Libertarianism as the Handmaiden to Socialism

[Aldarion]

That's not what rational means in the context of economics. Economists do not typically look at Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and think: "Hmm, yeah this is a good behavioral framework to base our theories of society on."

In economic theory "rational" simply means that if people want something, they will try to obtain that something. If that something costs more than to get than they are willing to pay, they will not get it, but if the price is lower than they are willing to pay, they will do so. Most humans will exhibit this sort of behavior to enough of a degree to make economic theory work.

Does it take into account the fact that:
1) things which people want to obtain might be ideas, and not physical things (or something that can be bought)?
2) people might insist on having said something without giving anything in return?

If it does not, then it is unrealistic.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Does it take into account the fact that:
1) things which people want to obtain might be ideas, and not physical things (or something that can be bought)?
2) people might insist on having said something without giving anything in return?

If it does not, then it is unrealistic.

Yes, of course, to both. Economics covers the exchange of goods and services, with ideas being a thing that is commonly bought and sold. One of the services normally sought by most humans is security/protection from being robbed or enslaved.

As far as "This specific Libertarian Theory" covers it, the more extremist versions tend to do a poor job of explaining how police and military protection would work. The more reasonable/moderate ones generally acknowledge the existence of Public Goods (Non-Rivalrous, Non-Excludable) which are difficult to impossible for anything that isn't a government to handle. This is the "Commons," the Tragedy of which is a classic economic problem that Libertarianism generally has great trouble solving without admitting that, okay, you generally need some government.

Hence my classifying myself as a lapsed libertarian, or perhaps more accurately a practical anarchist who wants a small government but acknowledges that the smallest government that can still do it's job can be pretty big in the modern day.

 

[JagerIV]

Eh, the seriousness of pro freedomness of the current Libertarian party is, questionable. They're much more a tool of pro leftism and anti rightism.

This is much more of a thread, at least initially, trying to look at what a thing actually is, rather than what it claims to be. If we went by that, communism is about freedom and liberation. Nominally, Libertarians and Marxists want the same thing, and buy very similar moral percepts. In reality, the communist anarchist who yells for freedom is working to implement as authoritiarian as possible and as big as possible state.

And primarily, liberals make way for socialists to take over. Because libertarianism is much more than "don't be an asshole". As have been pointed out, "don't do bad things" is not some unique libertarian principle. Christianity and Confucius stated similar, (though practically maybe quite different principles, since it allows quite a bit of aggression against people "if they would want it") several thousand years ago. This makes Libertarianism sound like its the same thing as has existed for the last 2,000 years, which I think even most libertarian's would not say they were a major philosophical/metaphysical force for that long.

To take the non-aggression principle on the larger state level, at the very surface level a governmental NAP sounds very similar to Just War theory, where War is nominally a last resort that should only be resorted to in dire circumstances. However, the devil is in the details.

At least by the wiki explanation or Roman Just War theory, it was very much in line with the Libertarian ideal:

"In ancient Rome, a "just cause" for war might include the necessity of repelling an invasion, or retaliation for pillaging or a breach of treaty.[11] War was always potentially nefas ("wrong, forbidden"), and risked religious pollution and divine disfavor.[12] A "just war" (bellum iustum) thus required a ritualized declaration by the fetial priests.[13] More broadly, conventions of war and treaty-making were part of the ius gentium, the "law of nations", the customary moral obligations regarded as innate and universal to human beings."

However, I don't think many libertarians would look to the Romans as pillars of Libertarian international philosophy, non-aggressively self defending themselves into a world empire. Thus, while the NAP might be held up as a pillar, I fear it may say so little that other philosophies need to be drawn on. It might not be by necessity utilitarianism, but in practice it might draw very heavily on utilitarian ideas to fill in gaps and build up the details that distinguish libertarianism as it exists in the real world.

Just as the post Modernists don't necessarily have to be Marxists, but post modernism says so little that when they need to say something at all, and from historical accidents, a post modernist is also almost invariably going to be some sort of Marxist.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I find the NAP to be a bit like the Jedi Code, in that both are extremely short and clearly insufficient for the conclusions people derive out of them.

