"Freedom" thread or something

Dean wrote: You think?

ergo sum

thellama73 wrote: manofmystery wrote: Of course, the nonsense myths this article so effectively dispells have been what have kept this thread vibrant for so long.  How many of you, who eventually came around, believed at least 1 of these myths before coming here? Also, how often do we continue to see them used as throw away lines, used in a last ditch attempt to invalidate our opinions, when opponents have no leg to stand on?  They were certainly promoted as facts by republican debate moderators, earlier this year, and probably alwys will be by old media. Myth and Truth About Libertarianism Good article, MoM. The one that I run into all the time is the "all people are good" one, which utterly baffles me. It is precisely because we don't believe all people are good that we object to giving people unlimited power over others in the form of government. Isn't that self-evident?

I have never thought that libertarians think all people are good.  I think what libertarians do do however is completely ignore the dangers that accumulation of private power can pose to the freedom of all by focusing solely on governmental power.  True, when governments have unlimited power, a few people have freedom and power and the rest of us are powerless and under the control of an oppressive system.  Likewise, when governments have no or very little power, private individuals are allowed to accumulate vast amounts of power, which again leaves a few with freedom and power, and the rest of us at the mercy of those private individuals.  You may dismiss the economic power which employers, banks, landlords, et al can exert over the populace, but that power is as dangerous as any weapon or police power.  Back in the day before labor laws came to the fore, the common man's choice was to either work extremely long hours for very low wages in very dangerous conditions or go without eating.  The Supreme Court at the time called laws banning these conditions unconstitutional on the grounds that it interfered not only with the employers' freedom to contract, but also the employees.  To say that employees had any freedom whatsoever in these situations was a gross misuse of the word imo.  Their choice was to work like slaves, risking life and limb, for subsistence wages or starve.  Not much of a choice, nor much freedom there.  There must be a balance between governmental and private power, so that they act as checks on one another.  The balance in this country, I'm sure we would all agree is out of whack, but instead of moving toward less government, I think the balance lies in more control over those with private power to give the rest of us some of that freedom you keep talking about.

By the way, as to the article on Sweden, let me just say, I'd much rather live in a society with a lower per capita GDP and a lower rate of growth but where the money is more equitably spread, than in a society with a higher per capita GDP and growth rate, but where the vast majority of the money goes only to those at the very top.  It's all about standard of living for everyone, not just the amount the economy produces, but how many people get to enjoy the fruits of that economy.


Edited by The Doctor - October 03 2012 at 18:12

The Doctor wrote: Back in the day before labor laws came to the fore, the common man's choice was to either work extremely long hours for very low wages in very dangerous conditions or go without eating.  The Supreme Court at the time called laws banning these conditions unconstitutional on the grounds that it interfered not only with the employers' freedom to contract, but also the employees.  To say that employees had any freedom whatsoever in these situations was a gross misuse of the word imo.  Their choice was to work like slaves, risking life and limb, for subsistence wages or starve.  Not much of a choice, nor much freedom there.

Government regulations did not cause that to happen, I can assure you.  What changed after the industrial revolution in the US was the eventual proliferation of transportation and communication.  Hell, now that we have the Internet, the opportunity for people to be their own bosses has skyrocketed.  I can make a friggin website with a database of Prog Rock bands and albums, throw in a forum, hire nobody, and still make good money.  Right M@X?  M@X???

Even if there was a need for the FLSA and so forth, it is no longer needed now.  Would you work a job for $11 a week now?

Upton Sinclair was an idiot.

Resumed your book btw.

I want to punch Dorthea and Arthur.


Edited by Epignosis - October 03 2012 at 19:08

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Back in the day before labor laws came to the fore, the common man's choice was to either work extremely long hours for very low wages in very dangerous conditions or go without eating.  The Supreme Court at the time called laws banning these conditions unconstitutional on the grounds that it interfered not only with the employers' freedom to contract, but also the employees.  To say that employees had any freedom whatsoever in these situations was a gross misuse of the word imo.  Their choice was to work like slaves, risking life and limb, for subsistence wages or starve.  Not much of a choice, nor much freedom there.  Government regulations did not cause that to happen, I can assure you.  What changed after the industrial revolution in the US was the eventual proliferation of transportation and communication.  Hell, now that we have the Internet, the opportunity for people to be their own bosses has skyrocketed.  I can make a friggin website with a database of Prog Rock bands and albums, throw in a forum, hire nobody, and still make good money.  Right M@X?  M@X??? Even if there was a need for the FLSA and so forth, it is no longer needed now.  Would you work a job for $11 a week now?

Right now.  No.  And that's what I want to avoid.  Going back to a time when employers could work you to death for $11 a day.  But I bet there are plenty of people here in the US who at this point are desperate enough that they would do it.  The only thing standing in employers' way is government regulation.  Because once they can get people desperate enough who are willing to work for $11 an hour, it isn't long before people have no choice but to work for subsistence wages.  Because, as your Upton Sinclair quote so clearly points out, and which you so clearly ignored, is that those with power will take advantage of those without power or in this case knowledge.  A decent human being would have said to the employee "Well, you know I pay everyone else $5 a day, but that's not really enough to live on, so I'm going to give you $7 a day and give everyone else the same wage.  I can afford it."  But decent human beings seldom make good businessmen.  And vice versa.  That's why we need government (which is in theory at least an extension of the will of all the people) to exert control over businesses and employers. 

You distrust people who work in government.  Why do you trust employers and businessmen to act decently so much?  Strike that.  Why do you even think it was decent of the employer to acquiesce to paying $3 a day when he knows he's paying everyone else $5 a day?


Edited by The Doctor - October 03 2012 at 20:27

You could find $11 a week lying in the street and under vending machines. I'm willing to bet that the pan handlers around here make more money than I do. 

I thought about quitting my job and going off into f**kin' hermitage. Seems reasonable. 

Story for our NJ contributor: