CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
The thing which confuses me about the libertarian perspective it that it seems to ignore the potential conflict between the free market and individual liberty, or at the very least to so minimize the government as to make it an ineffectual intermediary between the two (sometimes) competing ends.
Not expecting any response; mostly just thinking out loud.
I am not sure what you mean. A natural rights libertarian ideology would place respect for individual liberties above all else. A free market would be subject to those rights. Therefore externalities would need to be compensated and minimal public goods provided. A decent argument for this is provided by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. However, if you are simply acknowledging the tendency of actual libertarians to reject all forms of correcting market failures, including externalities, I would have to agree that they have not thought it all through very well.
My comments pertained to political libertarian ideology, as expressed by the original post in the context of the political test. They did not address the various philosophical/conceptual iterations of the idea, although I admit I am not especially familiar with the brand of libertarianism you present. It seems practically indistinguishable from common liberality which preferences individual liberties above economic liberties; presumably I am missing something?
I would say that, for libertarians of the natural rights persuasion, there is no distinguishing between individual and economic liberties. They would argue that you have the liberty to do anything you want, as long as you do not bring harms to others against their will (harm principle). This would prohibit any use of force "for their own good" or "for the common good" commonly employed by the left and right alike. The only justifiable use of force is to correct the violation of the harm principle. I fail to see how this would lead to a contradiction.
I was earlier trying predominantly to understand how this type of libertarian philosophy is differentiated from common liberality. It appears that the primary distinction may be that general liberality deprioritizes economic autonomy relative other personal liberties, whereas the libertarian does not. I appreciate the clarification in that regard; it is admittedly distinct from the political, right-wing libertarianism I am more familiar with. That being said...
Construing economic autonomy (ownership of the external) as a liberty artificially elevates what would otherwise be only another external means to self-ownership as an independent ends unto itself. Not only that, but the economic means becomes a competing ends with the actual ends objective of libertarian philosophy: self-ownership. This establishes not only an inherent bias in libertarian philosophy towards economic means over non-economic means, but undermines the very self-autonomy which the philosophy purports to value. So long as there is disparate ownership of economic resources there will necessarily be disparate capacity towards self autonomy.
I believe the root of our disagreement lies in our definitions and phrases. We may be speaking in the jargon of our recent readings which have different meanings for the same words.
When you say "common liberality" are you referring to what would otherwise be known as progressives or left wingers?
When you refer to "liberties" does your thinking include freedom-from-want (ex freedom from starvation/thirst/disease) in that word or do you only think of freedom from human coercion?
Finally, economic autonomy is derived from self-ownership (in the view of Nozick and Locke). The question is do I own my labour? If i do, then when I mix my labor with the earth it becomes my property because it contains my labour, which I own. Now I won't deny that this denies many the "freedom" of having free college education, "freedom" from cancer, "freedom" of guaranteed employment, etc. However, just because "society" would be better off if you went to college or you would be better off if you were treated for cancer that does not give you the right to expropriate my property (which is my labour, which is mine via self-ownership).
Now, I must provide the disclaimer that I do not agree with the concept of natural and/or absolute/inviolable rights. Consequently, I do not agree with the premise of the argument I present.
When referencing the "common liberal" I am referring to a conglomeration of variables, but I think my meaning may be roughly construed as either "progressive" or "left wing" for the sake of simplicity without losing too much substance.
With respect to "liberties" I understand these to include virtually anything that someone might construe having an entitlement to or from. I too dispense with the notion of natural/absolute/inviolable rights.
Counter
The libertarian application of the self-ownership principle to external means is unfounded, presumptive, and inconsistent:
- It is unfounded because there is no cause to think that a projection of personal labor onto any external thing reasonably extends either the notion or actuality of self to that thing; the thing is not a part of you no matter how much you interact with it, therefore your self-ownership is not contingent upon continued other-ownership.
- It is presumptive because it assumes that one came into ownership through their own labor, rather than through gift, inheritance, disproportionate social advantage, or exploitation of the labor of others.
- It is inconsistent because it does not extend the same claim (that which one mixes their labor with becomes theirs) to other external things which one might invest themselves in - most notably, other people (e.g. through education, patronage, tutelage, parenting, etc.).
All else aside, even, the perspective does still elevate an external means as an ends equal to the purported true ends of self-ownership... at the not infrequent expense of self-ownership itself, given that the economic liberty/autonomy gains preference over other means equally or even more vital to self ownership (e.g. access to education, health care, etc.). A society truly oriented at self-ownership would necessarily evaluate all means equitably to one another, rather than inherently preferring one over all of the others at all times.
Your disclaimer is duly noted. Out of curiosity, what is your stance then?
Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.
I was slightly left-leaning too, which is accurate. I'm amazed at how much more accurate this is than the political compass bullshit which keeps telling me that i'm a right-wing libertarian which is simply not the case.
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.
You said the description seemed accurate to your views. The description describes your views as including support for laws which restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values" (generally understood as a particular form of morality). Therefore, if the description is accurate as you indicated then you support imposing your moral values upon others by regulating their personal behavior to force that behavior to correspond with your moral values.
How is it not valid?
I am not arguing that it is not valid. I am asking you why you think that it is.
With the implementation of taxes that aren't considered as high.
You propose to fund two expensive ventures by reducing the financial resources available to fund them. This not only very counter-intuitive, but entirely vague. You essentially just reiterated the basic description of lower taxes with continued expenditures, without identifying any substantive means for resolving these two contradicting ends.
You said the description seemed accurate to your views. The description describes your views as including support for laws which restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values" (generally understood as a particular form of morality). Therefore, if the description is accurate as you indicated then you support imposing your moral values upon others by regulating their personal behavior to force that behavior to correspond with your moral values.
You asked me "why do you think it's the role of the government".