There is no emotion, there is peace.There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.There is no passion, there is serenity.There is no chaos, there is harmony.There is no death, there is the Force.

Somehow the Jedi manage to get "You aren't allowed to get married" out of that.

The more hardcore, less sane Libertarians are able to get "We don't actually need any regulations to prevent another Triangle Shirtwaist Tragedy, it will just not happen like it has repeatedly in the past for... reasons" out of "Don't hurt people or steal their stuff."

My theory on the issue with the actual party is that Libertarianism, as a political movement, is stupidly easy to steer towards "whatever gets money for the current leaders" rather than the good of the party, much less the good of the nation. All movements are vulnerable to this, of course. However, as they disfavor controls, regulation, and checks and balances; and because they tend to lack an overall moral imperative beyond the extremely broad and interpretation-prone NAP; Libertarians are more vulnerable to it than, say, the Amish.

Socialists, incidentally, tend to be vulnerable to it for the exact same reason as their moral backbone is the equally broad and interpretation-prone "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." This means they can be casually co-opted by outsiders in the exact same way. Hence while I don't find that the two actually have any common ground, they can wind up looking like it easily because their respective leaders are being bribed by the same outsider to do the same thing.

 

[Aldarion]

Hence my classifying myself as a lapsed libertarian, or perhaps more accurately a practical anarchist who wants a small government but acknowledges that the smallest government that can still do it's job can be pretty big in the modern day.

And that is something we agree on. However, I also believe that relations between humans have to be regulated for a society to work.

So yes, libertarianism actually promotes socialism. If you start getting rid of tradition in the name of freedom, you will get arbitrary regulation (a.k.a. laws) take its place. Absolute freedom is a road into slavery. Which is why I am a traditionalist, and not a libertarian, even though I do believe that less government is generally better.

 

[Abhorsen]

This is much more of a thread, at least initially, trying to look at what a thing actually is, rather than what it claims to be. If we went by that, communism is about freedom and liberation.

Communism doesn't advertise freedom, it advertises equality.

Nominally, Libertarians and Marxists want the same thing, and buy very similar moral percepts.

No, they really don't. Libertarians want personal freedom. Marxists want equality. They don't promise freedom. Marxists admit this (from an old post of mine):

In 1981, Heilbroner (a socialist) wrote "What is Socialism" in the Democratic Socialist magazine Dissent. Here's the key passage:

Nor can we wriggle off this hook by asserting that, among its moral commitments, socialism will choose to include the rights of individuals to their Millian liberties. For that celebration of individualism is directly opposed to the basic socialist commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal. Perhaps we get a sense of the tensions that are likely to trouble socialist society when we reflect on the difficulty with which democratic bourgeois society copes with those ideas or activities that threaten the democratic process itself. But under socialism, every dissenting voice raises a threat similar to that raised under a democracy by those who preach antidemocracy. Because socialist society aspires to be a good society, all its decisions and opinions are inescapably invested with moral import. Every disagreement with them, every argument for alternative policies, every nay-saying voice therefore raises into question the moral validity of the existing government, not merely its competence in directing activities that have no particular moral significance. Dissents and disagreements thereby smack of heresy in a manner lacking from societies in which expediency and not morality rules the roost.

There cannot be free speech in a socialist country.

Socialism is fundamentally incompatible with freedom.

However, I don't think many libertarians would look to the Romans as pillars of Libertarian international philosophy, non-aggressively self defending themselves into a world empire. Thus, while the NAP might be held up as a pillar, I fear it may say so little that other philosophies need to be drawn on. It might not be by necessity utilitarianism, but in practice it might draw very heavily on utilitarian ideas to fill in gaps and build up the details that distinguish libertarianism as it exists in the real world.

This is also wrong. Other philosophies like the idea of not harming another, but don't actually follow through on it's conclusions. And yes, it's conclusions are many, such as the state acting is usually violence, as that is the end result of resisting.

I find the NAP to be a bit like the Jedi Code, in that both are extremely short and clearly insufficient for the conclusions people derive out of them.

There is no emotion, there is peace.There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.There is no passion, there is serenity.There is no chaos, there is harmony.There is no death, there is the Force.

