Ars Regendi Simulation Forum

Full Version: libertarian solipsism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
When I speak in favour of cooperativism, I am not saying that people should not at all form communities according to their particular interests (though by itself alone this is still a primitive ignoring of the universe at large). I am saying that libertarian's ideology precludes it. The libertarian ideology only considers others tools for personal material gain, extending the "right" to "others" (i.e., his atomized self externalized and still devoid of society).

The libertarian ideology does not have human relationships, his relationships are vis a vis property. The libertarian ideology does not exist in a society, but in a market, which is an impersonal exchange of money for goods or services, and that is not a society. The libertarian ideology is not a human ideology. It is an ideology of rights for abstracted solipsists who make abstracted exchanges - in thin air, with no one. Except that we do not live in this conceptualized world, and his actions more accurately pull out the rug from under us.

The libertarian has rights for himself - and extends provisions only to his universal self, for a system of would-be clones. He covers up his hoarding with ideological symbols, like a government that cuts off it's soldiers from humanity, foreign and domestic, with the national flag. He does not have provisions for anyone different than himself, and in particular for a fuller human being, and more complete human society, whose first consideration is his relation with others, to the world, not merely individually but also his service thereof, and not simple property.
The libertarian is not able to serve other's needs?

pwnAlot Wrote:
The libertarian is not able to serve other's needs?

Precisely why I'm not a fan of social-darwinism.

That was a rhethorical question that could only be answered with "no" and therefore would make the statements from Khieu obselete, falsified.
The libertarian isn't even interested, or it would be listed as a goal in his ideology rather than a supposed side-effect of greed and hoarding.
He doesn't need to be interested if it's a supposed side effect.

My friend was in the city, I told him to buy kebap. I gave him 5 Euros knowing that this kebap did cost only 3,50 for him. We are both fine with that.
I was greedy - I didn't want to waste 30 minutes and rather do something useful like working my programs.
He was greedy, he wanted the 1,50 Euro.
We both did a service to each other while we both were greedy. If anyone of us wouldn't profit, we wouldn't agree == no exploitation possible.

pwnAlot Wrote:
My friend was in the city, I told him to buy kebap. I gave him 5 Euros knowing that this kebap did cost only 3,50 for him. We are both fine with that.
I was greedy - I didn't want to waste 30 minutes and rather do something useful like working my programs.
He was greedy, he wanted the 1,50 Euro.
We both did a service to each other while we both were greedy. If anyone of us wouldn't profit, we wouldn't agree == no exploitation possible.

So you gave him 1,50 Euro while you made 60-200 on the computer. I see where history is going with this.

pwnAlot Wrote:
We both did a service to each other while we both were greedy. If anyone of us wouldn't profit, we wouldn't agree == no exploitation possible.

If you have two Gordon Geko's doing business with each other, the above statement is true. But when you have Gordon Geko "negotiating" (imposing) terms on poor countries and a population starved by poverty, then you have exploitation.
Btw, have you ever wondered why companies aren't bought up by other companies when they have sound balance sheets? That's because there's no profit to be made, because the other is not running a loss. When equals agree, you have a merger. When a company is going under, you have another company buying it up and liquidating part of it or all of it. The employees get the loss, the new owners get the profits.
But that's how an unjust society works. Profits are privatized and loses are socialized.

pwnAlot Wrote:
He doesn't need to be interested if it's a supposed side effect.

My friend was in the city, I told him to buy kebap. I gave him 5 Euros knowing that this kebap did cost only 3,50 for him. We are both fine with that.
I was greedy - I didn't want to waste 30 minutes and rather do something useful like working my programs.
He was greedy, he wanted the 1,50 Euro.
We both did a service to each other while we both were greedy. If anyone of us wouldn't profit, we wouldn't agree == no exploitation possible.


That's nice.

What is it with libertarianism and IT jobs? At least 90% of the libertarians I know are programmers.

Does working with computers somehow prevent them from understanding that any society's resources are finite and it therefore matters who controls them?

Do they think that "just go grind some boars until you have enough XP to join the Merchant Guild" is actually an option in real life?

Help me understand.

Roger Mexico Wrote:
Does working with computers somehow prevent them from understanding that any society's resources are finite and it therefore matters who controls them?

It sure does matter: The one who can make the most profits out of a resource also are the one who can use it most efficiently.



Quote:
So you gave him 1,50 Euro while you made 60-200 on the computer.

I do not make 60-200 Euro per half an hour.

You really think, if I'd make alot of money that I'm obliged to give it away. This is evil.



Quote:
If you have two Gordon Geko's doing business with each other, the above statement is true. But when you have Gordon Geko "negotiating" (imposing) terms on poor countries and a population starved by poverty, then you have exploitation.

I cannot stand this. You always imply that it would be more moral to "equalize everyone", to steal, because it would be more social and/or more efficient. That's enough.
It's neither more moral (as I define morality - everyone does that for himself) nor more social (equalizing means to take from the middle class nearly all the time as the rich always are to influential on a state - and ALSO on a socialist state - the only possibility would be a bloody civil war like 1917, Russia) nor more efficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage).

Quote:
Btw, have you ever wondered why companies aren't bought up by other companies when they have sound balance sheets? That's because there's no profit to be made, because the other is not running a loss.

So funny:
Enemies of liberterianism/randism/AnCap/liberalism/capitalism/whatever-name-you-got-for-it always cry "but the monopolies!". What you just said is the proof that monopolies are a lie. They only can occur IF they are the most efficient provider for a good on the market. Otherwise they couldn't buy new upcoming competitors as they wouldn't make profits and therefore would go bankrupt if they still try to buy up all competition.
(Monopolies do occur today because of all the fucking state aid)

It is just more profitable to trade with healthy enterprises than to absorb them.

Quote:
The employees get the loss

How? Actually the employees are benefected with secure, high paying jobs if a new entrepeneur is able to renew the production chain and make it profitable.
Otherwise ALL employees would have lost their jobs shortly, not just a few (given that it could occur that sometimes employees are fired after such a takeover).

Quote:
Profits are privatized and loses are socialized.

Oh look, that's what I'm saying in RL all the time. Thank the corporatist state for that, thank Monsanto, Microsoft, Nestle, Bayer, etc. for restricting the market through politics.
And thank the socialist slave mind for accepting that while not understanding it.

Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's