I don't think it's the role of the government but I would prefer that they do it.
I am not arguing that it is not valid. I am asking you why you think that it is.
I didn't see any relevance in your question. What is this "private corporate morality"?
You propose to fund two expensive ventures by reducing the financial resources available to fund them.
Where did I say that this is the way?
This not only very counter-intuitive, but entirely vague. You essentially just reiterated the basic description of lower taxes with continued expenditures, without identifying any substantive means for resolving these two contradicting ends.
What's vague , is what's meant by "high taxes"? It's really a subjective matter of what is considered "high taxes". I don't feel as if there is anything to discuss here unless the actual numerical values are brought into the discussion.
You asked me "why do you think it's the role of the government". I don't think it's the role of the government but I would prefer that they do it.
A semantic diversion. The substance of my question remains: why do you hold this preference?
I didn't see any relevance in your question. What is this "private corporate morality"?
That was vague of me. What I was getting at was the apparent discrepancy in willingness to regulate the moral lives of individuals versus the unwillingness to regulate the behavior of private economic organizations from any grounds (including the moral grounds). I am curious as to why greater moral freedom is permitted to private economic organizations via the preference for less regulation, whereas there is lesser moral freedom permitted to individuals via the preference for greater regulation.
To me, this is relevant to the validity of your views because if this inconsistency cannot be explained then that means that two contradictory paradigms are being employed within the same ideology. This in turn means that the ideology is self-contradicting, inconsistent, and logically unsound.
Where did I say that this is the way?
You did not say that explicitly, and I again spoke imprecisely. I was attempting to summarize what I view to be the implications of your policy preferences. My observation here was that your advocacy of reducing taxes necessarily means that there are fewer financial resources at large which can be used to fund what you would like to fund.
What's vague , is what's meant by "high taxes"? It's really a subjective matter of what is considered "high taxes". I don't feel as if there is anything to discuss here unless the actual numerical values are brought into the discussion.
What is vague to me is how you propose to fund continued or increased expenditures while simultaneously reducing taxes by any amount when we already have a massive debt and spending deficit. Slashing other programs might make up for some of the difference, but given the size of the debt this is unlikely... particularly if we maintain some of our most expensive programs, such as the military.
What strikes me as vague is how you propose to navigate both debt and deficit while meeting both your desire to reduce taxes and maintain spending in some of our most expensive programs. Perhaps you think that the military need not be funded at its present level to be an adequately strong military? Perhaps you think we actually can make up the difference by making rather extreme cuts elsewhere, but then upon what basis do you merit those cuts? Or do you have an alternative beyond what I can imagine. I do not want to presume, and that is why I inquired; this is not yet an argument but an attempt to better understand your views.
I think the aim of the test is that is it quite small and gets right to the point but this has some issues that need to be recognized. Any nuances in a position that a person may hold will be glossed over and the results will lump people together despite them having varying degrees of agreement.
The test put me in the correct quadrant but what use is that? I already knew where I would be generally put. I prefer this test if someone wants to know more of the details.
It forces me to pick one of four equally stupid answers VERY often. If the answer I agree with is one of the four options it is always linked to a wing or ideology at random with no real link to it.
Like what exactly is 'our race is superior'? which race? dumbest test ever.
It forces me to pick one of four equally stupid answers VERY often.
Your response seems to be more addressing how people make polls, this test s not the only one to do this. Ever consider that it is designed that way? They are purposefully slanted or vague to elicit certain responses. Anyone who has had to help design polls has ran into this before and probably recognizes the purposeful wording right off the bat. The FAQ addresses why many of the questions are written the way they are if you want to hear this from them.
And as for its accuracy, look below this post at my other post to see the comparison I added, the tests seem to coincide with me when I take them both. I see you said above that it gets you wrong. Of course I would need a larger sample size to say it is accurate or not, I mean it would be foolish to think that one data point is a great representation of this political compasses accuracy. What data did you use to come to your conclusion about accuracy?
Overall I have not heard of people thinking the other test is inaccurate but I do often hear that the questions are slanted etc.
I will list you the questions that are stupid as hell and explain why:
1) If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
This is dumb because humanity took over the planet by having TNCs, without globalized corporations, humanity would be far less sophisticated and brilliant at international cooperation than it is now.
2) I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
No sane person will agree with this because it says it is 'wrong' but what it meant to be saying was wrong in the eyes of other nations.
3) No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.
This is common sense, nothing to do with wings. I know ridiculously patriotic left wingers and ridiculously unpatriotic right-wingers. Sure, they're the minority but wing has nothing to do with this nonsense neither does statism or liberalism. This question is utterly ridiculous.
4) Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
The human race? The caucasian race? What if a mixed race person is taking this test?
5) The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This has nothing to do with political views and also is only true in certain circumstances while in others is not true. If the enemy of the enemy is the friend then you could make your former enemy your friend to fight off the other enemy instead right? Totally ridiculous.
1) If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
This is dumb because humanity took over the planet by having TNCs, without globalized corporations, humanity would be far less sophisticated and brilliant at international cooperation than it is now.
To reword this question, "should corporations serve the people or themselves?"
Your answer is equivalent to "corporations already serve the people." or "globalization is good" but this doesn't address the question they are asking does it?
Again, look at how polls questions are constructed to see why they make such slanted questions. Pretty much everything you wrote is covered in the FAQ. To extrapolate the other answers will take some reading comprehension on your part but some are specifically noted in the FAQ like your number 4.
Out of curiosity do you work in engineering of some sort?
Okay, since you are trying to defend one question let me explain why more are stupid:
5) Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
Anyone who disagrees to this doesn't understand the definition of either 'sometimes', 'justified' or both.
6) There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
Now? What is now? Doesn't the fusion vary form week to week let alone year to year? How do you know if being worried influences your wing or statist preferences? What the hell?
