[TeMPOraL]

> I think this view, of "free trade", is very popular among my crowd as well as popular among Sci-Fi authors.

In the sci-fi I read/watch, "free trade" is very popular and very well presented (and I'd say pretty accurately) - it all looks cool and pretty at a first glance, but then it turns out that big parts of the population are extremely poor miners slaving away their whole lives in some godforsaken hellholes, and on the free market you can easily buy anything from innocent people's organs to weapons of mass destruction.

As for libertarianism - it has some good ideas, but the more extreme forms burst into flames at the first mention of the word "externality".

[devsquid]

Yea you're right in a lot of Sci-Fi it is represented as such. I guess I was thinking of how much they gloss over the the fact that a majority of the population is poor af or things like the Prometheus Award, which includes some very good books.

Yes there is a certain aspect of libertarianism that both touches on something true and is attractive, but so does communism. Not that that means libertarianism is wrong it is just similar to communism that way, but I think it is wrong for the reasons I stated. Also Karl Marx offered many good critiques of capitalism.

[TeMPOraL]

That's why I believe we should stop talking about whole ideologies, because all of them - libertarianism, communism, reaction, etc. - are nonsense if you take them wholesale. But each has some good ideas, each appeared as a response to particular problems. So instead of buying into politics wholesale, we should ask ourselves whether or not e.g. free market, or top-down management, or voting, is the best way to approach a particular problem - building a power plant, ensuring access to health services for everyone, figuring out which foods should be imported, etc.

[devsquid]

Well yea, but I think the high minded discussion is good as well. Its not that any one country will ever be X or Y ideology, but having good guiding principles helps to make sound judgements.

I have studied each of the modern ideologies a bit, and Modern Liberalism is a good blend of both Libertarianism and Socialism. Rawls is a good source if you're interested in perusing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

I have to say tho, I see a pretty heavy trend towards libertarianism. Particularly among my peers in the Bay Area and their idols. I find it pretty annoying because they are the pinnacle of privilege and have embraced a ideology that alleviates their "guilt".

[pdkl95]

Absolutely - strict adherence to any ideology assumes that that ideology is correct in all cases. I've always considered politics to be like an inverted pendulum with "we the people" as the balance controller. Forces are always present that create instability, so we need to continually make corrections by pushing back in the right direction. Tipping to far towards any ideology can cause catastrophic failure.

Also, there is another reason to keep a diversity of ideologies: they serve as a check on each other. For example, allowing either capital or labor to gain too much power tends to cause problems. It is the competition between them that keeps power from consolidating on one ideology.

(for a better description of that idea, see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-cap... )

[sukulaku]

> Forces are always present that create instability, so we need to continually make corrections by pushing back in the right direction. Tipping to far towards any ideology can cause catastrophic failure.

By "instability" do you mean draconian legislation like SOPA / PIPA / CISPA / NDAA / TPP / TTIP and all the other nasty shit we're supposed to keep "pushing back" on, because otherwise they'll just inflict it all on us, and then it's too bad because we kind-of-sort-of asked for it by voting in the bums and not resisting.. ? :P

Let's hope we never experience whatever catastrophic failure would follow from pushing back too successfully!

[TeMPOraL]

> Let's hope we never experience whatever catastrophic failure would follow from pushing back too successfully!

We don't need to; we already know how it looks like. It went to the opposite extreme when the Industrial Revolution started; our great grandfathers and their great grandfathers paid in blood to restore the balance, so that we may enjoy relatively humane employment conditions the current generation of entrepreneurs wants to fight against so hard.

[sukulaku]

> We don't need to; we already know how it looks like.

So you think we're now experiencing too little draconian legislation then?

[pdkl95]

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

[sukulaku]

> As for libertarianism - it has some good ideas, but the more extreme forms burst into flames at the first mention of the word "externality".

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're suggesting that "externalities" are better handled by rulers ruling over their subjects than voluntary co-operation between individuals.

That's what we have now, you know. Rulers and subjects. There's a small elite imposing their will on everyone else, and it seems you think they're taking care of externalities better than we could without rulers.

Presumably, if you didn't think so, you'd support voluntary co-operation instead of our current societal arrangements.

But it's pretty damn difficult to believe you sincerely think so, considering we all know corporations around the world are somehow managing to pollute their hearts out despite our benevolent overlords being there to protect and serve us.

The people of Beijing can't be particularly happy with how their externalities are handled, for example.

It's like there's this thing called "bribery", and it's a really effective way of getting to do whatever the hell you want with the environment, as long as you keep handing money to the right politicians.

Oh, and by the way, this way of circumventing any negative consequences for destroying the environment wouldn't be available without political power, as you may be able to comperehend.

But nevermind, I wrote this message not so much to you, but to some innocent bystander who might happen to read this.

[aninhumer]

>Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're suggesting that "externalities" are better handled by rulers

No, they're suggesting that externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them.

But as it happens, yes I tend to think co-ordination problems are solved more effectively by a co-ordinator, rather than decentralised actors.

You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy.

>you'd support voluntary co-operation

Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights. You know, a system where people are forced to follow particular rules about resource allocation, regardless of whether they agreed to follow them.

As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources. You can argue that a system of pure property rights minimises it, but please don't pretend that it magically avoids it.

[sukulaku]

> externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them

Entities like rulers, perhaps? You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you?

When the people who you think are preventing externalities get bribed, they actually have an incentive to not care about them.

> You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy.

What exactly am I ignoring? The idea that you can affect something by dropping a piece of paper into a box? That belief is extremely convenient for the people who are in no way bound by that act, you know?

> Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights.

Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it?

> As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources.

That's probably true in the sense that someone somewhere will rob someone regardless, but.. if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources", then you just can't sanely support the idea of an organization that coerces potentially hundreds of millions of people in how their resources are "distributed".

[aninhumer]

>You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you?

Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed. If you want to argue that it is, feel free. But until you do, please stop pretending there is no alternative to your false dichotomy.

>Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it?

No, but most people following the rules of their own volition is not sufficient for the system to work. If you make it truly "voluntary", then anyone who doesn't agree can just take whatever they want.

> if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources"

I don't, as I said it's inevitable. I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it.

[sukulaku]

> Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed.

If you believe the act of dropping a piece of paper into a box actually affects what a politician can do, I've got a bridge to sell you. That's what it would take for voting to actually affect something, otherwise you're just engaging in a pointless ritual.

Of course it's only pointless on the voter's part. People believing in the idea that subjects have a say in how they're ruled sure as hell benefits the rulers!

> I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it

In fact, I've avoided all non-governmental forms of coercion all my life!

[aninhumer]

>If you believe the act of dropping a piece of paper into a box actually affects what a politician can do, I've got a bridge to sell you.

The power of democracy is that it becomes completely socially unacceptable to ignore what those pieces of paper say.

And indeed the people you're complaining about don't ignore them. They find ways to get what they want despite the system, but they never outright defy it. No one installs themself in office without winning an election (EDIT: In the US), and if anyone ever did there would be rioting in the streets.

>> I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it

>In fact, I've avoided all non-governmental forms of coercion all my life!

I mean that you're pretending your ideology can avoid all coercion, while ignoring the coercion involved in enforcing property rights.