Somehow the Jedi manage to get "You aren't allowed to get married" out of that.

No, the conclusions are pretty easy to follow for libertarians. It doesn't take many steps to get to "Then the government will come and shoot you" from what happens if you say no repeatedly. That's clearly violence.

The more hardcore, less sane Libertarians are able to get "We don't actually need any regulations to prevent another Triangle Shirtwaist Tragedy, it will just not happen like it has repeatedly in the past for... reasons" out of "Don't hurt people or steal their stuff."

Now in fairness, I do support some limits on the NAP as a practical matter, for things like this, though this could probably be solved by non-governmental regulation by a regulation industry. This includes things like companies bragging that they were voted best to work in, meeting certain standards, etc.

So yes, libertarianism actually promotes socialism. If you start getting rid of tradition in the name of freedom, you will get arbitrary regulation (a.k.a. laws) take its place. Absolute freedom is a road into slavery. Which is why I am a traditionalist, and not a libertarian, even though I do believe that less government is generally better.

And another wrong thing. Libertarianism in no way demands getting rid of tradition. It just says government shouldn't enforce it. You can actually have more tradition in a libertarian society than you could now as all the schools would be private.


Finally, as a general point, all (or at least almost all, I can't think of a counter example) socialist countries were previously totalitarian, not democracies, much less capitalist ones. Moreover, socialists rarely demonstrate for anytype of freedom. In contrast, through cancel culture they are constantly trying to crack down on it. The only reason they are sticking to doing it via public shame is that they can't do it by law in the US because of liberal values like freedom of speech. If we look at other countries, even in Europe, we can see leftists using the cover of law to prosecute those they dislike (like Dankula).

 

[Bear Ribs]

No, the conclusions are pretty easy to follow for libertarians. It doesn't take many steps to get to "Then the government will come and shoot you" from what happens if you say no repeatedly. That's clearly violence.

The issue here is that Lord Humongous will also shoot you and probably the first time you say no, so cutting back government beyond a set amount only makes things worse.

Now in fairness, I do support some limits on the NAP as a practical matter, for things like this, though this could probably be solved by non-governmental regulation by a regulation industry. This includes things like companies bragging that they were voted best to work in, meeting certain standards, etc.

For what it's worth I consider you one of the more sane Libertarians.

This issue with this kind of non-governmental regulation industry is we have to ask, why has it never existed before unless forced on businesses by a government? How come it failed to materialize during the Gilded Age? If tech wasn't advanced enough then how come they didn't appear in China's modern sweatshops? If modern tech also isn't enough why can we expect that future tech will just happen to work out to produce it instead of the opposite?

The utterly horrifying effects and history of Phossy Jaw show us the failure of that kind of thinking. Every standard Libertarian answer to the question was tried and they all failed. It was known for a very long time that producing matches using white phosphorus would have absolutely horrible effects on the workers, yet companies did so anyway. The Salvation Army did it's utmost to produce a non-governmental regulation to try to push back against white phosphorus matches but companies kept making the white phosphorus matches. The London Match Girls tried to strike in 1888 against the plague that was killing them in an incredibly gruesome manner and even got the factory to start instituting safety measures in cooperation. But... then those safety measures cost money, the factory was unable to compete with factories that still killed their employees, and the safe match factory closed entirely and companies turned to child labor because destroying teenage girl's faces and brains wasn't already horrible enough.

Non-government agencies couldn't solve it, private charities couldn't solve it, the workers couldn't solve it, the factory owners couldn't solve it, even workers and factory owners working together couldn't solve it. All the standard Libertarian answers were tried and failed, over and over. Then governments finally took action, in 1908 the house of commons banned white phosphorus matches, and the problem that non-government agencies had failed to fix for decades was solved in a day by government regulation.

Every time we see minimal business regulation, horrifying sweatshops spring up like mushrooms on a cow pie. Saying that some NGO will magically appear and fix it ignores history just as much as Socialists insisting that real Socialism has never been tried but their plan will totally succeed and produce a worker's paradise.

 

[JagerIV]

Hm, speaking of the Jedi code, I think there was something like this we saw play out when Sagon, not sure how seriously, defended the Sith, looking just at the doctrines of the two mostly and declaring the Sith not bad.

This I think might be called something like axiomic philosophy, philosophying from principles.

Vee made a counter video that Sargon was speaking nonsense because he was ignoring the actual nature of the force, and thus the radically different outcomes between trying to move in harmony with the force like the Jedi vs bending the force to your will.

Plus, well, the "historical" record showing what the "natural philosophy" on the nature of the force would theorize, that you can't use the "dark side" to positive ends.

Thus, to get the Jedi you need a play off between the axioms of the philosophy and the natural philosophy/science of what the force actually is. Which, naturally, is something hard to actually pin down: the light side and dark side are "real", but is the force light and dark side mere corruption, or are they equal and opposites? Prequel Jedi certainly seemed to believe the light was balance, while the dark was the sign of imbalance, while later stories seem to follow a much more yin yang view of the two.

We seem right now to be having a similar disucion, except instead of discussing the force, where arguing about human nature, specifically what exactly the libertarian conception of human nature is.

@Abhorsen , you seem to be more or less claiming that libertarians are making no particular claims to human nature, either how it is or should be. This may even be true.

However, as much time as one may spend in the land of spherical cows, practical Jedi ing eventually requires a Jedi order to deal with the practical issues of how the force actually works and the nature of what duty the order is trying to play.

And, no attachments serves several practical benefits while being in harmony with the philosophy. It frees up more time to train, since after all gaining power though the light side is a long, slow process. It limits a major vector for strong emotions to corrupt to the Jedi to darkness. I mean how many people are driven to a dark place by marriage or child problems when there isn't a force thats gonna directly feed off and renforce that darkness?

And finally, to fulfill their role as mediator and protector of the republic, being celibrate without strong attachments outside the order improves the credibility of the Order as neutral arbiter of disputes, and helps avoid dynastic struggles within the oder itself.

Like imagine anikin with his existing relationships in normal peace time. If they found out he was sleeping with a princess of naboo and was good friends with the chancellor, who could reasonably trust him to be a neutral arbiter in any dispute between bamboo and anyone else, or a complaint about the Republic in general?

It would undermine the entire reputation of the order and the ability to mediate to people's satisfaction.

Thus, given the nature of the force itself and practical issues of what the Jedi Order was trying to do/be, no attatchments makes sense.

Likewise, practical libertarianism I think has to make some claims about what human nature is. Oftentimes, looking at mainstream liberalism/libertarianism, I suspect that for lack of saying anything definate, what libertarian uses more or less by default is, if not explicit blank slate, then near practical blank slateism, mixed with what is implied by homo economicus, though I understand why no libertarian would self identify with a term thats basically a slur.

I posit this a little bit by comparing mainstream liberalism to Hopper libertarianism. Hopper I believe makes some definitely not mainstream liberal assumptions about human nature, and they produce a very different conception of what an ideal liberal state looks like.

 

[Abhorsen]

The issue here is that Lord Humongous will also shoot you and probably the first time you say no, so cutting back government beyond a set amount only makes things worse.

Oh, totally. That's why I'm morally an Ancap, but not practically.

This issue with this kind of non-governmental regulation industry is we have to ask, why has it never existed before unless forced on businesses by a government? How come it failed to materialize during the Gilded Age? If tech wasn't advanced enough then how come they didn't appear in China's modern sweatshops? If modern tech also isn't enough why can we expect that future tech will just happen to work out to produce it instead of the opposite?

No, it exists a lot. Most worker certification programs, Fair Trade certification, cage free certification, kosher certification, etc, all exists because people care how things are made, not from government intervention, because these certifications raise the price that the product or worker can command.

Non-government agencies couldn't solve it, private charities couldn't solve it, the workers couldn't solve it, the factory owners couldn't solve it, even workers and factory owners working together couldn't solve it. All the standard Libertarian answers were tried and failed, over and over. Then governments finally took action, in 1908 the house of commons banned white phosphorus matches, and the problem that non-government agencies had failed to fix for decades was solved in a day by government regulation.

What should have solved it would be suing the factories that did it without informing their workers. But yeah, I support a

Likewise, practical libertarianism I think has to make some claims about what human nature is. Oftentimes, looking at mainstream liberalism/libertarianism, I suspect that for lack of saying anything definate, what libertarian uses more or less by default is, if not explicit blank slate, then near practical blank slateism, mixed with what is implied by homo economicus, though I understand why no libertarian would self identify with a term thats basically a slur.

I posit this a little bit by comparing mainstream liberalism to Hopper libertarianism. Hopper I believe makes some definitely not mainstream liberal assumptions about human nature, and they produce a very different conception of what an ideal liberal state looks like.

No, it doesn't. The blank slate assumption is never made by libertarians. Why would we assume this? People are inherently different. They want to do different things, and they are capable of different things, with some less capable than others. The only equality is before the law.

Second, again, more misunderstanding of homo economicus. Know what? give me a definition of what it means in your own words. Because its not a slur, it's a few basic assumptions about human nature that are generally true (not always, it's a model).

Also, you seem to keep making a number of assertations about how you think libertarians view the world, and none of it is accurate. My guess is that you are going by videos, that from your short summary, are full of shit, which should be obvious from not listing the libertarian argument from the NAP, nor one originating with private property. Also, if he thinks freedom is something socialism advocates for, he's even dumber. Socialists will tell you that freedom isn't what they promise, it's equality.

 

[JagerIV]

Are Reason.com and Milton Freedman not real libertarians at this point?

Edit
What about you and the libertarian party? Rember, your one of the libertarians that being a handmaiden to socialism reminded me of.

Edit edit

Remember I did train in economics under an Austrian economics libertarian teacher who handed out copy of altas shrugged every year for free. I've been quite immersed in libertarianism.

I'm so one who's fallen from being in the choir of libertarianism to a deep sketism of the program. Not someone who's always hated it.

 

[Aldarion]

And another wrong thing. Libertarianism in no way demands getting rid of tradition. It just says government shouldn't enforce it. You can actually have more tradition in a libertarian society than you could now as all the schools would be private.

Extreme forms of libertarianism advocate for open borders - for migration, not just for trade. Which is a very good way of destroying tradition and commonality, and thus ushering in governmental regulation. At that point, libertarianism becomes a basically leftist ideology.

 

[JagerIV]

@Abhorsen , well, let's look at specific policies. Why was segregation bad? If the black is different than the white, why should the black not be treated differently from the white?

Are you pro universal sufferage? Why? Doesnt universal voting allow everyone to agreed on everyone else? How is that in line with the NAP? And if people are different, once again why are we trying to treat different things the same?

And, what moral basis grants the other states moral authority to agress against the southern states?

Does your libertarianism allow for third parties to agress on behalf of someone agressed on? How is this different from any other state or Christian just war theory? Or communist wars of liberation?

The NAP obviously doesnt really explain libertarianism, especially as it manifests in the world. And thats perfectly fine. Lies we tell to children are perfectly useful and fine. The NAP gives one a good sense of the general thrust and feel of what Libertarianism is aiming for, just as the 10 commandments gives one a good sense of the general thrust of christianity, even if delving into subtler and nuances and other topics makes some not quite true or as overall important.

There's obviously way more to christianity than the 10 commandments, with all the other books of the bible and literally 1,000s of years of texts and traditions being drawn from, some even non Christian like Plato and Aristotle.

Likewise, there's way more to libertarianism than the NAP, some the tradition like I believe Rand having very little kind to say on it. And herrasys do always abound.

I believe it was Hayek himself who said something to the effect that "liberalism today is woefully ill prepared to fight socialism, as so many socialist ideas have already been smuggled into the thinking of the common liberal". Paraphrased from memory. And that's probably back in the 40s!

I'm quite open to the idea that many liberals were just corrupted tricked into it, that they simply had no special defense. It could be just an accident of faith that liberalism if very power at destroying right wing power, yet totally helpless against left wing power.

 

[Abhorsen]

@Abhorsen , well, let's look at specific policies. Why was segregation bad? If the black is different than the white, why should the black not be treated differently from the white?

Segregation, as a legal policy, is bad because it violates the property rights (and thus the NAP) of the business owner, as they have no choice but to segregate. Other segregation was done under threat by the Klan. But if a business wants to segregate, I think it's wrong (you can have morality on top of libertarianism, that's one of the features) and stupid, but the government shouldn't interfere, as that would also be wrong. But that's theoretical. As a practical matter, one could argue that getting rid of segregation was necessary to maintain social cohesion as a nation. Obviously, this view violates the NAP, but a divided nation might fall, and then we'd lose the most NAP following country, so maximising NAP following might occasionally, but rarely, be achieved by such means.

Are you pro universal sufferage? Why? Doesnt universal voting allow everyone to agreed on everyone else? How is that in line with the NAP? And if people are different, once again why are we trying to treat different things the same?

In a perfect world, no one gets to vote, as almost all voting for governments is aggression (voting for laws is usually violating propoerty rights, or you are voting for people who will create laws, which is iffier). But that's utopian thinking. Now in practice, we need to have voting because democracies mean that people have a stake in the country and don't rebel. Peaceful transfer of power means almost no rebelling (as voting is easier) means less NAP violations. As for universal suffrage, denying rights to divides the country and encourages rebellion, so don't have those.

And, what moral basis grants the other states moral authority to agress against the southern states?

Mass slavery is a huge violation of the NAP, and also it was self defense as the South attacked first. Now I do believe in a right to secede, but honestly the North would have a right to invade an independent south because slavery is so evil (i.e. violates the NAP).

Does your libertarianism allow for third parties to agress on behalf of someone agressed on? How is this different from any other state or Christian just war theory? Or communist wars of liberation?

Yes. It's different from other states because it's applied at the individual level as well. As for communism's wars, the same reason they don't satisfy the just war theory: the end result is slavery.

Likewise, there's way more to libertarianism than the NAP, some the tradition like I believe Rand having very little kind to say on it. And herrasys do always abound.

As a theoretical matter, there isn't, as I just showed. One can add on additional morality if they feel like it as long as it doesn't inform coercive laws or used for coercion, but that makes it not libertarianism anymore but a certain flavor of it, like Christian morality + libertarianism becomes Christian Libertarianism. But vanilla libertarianism does exist.

Now, as a practical matter of getting a functioning government, obviously most don't go full AnCap (read: fully following the NAP), but the goal is still maximal possible NAP following, libertarians just disagree what the minimal possible viable state is. That's not an moral difference though, that's a practical difference.

The NAP obviously doesnt really explain libertarianism, especially as it manifests in the world. And thats perfectly fine. Lies we tell to children are perfectly useful and fine. The NAP gives one a good sense of the general thrust and feel of what Libertarianism is aiming for, just as the 10 commandments gives one a good sense of the general thrust of christianity, even if delving into subtler and nuances and other topics makes some not quite true or as overall important.

And so, no, It completely does explain Libertarianism from a moral/theoretical perspective. From a practical matter, though, there are some differences.

I believe it was Hayek himself who said something to the effect that "liberalism today is woefully ill prepared to fight socialism, as so many socialist ideas have already been smuggled into the thinking of the common liberal". Paraphrased from memory. And that's probably back in the 40s!

That's liberalism, not libertarianism. The difference is that things like a welfare state were smuggled into liberalism.

I'm quite open to the idea that many liberals were just corrupted tricked into it, that they simply had no special defense. It could be just an accident of faith that liberalism if very power at destroying right wing power, yet totally helpless against left wing power.

I'm not debating liberalism, though liberalism once was pretty close with libertarianism.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Oh, totally. That's why I'm morally an Ancap, but not practically.

One should also consider that a significant chunk of modern governments are at least ostensibly election-based and chosen by the people. Therefore one can make a reasonable argument that the citizen has had influence on and made the choice to remain with their nation.

One can make a reasonable argument about election fraud and the like (in an different thread please) but there is no reason why a government official can engage in fraud that a megacorporation CEO cannot (without invoking the government prosecuting the CEO) so that argument does not give any weight to reduced regulation.

No, it exists a lot. Most worker certification programs, Fair Trade certification, cage free certification, kosher certification, etc, all exists because people care how things are made, not from government intervention, because these certifications raise the price that the product or worker can command.

Those are actually a pretty good example of the failures of non-government organizations.

Fair Trade Certification, for example, is a scam. It requires huge fees for it's label that the small growers it claims to help can't afford (But their wealthy contributors can of course), and most of the extra money paid goes straight to Fair Trade Organization and the big labeling companies. As if that weren't enough, it forces the third-world farmers it's supposedly protecting to endorse socialist principles, because granola-girl politics.

Adding insult to injury, most farms who do have the Fair Trade certification will label their poorest quality coffee as "Fair Trade" and leave the label off their high quality beans (which sell for more) because Fair Trade is only concerned with their politics of the grower, not the quality. They get the fair trade price (above the minimum but not that high) for their garbage beans that would otherwise be sold for the minimum, and then the free market (higher) price for their quality stuff.

‘Fair trade’ is a crock

Not helped: Third World farmworkers, like this one working with a Venezuelan cocoa harvest, get no direct benefit from “fair trade” products. (AFP/Getty Images) If you want to help out …

nypost.com

The Problem With Fair Trade Coffee (SSIR)

Fair Trade-certified coffee is growing in sales, but strict certification requirements are resulting in uneven economic advantages for coffee growers and lower quality coffee for consumers.

ssir.org

That is, of course, when they're not simply putting a fake label on, because who's going to stop somebody from simply using the label on any bag of coffee they feel like? There's no government to enforce it right?

The perils of fake Fairtrade products — Adam Smith Institute

It's just so difficult to be a properly concerned middle class social justice warrior these days, isn't it ? Well-meaning shoppers may be wasting money on groceries bearing fake Fairtrade or organic logos, after police in Europe identified counterfeit food labels as one of the fastest growing f

www.adamsmith.org

This problem has been known for well over a decade but with fake news and advertising campaigns supporting the Socialist Fair Trade label, gullible people have continued to fall for the manipulations. The fact that without strict government regulation, organizations like this are free to lie to people is a serious issue with non-government labels that has to be addressed.

Cage-Free is actually government enforced, by the USDA.

What should have solved it would be suing the factories that did it without informing their workers. But yeah, I support a

I think the forum ate part of your post, so I apologize in advance if I'm accidentally strawmanning you due to that.

You've kinda left yourself pretty open to an obvious rebuttal here though. You want a government court to step in and make judgments about the business? You realize the obvious implications there for the free market handling it, right?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Keeping the free market in mind, especially for small and medium sized businesses, is fundamentally a good idea. Low tax, low intervention economies clearly do the best. However, sometimes the Government does have to step in. Businesses doing very stupid shit need to be slapped around from time to time, although legislation should be more "as and when" instead of "long term planning." And sometimes regulation needs trimming as it has built up over the years.

Flexibility more than anything else seems essential to a prosperous and somewhat fair economy.

 

[S'task]

That is, of course, when they're not simply putting a fake label on, because who's going to stop somebody from simply using the label on any bag of coffee they feel like? There's no government to enforce it right?

But he's not argued for no government, just limited government... and the protection of Trademarks (which is what, in effect that label is) is generally considered to be a perfectly legitimate form of government power. As such, someone falsely using the label (or a close approximation of it meant to deceive customers) without the creator's permission under a Libertarian system would be grounds to sue in government courts and force the company falsely using the label for damages and to stop them from using the label going forward.

Libertarians don't generally reject the concept of Intellectual Property and such, after all, well, right libertarians don't, which Abhorsen seems to be more in alignment with than left libertarians, who are even more nuts...

 

[Bear Ribs]

But he's not argued for no government, just limited government... and the protection of Trademarks (which is what, in effect that label is) is generally considered to be a perfectly legitimate form of government power. As such, someone falsely using the label (or a close approximation of it meant to deceive customers) without the creator's permission under a Libertarian system would be grounds to sue in government courts and force the company falsely using the label for damages and to stop them from using the label going forward.

Libertarians don't generally reject the concept of Intellectual Property and such, after all, well, right libertarians don't, which Abhorsen seems to be more in alignment with than left libertarians, who are even more nuts...

This is true, however it's somewhat orthogonal to my point which is that his examples of non-government regulatory agencies aren't actually working as he suggested, but are rather scams or are actually government regulated. A better example for his purposes might be the Comics Code Authority which actually did do it's job without being a scam... though that opens up the point that what the Comics Code Authority actually did rather hosed american comics as far as quality is concerned due to their meddling so maybe not.

Additionally copyrights are also protected under the current system and yet the fraudulent activities are going on, there's no reason to think agencies that are utterly ineffective and corrupt now will somehow become more honest and more reliable if the amount of regulation that's keeping them in check is reduced.

 

[S'task]

though that opens up the point that what the Comics Code Authority actually did rather hosed american comics as far as quality is concerned due to their meddling so maybe not.

Arguable. Some of the most enduring and memorable characters were created under the Comic's Code, especially in Marvel. There's something a lot of creative types know but don't like officially saying but "boundaries encourage creativity". Knowing the limit of what you can do actually can help creative types to actually create better work within those boundaries.

Heck, there's entire genres of poetry that are considered great works of literature but to be in those genres one must adhere to very strict rules regarding form (think Sonnets, Haiku, though even basic pattern and rhyme scheme fall into this too). Conversely poetry as a popular media has all but died in the public conscious as the full unrestricted post-modernist style poetry that throws out all form and structure has become dominate among literary circles...

That's not to really defend it though, and yes it killed of all sorts of genres of comics due to it's overzealous nature, but there were quite a few high quality comics made under the Comic's Code too.

Additionally copyrights are also protected under the current system and yet the fraudulent activities are going on, there's no reason to think agencies that are utterly ineffective and corrupt now will somehow become more honest and more reliable if the amount of regulation that's keeping them in check is reduced.

Copyright is a completely different ball of wax that is a complete and utter fucking mess. Let's not get into it as I don't think anyone truly likes the modern copyright system in the US and it's really not set up along any ideological grounds except "What makes The Mouse happy"...

 

[Bear Ribs]

Arguable. Some of the most enduring and memorable characters were created under the Comic's Code, especially in Marvel. There's something a lot of creative types know but don't like officially saying but "boundaries encourage creativity". Knowing the limit of what you can do actually can help creative types to actually create better work within those boundaries.

Heck, there's entire genres of poetry that are considered great works of literature but to be in those genres one must adhere to very strict rules regarding form (think Sonnets, Haiku, though even basic pattern and rhyme scheme fall into this too). Conversely poetry as a popular media has all but died in the public conscious as the full unrestricted post-modernist style poetry that throws out all form and structure has become dominate among literary circles...

That's not to really defend it though, and yes it killed of all sorts of genres of comics due to it's overzealous nature, but there were quite a few high quality comics made under the Comic's Code too.

Fair enough, with a word as fuzzy as "good" there's no small amount of room for interpretation. I've found that in comic-book circles the CCA isn't well respected but that doesn't mean they never accomplished any good ever.

Copyright is a completely different ball of wax that is a complete and utter fucking mess. Let's not get into it as I don't think anyone truly likes the modern copyright system in the US and it's really not set up along any ideological grounds except "What makes The Mouse happy"...

That's not really relevant to this discussion though, where we're talking about how these "Non governmental regulators" are supposed to be handling regulating on their own, but can't actually do so. This is both because they tend to be grifters and because they can't, as Abhorsen put it, shoot people who don't follow their rules so nothing stops a seller from writing "Ethically Harvested Free Trade Coffee" on the bag when it was harvested by the child slaves under a purely communist regime, which (exaggerated for effect) is what we so going on now so we'd need some explaining as to why said organizations would be effective with less government regulation of the use of those phrases when they can't pull it off now.

 

[strunkenwhite]

In a perfect world, no one gets to vote, as almost all voting for governments is aggression (voting for laws is usually violating propoerty rights, or you are voting for people who will create laws, which is iffier).

Granting for a moment the utopia, who would determine government leadership/policy and why is that way better than voting?