7) People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
In Israel this is 100% untrue and in Dubai it is both untrue and very true all at once. In India it is 100% true. This depends 100% on the location of the person taking the test.
8) Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Anyone who knows even an ounce of economics knows that both are equally important. Or maybe that's just the centrist in me coming out.
9) Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
Anyone who says no is either an idiot who needs to study some ecological science or is so hellbent on getting a right wing result that they wouldn't dare risk answering honestly to this one.
10) "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
Firstly it's sexist to say 'his'. Secondly, this is impossible to answer until the criteria by which ability and need are determined is revealed. Additionally, this is a fundamentally good idea only if correctly balanced with capitalism's need for progress but again that could just be the centrist in me coming out.
11) It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
How or why could this be sad? Do you want to drink filthy water and get cholera? Stupid question and only someone hellbent on getting a left-wing result would agree with this.
12) Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
How else could we possible decide who owns land then? Only people hellbent on left wing result will agree to this.
13) It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
Regrettable to their competitors and the people they make money off but not regrettable to them. Dumb question because it's purely based on whether or not the person taking the test got rich by this method or not rather than their views on the economy. A Libertarian easily could agree to this but would get a left wing and statist push on their results from doing so.
14) Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
Anyone who disagrees is hellbent on a right-wing result an doesn't know what 'sometimes' means. Also, a left-winger may disagree to this because they think it is always necessary as opposed to sometimes but the results would push the opposite way.
I'll stop for now. Maybe you'd like me to show how even more are stupid though.
Yeah...So I say the questions are purposefully skewed because thats how some polls are designed and you keep hammering away that the questions are "stupid" and give examples of of how skewed the questions are. You then say;since you are trying to defend one question let me explain why more are stupid:
I said the questions are purposefully slanted, not that the questions were good questions. I gave an example of how you did not address the question. Then you show you cannot address my point with your next post to me.
Again do you see how you are not addressing what I said but what you think I said? Try using quote from the person you are talking with, that will help you from making this mistake in the future. Although with your history I am not sure this is your goal.
If someone says X is stupid then someone says Y is the answer but you keep saying X is stupid without even addressing Y it just shows you are not having a conversation. It seems you even skip my questions just to say your bit, like how did you come to your conclusion that the poll is inaccurate? What was your sample size etc.? Really there is nothing left to discuss here, if there was ever a discussion at all.
The semicolon persists even after I take it out in an edit. This post was a repeat with the links but the semicolon still appears even after I made sure it wasn't there. So I guess I will just have to leave well enough alone.
It got more or less similar results between the two, but I didn't like how the test was made. It has a lot of subjective questions. Some of them are indeed related to certain ideologies, but they're still personal opinions. Astrology? Abstract art? I don't understand why those are there. I don't recommend it.
The question on astrology was likely to try to expose the difference between those that are more statist and those that are more religious or hippy dippy among their own groups within the 'left' or 'right'.
You can have your crystal gripping hippies on the left and your more science based people on the left. Similar stances are on the political right as well.
The slanted questions are purposefully done.
I am unsure where the art question fits in when trying to differentiate between groups myself though. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a purpose though.
The test places me in the libertarian camp. However, since there are a huge variety of sects within libertarianism I would like to further qualify my current albeit unsure position. I am first and foremost an economist. I find myself in the most agreement with the writings of John Staurt Mill, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman. These are utilitarian pro-market (not necessarily free market) economists. I like most of what comes out of the University of Chicago. More recent writers I admire: Alvin E Roth, Richard Thaler, and Cass Sunstein.
May I ask what exactly appeals to you about utilitarianism?
Also, how would you describe the difference between being pro-market and supporting a free market? And how would a pro-market stance be differentiated from more stereotypically liberal economic views which cannot be said to be anti-market?
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
I also did find it accurate. I knew I tend to the left ideology and also a bit to the libertarian one.
Economic regulation ultimately affects the freedoms of individuals to act within the private sector. Why are such private, economic rights subject to restriction more than their other counterparts?
You said it, ultimately. It's because extreme economic freedom does more wrong than right in a lot of issues, and affects negatively a lot of people, while favoring some others. I see some problems on a free market, and sure it's definition says that a true free market would be without corruption, but I can't think how would that be accomplished.
However, personal liberties do not affect others (unless you are talking about beliefs and those things), so, that's the reason.
I want economic regulation, but however, they are a lot of different kinds of regulations that can be done. It can mean many things.
I am not a communist, by any means. But I am not a libertarian, undoubtedly.
Your argument is not unique to personal economic liberties; other personal liberties can absolutely affect others, particularly when taken to equitable extremes. There are no individual liberties which exist in isolation from others' individual liberties, and the need to resolve those conflicting rights claims means that all rights become inherently restricted to some degree within social arrangements.
My issue regarding liberalism is that it tends to approach economic liberties differently from other liberties, namely in that it approaches the former predominantly with an eye to restriction and the latter with an eye to freedom. Yet there seems to be no especially distinguishing element between the one personal liberty and all others. I think that this represents a bias in the common liberal ideology, tied into a narrative that pits economic liberties against other liberties even though that is not inherently or even predominantly the case. I also think that there are very real, negative repercussions to this perspective.
What personal liberties do affect the rights of others? Such as...
Some of my reasons to want restriction on economic liberties are that I would like that there would be laws protecting the workers, controlling the pollution, and stop privatization of PUBLIC SERVICES like hospitals, or transport or electricity and water. (I live in Spain)
My reason to keep an 'eye to freedom' to personal liberties is because I would like that the civil liberties would be respected...
That rights conflict with one another is precisely why complex legal systems exist: to mediate those conflicts. I literally cannot think of a single right which does not in some way potentially affect another. The most common example is the case of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, whereby the freedom of speech threatens the rights to well-being and life. Or the right to protest when doing so might incite a riot, threatening rights ranging from life to property. And so on, and so forth.
I do not disagree that there should be restrictions upon economic liberties, but I disagree with treating those liberties as any different from every other liberty. If one understands economic liberty to be another civil liberty, and indeed there is little to nothing to distinguish it, then it makes no sense at all to emphasize restriction for the one civil liberty and freedom for the others. My criticism is not that liberal advocacy for restricting economic liberties but rather the perspective that is brought to the process, which I view as unfounded and indefensible.
The real question is: what exactly makes personal economic liberty so different from every other personal liberty as to warrant the disparate treatment liberals tend to give it?
Economic liberty is not personal economic liberty (¿and what does that mean?, ¿private property?) , and it is not a civil liberty. Economy is not personal. (Unless you are talking about the right to own property, that one is included as a civil liberty, and I would also include private property, it's not always considered by everyone)
I know libertarianism is the one that says: 'there's no difference between personal freedom and the economic one', and if I am not wrong, in the USA they make no distinction in the laws, but I understand economy as a collective thing. I can't understand how you or others see it that way. My brain can't process that view.
Anything can be a liberty so long as it is construed by someone to be either an entitlement to something or an entitlement from something. To say that personal economic liberty does not exist is therefore only an assertion of your opinion, not an argument against its actual existence or preferentiality.
I understand that it may be difficult to conceive of the economy predominantly as an individualized thing when you are accustomed to thinking of it as a collective thing. Perhaps it would help to consider that every single possible economic action that creates every economy is ultimately taken by an individual. This is an inherent and empirical reality, whereas the idea of the economy as a nebulous and collective entity is not. Quite simply, there is no "economy" any more than there is a "society" or a "government"; these things exist only as concepts, ultimately comprised of individuals and their actions.
It would be meaningless and inaccurate to say that a law against drunk driving affects the liberty of the collective society rather than the individuals who comprise it, and the same follows for an international trade tariff which affects individuals involved in such trading. There is no logic in arguing that economic liberties are anything other than personal liberties, because they cannot feasibly belong to anyone/anything else.
I am not arguing that economic liberties ought to be treated as superior to other rights; just as drunk driving laws legitimately weigh competing rights, so too should economic laws. My sustained objection to the liberal position is the seeming tendency to prioritize all other rights above economic ones, without any real rationale for doing so. So long as there is an economy there will be economic rights, and those are sometimes just as integral to personal well-being and vitality as our other rights.
I'm not saying that it isn't a liberty, I'm saying that is not a personal liberty. I told you before.
I understand that it may be difficult to conceive of the economy predominantly as a collective thing when you are accustomed to thinking of it as an individualized thing ;)
every single possible economic action that creates every economy is ultimately taken by an individual.
The most simple economic action that it comes to my mind is to buy something.One person sells, one buys. It takes two individuals to do a simple thing like a trade, not one.
If there were one person in the world, economy as such wouldn't exist. However, if they were two persons, we could talk different.
You seem to have missed my point. I understand that you do not think economic liberties are not personal liberties, but I am challenging you to present any rationale at all as to how they could be anything other than individual liberties. Your argument that multiple individuals engage together is a disingenuous evasion of this point, as my intention was rather clear I think: individuals are involved in economic decisions, not some nebulous "collective" that does not exist in actuality. You cannot even prove that this abstract concept has any tangible reality, let alone that we should prioritize it over the individuals who actually make the decisions and actions.
For the record, I grew up viewing the economy as a collective and consequently do understand the perspective; I simply view it as unfounded and your seeming inability to prove it even exists is hardly persuasive.
Individuals are the ones involved, you said it, therefore, it's not an individual thing. It's pretty simple. You can try proving otherwise.
I don't understand your expression 'nebulous collective'
Since they are not the same thing, it isn't mandatory to treat them as the same. I do want regulations on both, however, I don't think there's need to treat them at the same level.
I am not trying to persuade you. I told you my view, you can have your opinion on it.
If individuals are involved then it is inherently an individual thing; how could it be otherwise? I do not understand how you are jumping from individual action and reaching the conclusion that those actions do not constitute a form of liberty (whether or not that liberty is valued or not is another mater).
By "nebulous collective" I mean an collection or aggregate of individuals that is treated as its own entity but which is necessarily nebulous or vague because it does not actually exist on its own in any tangible way. In other words, if we do not view the "economy" or "society" or "government" in terms of the individuals who comprise it then what do we even mean by those terms? On their own, they are meaningless.
Individual economic decisions are a form of personal decision making, and so there is a capacity towards a decision and action which can therefore be restricted or enhanced. Ergo, there is personal economic liberty. I am making no observation as to whether it should be restricted or enhanced, but rather that there seems to be nothing which distinguishes economic decision making from any other form of decision making. If your argument held true about individuals being involved and it therefore being not an individual thing, then why does that not also apply to other rights exercised by individuals? Say, the right to free speech, to life even...
If individuals are involved then it is inherently an individuals thing. I do understand individuals are the ones that make the economy, society, etc. But that's why I see as collective, because it's a group of persons, or a group of groups. I mean, if that is not collective, what is it?
It is a liberty, not an individual liberty, because it takes more than one individual. You need the decisions of at least two persons. If in your own personal economic decision you want to buy something, but the other person doesn't want to sell, then nothing.
The right to live. A person has the right to life. Individually. If I am not wrong, if you were ill and there's was a cure for that illness, you have the right to receive that treatment.
When it conflicts with another person's right to live, that's when regulation is needed. That's why if even in self defense, a person is killed, the case goes to a court that evaluates the situation.
I see it like a simple thing. I don't know if we are setting something clear with this argument.
If individuals are involved then it is inherently an individuals thing.
This is the exact opposite of what you said before. Which do you actually believe?
I do understand individuals are the ones that make the economy, society, etc. But that's why I see as collective, because it's a group of persons, or a group of groups. I mean, if that is not collective, what is it?
The idea of a collective is still an idea. There is no tangible collective identity or action the way there are tangible individual identities or actions. The former exists, but only as a subjective idea subject to multiple different interpretations and understandings. The latter exists as an objective phenomenon.
It is a liberty, not an individual liberty, because it takes more than one individual. You need the decisions of at least two persons. If in your own personal economic decision you want to buy something, but the other person doesn't want to sell, then nothing.
Just because individuals' rights interact with one another this does not render them non-individual. In a basic transaction between two people both are exercising an individual right to property (ownership of money and ownership of object/service), just as in a basic conversation two people both are exercising an individual right to free speech. At most you have two different economic rights - to purchase and to sell- but, similarly, this does not render them non-individual anymore than the freedom of speech and the right to life interacting would (the premise upon which hate speech is restricted).
The right to live. A person has the right to life. Individually. If I am not wrong, if you were ill and there's was a cure for that illness, you have the right to receive that treatment.
I fail to see how asserting a more commonly agreed upon right constitutes an argument against individual economic rights...
When it conflicts with another person's right to live, that's when regulation is needed. That's why if even in self defense, a person is killed, the case goes to a court that evaluates the situation.
This demonstrates my point that interaction of individual rights does not render them non-individual.
I see it like a simple thing. I don't know if we are setting something clear with this argument.
I also view it as quite simple. An individual takes an individual action and if that action is protected then it is a right being exercised by an individual, rendering it quite clearly an individual right. It makes no more sense to say that an economic right is a collective right because we live in a collective economy than it does to say that a right to life is a collective right because we live in a collective society. Now, that argument might be made successfully but I do not think one can legitimately have it both ways at once.
If individuals are involved then it is inherently an individuals thing.
I stand by my sentence. I said individualS' thing.
Just because individuals' rights interact with one another this does not render them non-individual.
When a person sells, other one buys. It 'cannot' be otherwise. Okay, you have the right to sell. But nobody can buy. There isn't 'sell' without 'buy'.
Anyway, in your posture: they are an individual thing. You also say that trading always involves two liberties. They are individuals' rights interacting with one another, and if the government choses to regulate them, an action like the trading one will always require regulation.
The right to live, own a property, choosing or not a religion, etc etc, those rights don't need it all the time.
Therefore, in both of our postures, (if we are thinking about a society that regulates the rights when more than one right is involved), the economy will require more regulation. Hence, the posture of the socialists.
I stand by my sentence. I said individualS' thing.
Even if there are multiple individuals they are still, ultimately, singular individuals who happen to be viewed in composite. That we discuss them as a group does not erase their individuality or the fact that they are acting as singular individuals even when they (inter)act together.
When a person sells, other one buys. It 'cannot' be otherwise. Okay, you have the right to sell. But nobody can buy. There isn't 'sell' without 'buy'.
Why can nobody buy? That makes no sense. Obviously, the do buy and they are able to do so because there is no prohibition against them doing so (i.e. they have a right to buy).
Anyway, in your posture: they are an individual thing. You also say that trading always involves two liberties.
I did not say that trading always involves two liberties. I clearly stated that we can understand the situation as either the same, single right (right to trade) or as a system of multiple rights (e.g. right to sell and right to buy) which could include more than two liberties.
They are individuals' rights interacting with one another, and if the government choses to regulate them, an action like the trading one will always require regulation.
Regulation in no way means that the individual lacks a right. Quite the opposite, actually, as one most have a right in order for it to be regulated in the first place.
The right to live, own a property, choosing or not a religion, etc etc, those rights don't need it all the time.
Neither does the right to trade, sell, buy, etc.; there are plenty of transactions that can and do get on just fine without regulation. This is commonly referred to as the informal sector, which may operate upon barter and is generally not regulated by the government for the very simple reason that the transactions are neither monitored by nor reported to the government.
Therefore, in both of our postures, (if we are thinking about a society that regulates the rights when more than one right is involved), the economy will require more regulation. Hence, the posture of the socialists.
The socialist argues that the economy (and therefore individual economic rights) require greater regulation, but the simple fact that they claim this does not make it true. You are, effectively, defending the assumption I am questioning by asserting its truth... without actually proving it. Why do economic rights inherently require greater regulation than other rights?
Even if there are multiple individuals they are still, ultimately, singular individuals who happen to be viewed in composite. That we discuss them as a group does not erase their individuality or the fact that they are acting as singular individuals even when they (inter)act together.
There's things that always require a group of individuals. Therefore, it can't be an individual thing, even if each person is interacting on their own.
Why can nobody buy? That makes no sense. Obviously, the do buy and they are able to do so because there is no prohibition against them doing so (i.e. they have a right to buy).
I did not say that trading always involves two liberties. I clearly stated that we can understand the situation as either the same, single right (right to trade) or as a system of multiple rights (e.g. right to sell and right to buy) which could include more than two liberties.
Regulation in no way means that the individual lacks a right. Quite the opposite, actually, as one most have a right in order for it to be regulated in the first place.
If the sentence bothers you, change the 'nobody can buy', to 'nobody is willing to buy'. I was not removing the right. Of course you need to have first both rights, because if they were independent of each other, you wouldn't need both. The point is that when you sell, there's always someone buying: they're two rights interacting. If there's no one selling, no one can buy, and vice versa.
Neither does the right to trade, sell, buy, etc.; there are plenty of transactions that can and do get on just fine without regulation. This is commonly referred to as the informal sector, which may operate upon barter and is generally not regulated by the government for the very simple reason that the transactions are neither monitored by nor reported to the government.
