give some resistance to the libertarian-ness of the internet tragedy of the commons.
On the other hand the article you link to could be accurately described as totalitarian. It assumes that all of the basic problems humans face could be solved by a state powerful enough to mandate exactly the solutions you think best. If only people could be made to be good- this is just another iteration of that worn-out idea.
Oiacoaic wrote:It certainly explains why right-libertarians inevitably backpedal on the whole 'government non-intervention' thing when it comes to a social cause close to their heart, like gender for example.
Always check the dateduncan wrote:I have to say that I find it pretty funny that hardcore collectivists have started to incorporate elements of public choice theory into their arguments
Jasper wrote:...all governments needs a constant influx of well grounded people with good intentions...
Even if most people decide not to have too many kids, those that do have many kids will dominate society eventually. Even if there is genetic manipulation to prevent these people from existing, if people have the choice not to, again, those people will dominate society eventually if they are allowed that choice. (Of course, they would have to avoid having the genetic manipulation for enough generations.) This is a long term problem, though.(Still making procreation a human right, denies it.)
Dogmatic any? There doesn't seem to be communicated from anything i typed nor from the article here.findinglisp wrote:Only liberty and capitalism, expressed as the free trade among individuals, have demonstrated consistent results of raising the standards of living.
Yeah you always hear from the bad ones. I also said well grounded, and deluded people with good intentions get supported by deluded populace. You think it is better for people not to try improve the situation? You dismiss those people?findinglisp wrote:god save us from the people with "good intentions."
Jasper wrote:Dogmatic any? There doesn't seem to be communicated from anything i typed nor from the article here.findinglisp wrote:Only liberty and capitalism, expressed as the free trade among individuals, have demonstrated consistent results of raising the standards of living.
Neither me nor the article have implied planned economy or such is a good idea. I am all for capitalism, when it works. Are you claiming that regulation of pollution, fishing or advertising on the streets, isn't restriction of liberty for parties involved. Or are you claiming that overfishing wouldn't happen, pollution would decrease itself and advertising on the streets would decrease itself, even without regulation?
And is there even free trading between individuals? It would seem that corporations dominate western economies.
Einstein predicted it(guess though others where before him..), and he does seem positive about socialism. (Got that link from here the video isn't bad either, haven't read the first link there.)
Yeah you always hear from the bad ones. I also said well grounded, and deluded people with good intentions get supported by deluded populace. You think it is better for people not to try improve the situation? You dismiss those people?findinglisp wrote:god save us from the people with "good intentions."
Jasper wrote:Are you claiming that regulation of pollution, fishing or advertising on the streets, isn't restriction of liberty for parties involved. Or are you claiming that overfishing wouldn't happen, pollution would decrease itself and advertising on the streets would decrease itself, even without regulation?
Jasper wrote:And is there even free trading between individuals?
Jasper wrote:You think it is better for people not to try improve the situation?
findinglisp wrote:Only liberty and capitalism, expressed as the free trade among individuals, have demonstrated consistent results of raising the standards of living.
Note the tone though, "individuals expressing themselves by freely trading" vs most of reality; people working for corporations they have no control and possibly no bargaining power over,mostly following it's orders.findinglisp wrote:Sure, there is free trading between individuals. Corporations are simply collections of individuals who come together to run a (generally larger) business. The workers (and even "management" is a "worker") are freely trading their time and energy to the corporation.
Public discussion, democracy, sometimes court. But you definitely never follow any ideas to improve any situation, what if others have different ideas?Paul wrote:For themselves, or for others? What if the others have different ideas?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests