• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Knockdown of Libertarianism and Capitalism

I find this thread very sad and comforting at the same time. The incredible and obvious flaws in the absurd OP make me wonder how someone who would find it a solid argument manages to turn on a computer or, worse, complete high school with this poor of an understanding of economics, analogies, political parties, humanism, etc etc etc etc etc.

However, many of the responses have been solid answers. Some show a deeper understanding of libertarianism than I usually see. I can't express how annoying it is to read all the time "Hur de hurr hur... libertarians are anarchists. They want no government and no oversight".

Just to go ahead and throw it away, a single man who got lost in the desert and didn't bring water does not represent a typical consumer and a jerk who wants a slave does not represent the entirety of suppliers. A one-on-one discussion between idiots does not represent an enormously complex system of supply/demand. Libertarians and capitalists are both better served by having someone get well and request more of their product at a better price. A thousand other problems could be pointed out.
 
Mycroft said:
I could have chosen not to work that summer.

If I didn't hate my glasses as much as I did, I might have just chosen to spend my summer at the swimming pool.
Click to expand...
If you needed that money to live instead of using it for glasses, is it still a free choice?
 
Keridan said:
I find this thread very sad and comforting at the same time. The incredible and obvious flaws in the absurd OP make me wonder how someone who would find it a solid argument manages to turn on a computer or, worse, complete high school with this poor of an understanding of economics, analogies, political parties, humanism, etc etc etc etc etc.

However, many of the responses have been solid answers. Some show a deeper understanding of libertarianism than I usually see. I can't express how annoying it is to read all the time "Hur de hurr hur... libertarians are anarchists. They want no government and no oversight".

Just to go ahead and throw it away, a single man who got lost in the desert and didn't bring water does not represent a typical consumer and a jerk who wants a slave does not represent the entirety of suppliers. A one-on-one discussion between idiots does not represent an enormously complex system of supply/demand. Libertarians and capitalists are both better served by having someone get well and request more of their product at a better price. A thousand other problems could be pointed out.
Click to expand...
It's not common, but it proves a point about libertarian ethics. I notice you said nothing about the scenario itself.
 
phattonez said:
Libertarians and capitalists assure us that the market, free of regulation, will lead to the optimum distribution of capital, wages, everything. As long as everything is mutually agreed upon, then both parties benefit and the transaction is fair and good, and society improves.

This argument is nonsense and it can be knocked down with one simple hypothetical scenario.

If I find a man dying of thirst in the desert, is it fair for me to ask him to be my slave for the rest of his life in exchange for a bottle of water? It's my water, so I can demand whatever I want, right?

So would any libertarian or capitalist care to explain why we should view this transaction as good, or if not, why not?
Click to expand...



To libertarians, the term "exploitation" is not in the English language.


Well, it is, and for a good reason, because it's real and unfettered libertarianism leads directly to it.
 
Felis Leo said:
I suppose if the man was a masochist who really wanted to be a slave and you finding him dying of thirst in the desert presented him with the golden opportunity...

But in all seriousness, a society devoid of trust, virtue and rule of law could certainly lead to a scenario that you propose. The free alienation of labor and ability to engage in enforceable contractual relations means nothing without the state's recognition and protection of natural rights inherent in one's humanity or the virtue necessary to recognize those rights in others. Otherwise you find yourself in the position that many Russians found themselves following the collapse of the Soviet Union's centrally planned economy, or modern China, in which profit rules over everything, and neighbor will prey upon their neighbor for a few extra pennies if they can get away with it.

Hence why I am a conservative, not a libertarian. Freedom unmoored from virtue is mere license. Capitalism without rule of law is what China is now. A monstrous power in which individuals do not matter unless you belong to the Chinese Communist Party Inner Circle or the state-capitalist oligarchs who rule over society, who are often the same people.
Click to expand...


Good to hear you say that. Unfettered capitalism is not a good thing.

I think the debate is, therefore, about degree.
 
phattonez said:
It's not common, but it proves a point about libertarian ethics. I notice you said nothing about the scenario itself.
Click to expand...

Actually, I said quite a lot about it. The main thing is that it is absurd. It has no representation of either of the systems you were conflating. I'm not sure how direct you need your response to be. Libertarian structure is not anarchy. They believe in required regulation. Hell, go back to Adam Smith. He wasn't for completely unregulated capitalism either. Monopolies = bad. Slavery = bad. Basic tenets there. Capitalism requires competition and therefor has the same problems as well as making sure the man is in a position to need water in the future and offer something in return. Slavery is a bad long-term solution for a man dehydrated in the desert.

There are dozens of reasons the analogy fails.
 
phattonez said:
So you want a system where the stingy man would suffer no legal consequences for ripping off a dying man.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Yeah. I want a system where the government has no influence over the business practices of citizens. You on the other hand want a system where the dying man is feed through an eye dropper so he will never be free of your influence and dominance. Who is the slavemaster?
 
manofknowledge said:
If your point is to make stuff up then my compliments. There are no Amercan cities that have collapsed.
Click to expand...

SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE they havent. They are just like democrats like them. FULL of crippled dependent voters.
 
Captain Adverse said:
1. You are conflating a political philosophy, Libertarianism, with an economic theory, Capitalism.

2. You are also assuming Libertarianism equates to Anarchy; and that Capitalism equates to rapacious Monopolism.

The basic idea of Libertarianism is limited government authority allowing for the greatest individual freedom while meeting essential social needs. Courts to arbitrate disputes and fairly punish crimes, police and armed forces to maintain the peace and protect the weak, small and accessible governing bodies with limited powers directly answerable to those who are governed.

The idea of Capitalism is allowing for private ownership of means of production for personal profit, and letting free market forces of competition address wants and needs as well as determine wages, costs, etc.. IMO Capitalism can be rapacious, enlightened, or a bit of both.

Looking at your hypothetical, Libertarianism does not apply because the "offer" is the antithesis of Libertarianism as it demands the permanent surrender of one's liberty in exchange for some temporary (albeit in the short-term necessary) benefit.

Nor does it reflect Capitalism, in that it demands an overly inflated price for a short-term need with no ability to enforce the conditions once the need is met except for the willing continued acceptance of the terms by the "thirsty" man.

So under a Libertarian society, the offer and acceptance made would not be enforceable. Meanwhile, under a Capitalist economic model of exchange, all the victim of the deal would need do is accept the deal and then at the first opportunity simply reimburse the dealer with an amount of water to cover that used and then provide the giver a "reasonable" profit.
Click to expand...



if libertarianism did exist, in it's totality, it could never stay there, as the pendulum always tends to move to the center no matter which side it is on.

I say put it in the center to begin with, and it will rest. Capitalism for wants, Socialism for needs


By capitalism I mean free markets. By Socialism I mean government sponsored.
 
phattonez said:
It's not common, but it proves a point about libertarian ethics. I notice you said nothing about the scenario itself.
Click to expand...

:lamo

What 'point' do you think you have proven about Libertarian ethics? The BEST you can prove about Libertarian ethics is that when it comes to the choice to be charitable we do so by our own free will and dont need some fop with a club or pointy stick to try to make us be so.
 
Keridan said:
Actually, I said quite a lot about it. The main thing is that it is absurd. It has no representation of either of the systems you were conflating. I'm not sure how direct you need your response to be. Libertarian structure is not anarchy. They believe in required regulation. Hell, go back to Adam Smith. He wasn't for completely unregulated capitalism either. Monopolies = bad. Slavery = bad. Basic tenets there. Capitalism requires competition and therefor has the same problems as well as making sure the man is in a position to need water in the future and offer something in return. Slavery is a bad long-term solution for a man dehydrated in the desert.