I'm not denying economy can work without regulation of the government. There's more than one way to make things work, and many countries have different needs.
About the informal sector in developed societies, I assume you are talking about the illegal activities, and the barter as you said.
... and, I just realized. I do not believe there's need to regulate the last. Someone once show me a time-based currency, and I though it was a great idea.
Anyway, that's not an argument to deny the socialist view. Or is that you think it implies to ban the barter?
The socialist argues that the economy (and therefore individual economic rights) require greater regulation, but the simple fact that they claim this does not make it true. You are, effectively, defending the assumption I am questioning by asserting its truth... without actually proving it. Why do economic rights inherently require greater regulation than other rights?
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
You can see that this text makes a distinction between the two, personal matters and economy.
Why economy requires greater regulation?
As I said before (in my interpretation), in economy, economic rights are interacting with others, not individually.
Therefore, you do see why they say so. In their view they don't have the problem you have. In your view, you think they are hypocrites.
The problem is it's that you see no distinction between those rights, and they do.
You stated this before:
The real question is: what exactly makes personal economic liberty so different from every other personal liberty as to warrant the disparate treatment liberals tend to give it?
And I said this:
Therefore, in both of our postures, (if we are thinking about a society that regulates the rights when more than one right is involved), the economy will require more regulation. Hence, the posture of the socialists.
If we are talking about the economy, excluding the informal market (the exception proves the rule, as the idiom says, no? :), it's okay if I say that it will always require regulation, and the personal rights not always?
There's things that always require a group of individuals. Therefore, it can't be an individual thing, even if each person is interacting on their own. & If the sentence bothers you, change the 'nobody can buy', to 'nobody is willing to buy'. [...] If there's no one selling, no one can buy, and vice versa. & Why economy requires greater regulation? As I said before (in my interpretation), in economy, economic rights are interacting with others, not individually.
That a right is dependent upon external conditions to be actualized does not make it not a right. We regularly endorse other rights which rely upon others' participation or existence to be actualized. For instance, we might say that everyone has basic parental rights even though not everyone currently has children and those rights cannot be exercised without a child. One might also argue that just as the right to sell is fairly meaningless without someone to buy, the right to free speech is fairly meaningless without someone to listen. If you are going to argue that dependent rights do not exist, then you will need to defend discrepancies such as these as well as advance an argument as to why this should even be the case. Simply claiming it to be so does not substantiate your view.
Furthermore, not all economic rights require a group of individuals or any interaction at all. The right to property requires neither, but is fundamentally an economic right. So, at best, your argument explains only some economic rights but not all.
I'm not denying economy can work without regulation of the government. [...] Anyway, that's not an argument to deny the socialist view. Or is that you think it implies to ban the barter?
You have misunderstood my point. Your argument was that economic rights require more regulation. If economic rights can be practiced without regulation, as is demonstrated by any informal economy or exchange, then it is fundamentally the case that economic rights do not require more regulation than other rights. Therefore, it cannot be said that the socialist view is correct in its assumption that economic rights require greater regulation.
You can see that this text makes a distinction between the two, personal matters and economy.
That the view represented by the text makes the distinction the simple act of distinction does not render itself valid. That would be begging the question, a form of circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.
Therefore, you do see why they say so. In their view they don't have the problem you have. In your view, you think they are hypocrites. The problem is it's that you see no distinction between those rights, and they do.
The problem is that I have never seen anyone advance a legitimate argument to defend that distinction, and that it is more commonly assumed than critically arrived at. Not all views are equal with respect to their logical integrity, so the simple fact that we both hold views does not automatically render them equitable in the context of a debate.
If we are talking about the economy, excluding the informal market (the exception proves the rule, as the idiom says, no? :), it's okay if I say that it will always require regulation, and the personal rights not always?
You cannot exclude the informal economy from consideration because it is still a domain where economic rights are exercised. You are engaging in a confirmation basis by refusing to acknowledge any evidence which contradicts your premise, but that does not render that evidence non-existent. Because informal economies exist it necessarily follows that economic rights can be and are employed without regulation. Therefore, your view that economic rights always require regulation is both empirically and logically incorrect. It is "okay" for you to continue to hold it only if you are comfortable holding an indefensible view against reason and evidence.
I could make the same argument against non-economic rights. If we ignore informal social settings and only look at legally regulated behavior, then there are no non-economic rights which can exist without regulation. Of course, this is just as logically unsound... but if we are accepting illogical limitations upon the empirical data then this limitation is just as valid as the one you propose. The implication being that, again, there is no actual difference between the rights we are discussing.
Free Speech: You do have the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship., even if there were nobody listening. If there were nobody, you wouldn't even need to acknowledge right, because you will have it, always. You can't say the same with the action of buying or selling.
These actions depend of others rights. In most societies, when the rights interfere with one another, they are regulated. Therefore, the actions of selling and buying would be regulated, always. That's why I said that economy would always require regulation. You aren't treating the civil rights and economic ones differently.
You have misunderstood my point. Your argument was that economic rights require more regulation. If economic rights can be practiced without regulation, as is demonstrated by any informal economy or exchange, then it is fundamentally the case that economic rights do not require more regulation than other rights. Therefore, it cannot be said that the socialist view is correct in its assumption that economic rights require greater regulation.
No, I said that because I do consider other forms of making things work. I am NOT holding that economy with the control of the government wouldn't work.
I think that economy (and society in general) could work without a government, or could work without the control of it. But if we do have a government, and if it's a good one, I want them to regulate economy.
So, it's not a matter of if it could or not. Of course it could, but we are searching for the best way. In a lot of countries, the control of the government would make things worse.
And most of the time, there's not just one right way to do something. I wouldn't mind to see how everything would work with, for example, an anarchist society. That was what I meant.
