[roenxi]

The observation that it is in everyone's interest for society to function is a core plank of libertarian thinking. If everyone was going to opt out then libertarianism would not work.

The core argument is that the government doesn't need to step in to fix society, because the incentives are so strong that society will sort itself out through people realising that if the ship sinks they will drown so they have to keep the water outside the boat of their own initiative.

Given that it is already in everyone's interest that the ship floats, the people loudly claiming "our enemies are trying to sink the ship!" are probably lying and should not be put in charge. However, such people infest government.

[opheliate]

IMO the ship "sinking/floating" analogy is far too simplistic for this discussion. Everyone has a different idea of what the ship "floating" looks like: If you're someone with a lot of wealth, the current state of things might look completely reasonable. If you're very poor, the fact that 0.1% of people control 25% of the world's wealth might look a lot less like society is functioning correctly. Society could easily "sort itself out" into a stable state which happily oppresses a great many people, just based on individual incentives.

[roenxi]

If you're worried about people being oppressed, moving away from basic principles of freedom and liberty is probably not the path you want to take.

If libertarianism would result in a great many oppressed people, any sort of centralisation of power will result in even more oppressed people. Beefing up government power is no solution to oppression; the worst oppressors are invariably governments. The worst of the great catastrophes and oppression of the last century were perpetrated by strong centralised governments.

[opheliate]

> The worst of the great catastrophes and oppression of the last century were perpetrated by strong centralised governments.

Absolutely. It's a good thing I'm not calling for massively beefing up government then, I'm just advocating that tax laws exist & are enforced, so as to redistribute wealth, which I don't view as oppressive.

> If libertarianism would result in a great many oppressed people, any sort of centralisation of power will result in even more oppressed people.

I disagree with the implied premise that there is not a "centralisation of power" under libertarianism. While there isn't a state to have a monopoly on violence, there can certainly be a centralisation of economic power. And when we rely on money to pay rent, afford food, pay for healthcare etc, economic power is functionally equivalent to power in general.

> the worst oppressors are invariably governments

I wouldn't say invariably. Consider the United Fruit Company for example, or the current prevalence of child labour in tech company supply chains (e.g: Glencore, Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt).

[ninja3925]

> I'm just advocating that tax laws exist & are enforced, so as to redistribute wealth, which I don't view as oppressive

Laws are strongly enforced in this country (USA).

Where is the bar for "oppressive"? I come from a country that thought that 70%+ taxation was acceptable. In the USA, we are now at 60%+ (across federal, state, local). It sure sounds oppressive to me and one way out is to give the choice to people to opt out.

[opheliate]

Do you have a source for the 60%+ number?

I think paying 60% tax or higher on income above a certain threshold (e.g: $300,000, just throwing a number out there, so you'd pay 60% tax on $1 if you were earning $300,001, and a lower tax rate for the lower portion) is reasonable.

Regardless, sure, one way is to give the choice to opt out, another is just to lower taxes if it's generally agreed they're too high.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

That 60% tax number is false.

What country ever taxes at 70% overall? The US used to have federal income upper marginal rates in the 90% range, but that doesn't mean that you pay 90% of your income as tax.

[roenxi]

> I'm just advocating that tax laws exist & are enforced, so as to redistribute wealth, which I don't view as oppressive.

There is almost nowhere on earth that does wealth redistribution. Most taxes are based on income. Wealth distribution has traditionally failed so hard that there aren't even serious attempts any more.

> I disagree with the implied premise that there is not a "centralisation of power" under libertarianism.

That is impossible so it isn't a premise of anything. Libertarianism is trying to minimise the centralisation of power.

> ... consider the United Fruit Company for example ...

I'll admit to not having researched the UFC particularly closely, but wasn't its mode of operation quite close to getting the government to do a lot of its dirty work? I'd assume typically it was co-opting taxes.

> ...or the current prevalence of child labour in tech company supply chains (e.g: Glencore, Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt)...

Look, if you have child labour in your mine you've mucked up and you're probably leaving a lot of money on the table. Children aren't good workers, by and large. Mining tends to favour experienced workers driving large, expensive, well maintained machines. If you put a kid in one of those they'll wreck it.

Particularly I doubt Glencore is seriously using child labour because they run their mines to make a profit. They'd be trying to keep them out. Not to mention the political backlash.