There are dozens of reasons the analogy fails.
Click to expand...
So monopoly is bad. Great. Then let's break up our monopolies and increase competition.
 
phattonez said:
So monopoly is bad. Great. Then let's break up our monopolies and increase competition.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the point you are making, but this is absolutely necessary. Monopolies are the single biggest required regulation. Hell, it's the whole problem with government.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Yeah. I want a system where the government has no influence over the business practices of citizens. You on the other hand want a system where the dying man is feed through an eye dropper so he will never be free of your influence and dominance. Who is the slavemaster?
Click to expand...
You're not even making sense anymore.
 
phattonez said:
If you needed that money to live instead of using it for glasses, is it still a free choice?
Click to expand...

Yes, I could have kept wearing those ugly glasses and spent the money on something else. Or, I could have worked to make myself qualified to earn more money and increased the choices I could have made.

That's the good thing about a free market. Everyone has choices.
 
phattonez said:
No one voluntarily agrees to be paid $7.25 per hour. They agree to that because they have no better alternative.
Click to expand...
What is the level you think people should work at where they go just because they WANT to go to work and not HAVE to go to work...and why arent you running a business that YOU OWN that YOU pay for that pays that salary?
 
phattonez said:
No one voluntarily agrees to be paid $7.25 per hour. They agree to that because they have no better alternative.
Click to expand...

That is partly true because to get that better alternative likely requires having an employment history and experience. Your choice is often whether to start working at the bottom or not to work at all.
 
phattonez said:
Libertarians and capitalists assure us that the market, free of regulation, will lead to the optimum distribution of capital, wages, everything. As long as everything is mutually agreed upon, then both parties benefit and the transaction is fair and good, and society improves.

This argument is nonsense and it can be knocked down with one simple hypothetical scenario.

If I find a man dying of thirst in the desert, is it fair for me to ask him to be my slave for the rest of his life in exchange for a bottle of water? It's my water, so I can demand whatever I want, right?

So would any libertarian or capitalist care to explain why we should view this transaction as good, or if not, why not?
Click to expand...

phattonez said:
For the thirsty man it is the only exchange possible.
Click to expand...

Put in the original OP so we are on the same page, just for reference.

Under your scenario and within the theory of "(a) market, free of regulation, will lead to the optimum distribution of capital, wages, everything..." does not mean that a man dying of thirst in the desert will always, or even ever, encounter someone holding a bottle of water and asking for lifetime slavery to pay for it.

There is a big difference between a "market, free of regulation" and a society free of laws. Those are not interchangeable and I do not know any (or of any) Libertarians or Capitalists that advocates for an anarchy system of government where all interaction between people is exclusively between a product or services seller and potential buyers (as in absent monetary or exchange standards.)

This is all despite the fact that as far back as we can reasonably review from history we do not have a good example of absolute market economics or the complete absence of government or authority in every sense of those words.

That makes the rest of the questioning moot.

The only way for your scenario to be plausible is to have a model of government so removed that slavery over a bottle of water is plausible, and that has nothing to do with optimum distribution of capital, wages, resources, what have you.

The "slavery" part then becomes emotionally charged but devoid reality, as Libertarians by definition are for individual rights and freedoms and stand against anything weaponized against someone else's individual rights. They are basically today's version of classical liberals leaning just slightly more minimal government (not absent government, minimal to ensure freedoms.) Sure they tend to want hands off market economics but slavery in exchange for products and services collides with too many of their other principles of freedom and self determination. They do not want system slavery anymore than wanting economic slavery.

And speaking of even a true capitalist would not want slavery, it is not conducive to concentration of profit and resource control over a lower income (not slavery, lower income) buying pool.

Your scenario and questions miss the point anyway on why we have a mixed economic model.
 
VanceMack said:
What is the level you think people should work at where they go just because they WANT to go to work and not HAVE to go to work...and why arent you running a business that YOU OWN that YOU pay for that pays that salary?
Click to expand...
It's hard to raise capital when you're promising less of a return than your competitors.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is partly true because to get that better alternative likely requires having an employment history and experience. Your choice is often whether to start working at the bottom or not to work at all.
Click to expand...
So we can take advantage of those with little experience?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom