Where do you sit on the Political Compass? (2 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

I guess I'm somewhere around minarchist/classical liberalist.

 

[duckcowhybrid]

So I'm now right wing and less libertarian than before. Interesting, considering I'm all for political freedom.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

So I'm now right wing and less libertarian than before. Interesting, considering I'm all for political freedom.

well if you are all for political freedom you must of agreed with the subtle racist questions

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Sorry it took a while for my reply.

There's a prisoner's dilemma situation applicable within the industry, but not across broader society. If I like widgets the fact that there are two widget makers out there can only be a good thing from my perspective of getting good quality and value for money.

I'll concede this.

Then why are cooperatives not more common?

Because workers don't have the capital to start up a cooperative, and the people with capital don't have an interest in doing so. Furthermore, a worker's cooperative is a concept not widely known. People are conditioned to go to school, achieve good grades then get into a tertiary institution, after which they are supposed to find a well paying job. This is the society we live in.

I'm saying that if there are teachers and such who decide to take a career for reasons other than money, and enjoy that career, then the capitalist system is not as constrictive as you make it out to be. Maybe people choose to be slaves to the new world order.

Capitalism cannot ever hope to have its grip on everybody, as proven by the numerous anti-capitalist organisations and the people that disregard wealth over enjoyment of their work. People do not choose to work under capitalism. Sure, you can decide that you're better off working for somebody than starving, but that's hardly a 'choice' now is it?

On another note, I ask you this: Suppose there was a completely dehydrated and thirsty man, on his knees in the desert. Without an immediate bottle of water, he will die. Another man with a horse, packed with water, finds this destitute, dying man. The man with the water offers the other some water in exchange for everything he has, knowing that the man will accept.

What do you make of this?

 

[funkshen]

Suppose there was a completely dehydrated and thirsty man, on his knees in the desert.

Completely dehydrated desert men are not homo economicus and your hypothetical situation is a complete red herring.

Besides, the value of the water to the man on the horse is probably far less than the benefit he may extract from knowing he's responsible for saving another man's life. Your argument is that of a monopoly supplier and a single consumer which isn't applicable to ~free market economics~.

 

[kfnmpah]

what does this meeeeeeean?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

what does this meeeeeeean?

you like personal freedom however you feel the need to cripple business and ruin the economy.

 

[Lipin]

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

On another note, I ask you this: Suppose there was a completely dehydrated and thirsty man, on his knees in the desert. Without an immediate bottle of water, he will die. Another man with a horse, packed with water, finds this destitute, dying man. The man with the water offers the other some water in exchange for everything he has, knowing that the man will accept.

What do you make of this?

The man with the water has made a perfectly fair deal, and the thirsty man should obviously accept.

It seems unfair, but consider what would happen if we were to have a good Samaritan law that required the man to share his water.

It would encourage more people to be imprudent and bring inadequate supplies into the desert, as they would know that if they ran out, they could rely on the kindness of strangers. Of course, everyone would have these same incentives, so there would be more cases of people stuck without water, and less people with water to help them.

Of course, it may seem unfair, and people may judge the man with the water quite harshly if they find out. Our own good nature, and failing that, shame and social pressure is often enough to encourage us to help other. However, forcing people to do the "right thing" almost always has worse unintended consequences.

Remember, us libertarians aren't against helping people in need. Most of us would say the man with the water should help the thirsty man. We only object to him being compelled to help him by force.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Thanks jen.

Completely dehydrated desert men are not homo economicus and your hypothetical situation is a complete red herring.

Besides, the value of the water to the man on the horse is probably far less than the benefit he may extract from knowing he's responsible for saving another man's life. Your argument is that of a monopoly supplier and a single consumer which isn't applicable to ~free market economics~.

It was an ethical question, I didn't intend to relate it to economics. I'm simply interested in responses to this (and other such dilemmas) and how they correlate with people's political persuasions.

 

[peikoff]

Response to taco's ethical question.

1st approach - The Thirsty man: The dying man should either accept the offer or, if possible, fight the other man and take his water by force. Now, whilst I believe in property rights, they are not absolutes, property rights are a derivative of life being the standard of value. I belive in property rights because they are necessary for mans survival but once property rights interfere DIRECTLY with your IMMEDIATE SURVIVAL, as in the case of the thirsty man, he has no obligation to respect the property rights of the other man. Libertarians (see my sig) confuse the cncept of property rights by thinking they are somehow implied by the very nature of the universe, whilst in reality, they are only necessary and moral to the extent that they serve human life (as they do in a capitalist society)

2nd approach - the man with water: More info is needed, keeping life as the standard of value, are the 2 men stuck and lost in the desert? If so he should provide the thirsty man with water so that they can work together to help themselves. Does he know the thirsty man? If so then he should help him if he knows him to be of reputable character. Is the thirsty man known to be a child rapist or other criminal? If so then he should not help him because by doing so he would be perpetuating evil. Anyway, point is, what the man with resources should do is contingent on the nature and circumstances of the thirsty man.

 

[moll.]

*shakes hand*

 

[kaz1]

you like personal freedom however you feel the need to cripple business and ruin the economy.

No, you care about the worker that is being treated like shit by the corporate fat cats.

 

[moll.]

No, you care about the worker that is being treated like shit by the corporate fat cats.

If the worker didn't want to be treated like shit he'd get leverage over his employers. Namely, he'd improve his human capital.

 

[Debauchee]

No, you care about the worker that is being treated like shit by the corporate fat cats.

you're a moron.

In places like china that have a very un-free market, there aren't many jobs, and as such, people are forced to accept whatever job they can get, which may be a dollar a day very unsafe sort of job.

If they were to have a free market, however, (eventually) there would be an absolute shit load of jobs, so much in fact that employers would be competing for employees, probably to some extent for even unskilled laborers, and so incomes and working conditions would rise, because people will be able to afford to 'shop around' for employment because employers will be offering better wages and conditions in order to lure employees away from other firms.

Economic illiterate statists like you are forever talking about intentions, without ever thinking about the actual consequences. Acting individuals in a free market are all pursuing their own respective self-interests, and this almost always results in greater collective utility.
States and economic systems like socialism will have the intention of helping the poor and making everyone happier, but as has been demonstrated HUNDREDS of times over the past century they always bring about the exact opposite and absolutely destroy standards of living.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

If they were to have a free market, however, (eventually) there would be an absolute shit load of jobs, so much in fact that employers would be competing for employees, probably to some extent for even unskilled laborers, and so incomes and working conditions would rise, because people will be able to afford to 'shop around' for employment because employers will be offering better wages and conditions in order to lure employees away from other firms.

I am afraid sir that you are deluded. What you are over-emphasising here is that the owners of the means of production compete with one another to an extent where they will allow workers increased power. Unemployment exists because the capitalist class benefits from it by ensuring a compliant and servile working class. The reality of the situation is that in any capitalist society of any level of market restriction, free or government restricted, there need to be people to take orders and produce, and there need to be people to profit from the labour of their employees *cough* wage-slaves *cough*. Now, those capitalists are not going to suddenly start giving more benefits and higher wages to their employees in the absence of government restriction. If anything, the situation of the worker will be worsened without the minimal protection government provides. Ostensibly, worker conditions will rise under free market capitalism - which is an absolute farce. Capitalists will not empower their workers by increasing their wages.

Economic illiterate statists like you are forever talking about intentions, without ever thinking about the actual consequences. Acting individuals in a free market are all pursuing their own respective self-interests, and this almost always results in greater collective utility.

Based on what? What free market capitalist system are you basing these ludicrous claims on? There are no such systems.

States and economic systems like socialism will have the intention of helping the poor and making everyone happier, but as has been demonstrated HUNDREDS of times over the past century they always bring about the exact opposite and absolutely destroy standards of living.

The State does not exist to help the poor. The State exists to protect the interests of the upper class in the nation it governs. Pure, stateless socialism has never existed. The only socialism that has existed is State socialism, which I would agree is largely futile. Socialist Cuba has a higher life expectancy for its citizens than the capitalist United States, thanks to free universal health care. Statism aside, Anarcho-Syndicalism was strong in the Spanish Civil War, with production increasing, particularly in agriculture, and without the need for authoritarian or hierarchical constraints.

Despite the claims of 'Anarcho'-Capitalists, or Libertarian free market capitalists, social equality cannot be achieved under the exploitative nature of the capitalist system.

 

[SylviaB]

bahaha taco you're fuckin nuts


seriously though America's comparatively low life expectancy has nothing to do with healthcare. Americans are far more likely to die from accidental death than most places, and when you take these factors into account it actually has a rather high life expectancy

 

[zstar]

you're a moron.

In places like china that have a very un-free market, there aren't many jobs, and as such, people are forced to accept whatever job they can get, which may be a dollar a day very unsafe sort of job.

If they were to have a free market, however, (eventually) there would be an absolute shit load of jobs, so much in fact that employers would be competing for employees, probably to some extent for even unskilled laborers, and so incomes and working conditions would rise, because people will be able to afford to 'shop around' for employment because employers will be offering better wages and conditions in order to lure employees away from other firms.

Economic illiterate statists like you are forever talking about intentions, without ever thinking about the actual consequences. Acting individuals in a free market are all pursuing their own respective self-interests, and this almost always results in greater collective utility.
States and economic systems like socialism will have the intention of helping the poor and making everyone happier, but as has been demonstrated HUNDREDS of times over the past century they always bring about the exact opposite and absolutely destroy standards of living.

China's problem isn't a lack of jobs in fact there has been a reported labor shortage.

YouTube - China's cheap labour dries up

China's problem is a lack of HIGH PAYING jobs.

 

[SylviaB]

That kind of proves what he was saying.
China has been freeing up its markets in recent times (still not remotely a completely free market though obviously) and as such they have seen growth, and with that an increase in jobs. Shortages in labour have been the result of government interference i.e. not having a free market.

And as more jobs have become available, incomes have increased and as the video said, "enterprises are now competing with each other for workers" and workers can "afford to be choosy" in terms of employment options.

 

[Elliot220]

Represent'n teh authoritarian right?