You cannot exclude the informal economy from consideration because it is still a domain where economic rights are exercised. You are engaging in a confirmation basis by refusing to acknowledge any evidence which contradicts your premise, but that does not render that evidence non-existent. Because informal economies exist it necessarily follows that economic rights can be and are employed without regulation. Therefore, your view that economic rights always require regulation is both empirically and logically incorrect. It is "okay" for you to continue to hold it only if you are comfortable holding an indefensible view against reason and evidence.
I could make the same argument against non-economic rights. If we ignore informal social settings and only look at legally regulated behavior, then there are no non-economic rights which can exist without regulation. Of course, this is just as logically unsound... but if we are accepting illogical limitations upon the empirical data then this limitation is just as valid as the one you propose. The implication being that, again, there is no actual difference between the rights we are discussing.
I can still hold that economy will always require regulation, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can put that on practice successfully.
You 'can't' control the informal market, because the exchange with things (or time) is subjective. In some countries, they do try to regulate somehow. But then, if their government gets involved, you can't really call that an informal market.
Money, in the other hand, it's way easier to control.
Free Speech [...] You aren't treating the civil rights and economic ones differently.
Rights do not guarantee the circumstances necessary for being able to exercise the right. They ensure only that where such circumstances exist and someone elects to exercise the right that exercise is protected. This is why no one is guaranteed a platform for their right to free speech, or ensured to never lose their voice from sickness or shouting too much. It is why no one is guaranteed fertility or children on account of their parental rights. It is why no one is guaranteed a place of worship for their right to religious expression. It is why no one is guaranteed a buyer for their right to sell. Therefore, it cannot be said that a circumstantial inability to exercise a right is the same as not still having the right.
Nor are all economic rights circumstantially limited as in the case of selling and buying (as already mentioned). The right to personal property, for instance, need not depend upon any other person in order to be realized as it requires only that a person possess what they already possess. This is an economic right which does not depend upon another person in any regard. Conversely, not all civil rights are completely independent from others. The right to assemble in protest fundamentally cannot be completed by one person on their own since one person cannot constitute an assembly.
That rights may conflict with one another does not mean that they always do. There are certain economic rights (just as there are certain non-economic rights) which also cannot plausibly be viewed as ever conflicting with other rights by virtue of their independence from those rights; again, the example of property ownership as a right which exists independent of others and therefore of any of their rights. Moreover, it is entirely non-unique to economic rights that they may conflict with other rights since the exact same thing is true of non-economic rights (e.g. not shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire). Since your argument applies only to some economic right, and those non-uniquely, it cannot legitimately be said that economic rights require any more regulation than non-economic rights.
No, I said that because I do consider other forms of making things work. [...] That was what I meant.
If you concede that an economy could work without a government then you are necessarily conceding that government regulation is not actually necessary. Your argument hinges upon the necessity of always regulating economic rights, so if that regulation is actually preferential rather than necessary as your most recent statements concede then your argument does not stand. And if your are arguing as a matter of preference then you are begging the question, since it is that very preference (greater regulation of economic rights) which is being questioned. Your preference itself is also heavily qualified, which means that your view on this issue is only conditionally true.
You have also missed my actual point again. My argument is that there is an informal economy which exists as a matter of fact. This economy operates without government regulation. When participating in this economy people are exercising their economic rights... without regulation. This means that regulation is not necessary for these rights to be exercised.
I can still hold that economy will always require regulation, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can put that on practice successfully.
Except that there are actual, empirical cases where regulation is not necessary. This means that holding that the economy will always require regulation is inherently false, regardless of whether the ideal translates into reality.
You 'can't' control the informal market, because the exchange with things (or time) is subjective. In some countries, they do try to regulate somehow. But then, if their government gets involved, you can't really call that an informal market.
That the government cannot successfully regulate the informal economy does not negate the existence of the informal economy, and thus it remains true that regulation is not needed for those economies to function.
Again, if we applied your rationale then non-economic rights must necessarily be always regulated for the same reason: the government cannot successfully regulate the informal society (i.e. social interactions not directly regulated by legal intervention).
First. I can still hold that economy will always require regulation, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can put that on practice successfully.
Except that there are actual, empirical cases where regulation is not necessary. This means that holding that the economy will always require regulation is inherently false, regardless of whether the ideal translates into reality.
I said, IF we have a government, and IF it controls the rights that will interfer with other right. In that situation, if we have the law that way, economy will always require regulation. ECONOMY: consists of the production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location. So, unless you have only an economy of production and consumption, which I hardly doubt, economy will require regulation. IN this THEORY, the law says all economy should be regulated, but since you can't control the informal one, it isn't regulated.
If you concede that an economy could work without a government then you are necessarily conceding that government regulation is not actually necessary.
Yes. It's not NECESSARY to make it work. It COULD work without it. It's not necessary to have a government to make a country work It has been done before, and that's a fact. As the informal economy, it exists. I didn't deny that, and saying that can't be controlled doesn't make the statement false nor it denies the existence of that economy.
Following this logic, any of the political views that says we have to have a government are wrong, because it's not really necessary.
So, if we talk about necessity, you don't need the government, also. You don't need to put on your safety belt. You don't need a lot of things.
The thing is that you forgot my: if we are thinking about a society that regulates the rights when more than one right is involved. And I stated that many times.
I can still hold that economy will always require regulation, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can put that on practice successfully.
My argument has nothing to do with practical efficacy or whether a government can/does regulate informal economies. It is not just that there are unregulated economies within every society, but that these economies function without regulation. It is the latter element you are disregarding in your analysis. The implication is that regulation of economic rights is not always requisite to a functional economy or society.
I said, IF we have a government, and IF it controls the rights that will interfer with other right. In that situation, if we have the law that way, economy will always require regulation. ECONOMY: consists of the production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location. So, unless you have only an economy of production and consumption, which I hardly doubt, economy will require regulation. IN this THEORY, the law says all economy should be regulated, but since you can't control the informal one, it isn't regulated.
Informal economies generally operate within societies which have governments which mediate conflicting rights, along side their regulated counterparts. These informal economies also have production, distribution, trade, and consumption as well. This is not unique to formal, regulated economies. Nor is it the case that all components of a complex economy need be regulated simply because some of them are; I have already elaborated at length upon this and included examples to demonstrate the point. Furthermore, defining the economy as something which always requires regulation in order to qualify as being an economy is a form of circular reasoning and is thus invalid.
You have also ignored my analysis regarding the way in which every other non-economic right is subject to the same exact conditions. This means that your argument, even if it were valid, does not prove that economic rights require greater regulation because your analysis does not distinguish them as unique in any way from economic rights. You have also failed to address my observations regarding the inherently individual nature of economic rights; doing so again constitutes tacit concession of the point. There are other points you also overlooked, but I refer you to my preceding comments rather than elaborating upon them here again.
Yes. It's not NECESSARY to make it work. It COULD work without it. It's not necessary to have a government to make a country work It has been done before, and that's a fact. As the informal economy, it exists. I didn't deny that, and saying that can't be controlled doesn't make the statement false nor it denies the existence of that economy.
You have just stated, explicitly, that regulation is not necessary for an economy to function or exist. There is no way in which this can plausibly be construed to mean that regulation is always necessary for an economy to function or exist. Again, the argument has nothing to do with the inability of governments to regulate these informal economies, and everything to do with their existing and functioning without the need for such regulation.
Following this logic, any of the political views that says we have to have a government are wrong, because it's not really necessary.
Except that there is a difference between saying that something is not always necessary and saying that it is never necessary. I am arguing the former with respect to economic rights, not the latter.
The thing is that you forgot my: if we are thinking about a society that regulates the rights when more than one right is involved. And I stated that many times.
I did not forget this argument, but have actually addressed it thoroughly every time you have brought it up. I refer you, for instance, to my analysis about why this is non-unique to economic rights.
The thing is that you forgot my: if we are thinking about a society that regulates the rights when more than one right is involved. And I stated that many times.
I did not forget this argument, but have actually addressed it thoroughly every time you have brought it up. I refer you, for instance, to my analysis about why this is non-unique to economic rights.
You didn't? Then why this?:
The implication is that regulation of economic rights is not always requisite to a functional economy or society.
And this: You have just stated, explicitly, that regulation is not necessary for an economy to function or exist. There is no way in which this can plausibly be construed to mean that regulation is always necessary for an economy to function or exist
And this: Furthermore, defining the economy as something which always requires regulation in order to qualify as being an economy is a form of circular reasoning and is thus invalid.
A) My statement is: 'IF we have a government, and IF it controls the rights that will interfere with other right. In that situation, if we have the law that way, economy will always require regulation.
Therefore, the above commentaries are something that you made up.
You have also ignored my analysis regarding the way in which every other non-economic right is subject to the same exact conditions. This means that your argument, even if it were valid, does not prove that economic rights require greater regulation because your analysis does not distinguish them as unique in any way from economic rights. You have also failed to address my observations regarding the inherently individual nature of economic rights; doing so again constitutes tacit concession of the point. There are other points you also overlooked, but I refer you to my preceding comments rather than elaborating upon them here again.
The civil and political rights or liberties could interfere with other rights, and then they would be regulated. If they don't interfere with others, they aren't regulated. Nearly all the civil rights don't interfere with others, in principle. The right to defend oneself, for example, it's one that includes always another person, that's why all the cases are regulated in court. Even by making laws about something you are regulating that, even if it's a law of no-interference from the government, a liberty.
You said that individual economic rights exist, even if those rights depend on others, so
please state here all the economic rights or liberties that won't necessary interfere with others or don't need another one to function. I start: private property.
Another thing, when you say economic rights, I can assume you are either talking about:
A) Social economic rights, like the labor rights: The right to work, to the free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work; the right to form and join trade unions: the right to strike; the right to social security; and the right to own property.
B) Or to the liberties like free market, freedom of contract, free trade, etc...
C) Or both, or neither of the above.
Please explain yourself when you say economic rights, or individual economic rights. Because individual economic rights is not a term that exists officially, and economic rights refers to either the economic freedom or the ones related to the human rights.
And apart from everything, my point was that if the government does always regulate the actions where is involved more than one person' right. (I'll call it A), it doesn't make any difference to me if you say that economy is an individual thing, or I say it's not, because if there's regulation of A, the only difference will be this:
I would say 'economy will require greater regulation', and you would say 'no, it requires the same as the other things', but in the matter of law there would be no difference.
I did not invent the existence of informal economies and societies. They exist as a matter of empirical fact, which you have already conceded. This does not mean that formal economies and societies do not exist concurrently, which I have already explained at length. Your heavily conditioned statement is begging the question when it fallaciously dismisses this reality and asserts its conditions in defense of the same conditions you assume to exist in the first place (and in spite of contradictory evidence).
I have repeatedly presented examples which disprove your claims about the purported fundamental differences between economic rights and other rights. You have been entirely unable to demonstrate that either is unique from the other in any way. I also did not invent the term "individual economic rights", and it is no more vague than any other terminology in the field of rights discourse.
Finally, and for the record, I never once adopted a position on this issue. The basis of my argument is not a counter-proposal but an observation of your inability to substantiate and defend your own view. Incidentally, I happen to agree with you; I just also think you do a particularly shoddy job at defending our common conclusion.
I am disinclined to continue repeating myself at this juncture, as you are evidently incapable of grasping my arguments or your own fallacious reasoning. Take the final word if you like; it does not matter to me.
A) I NEVER denied the existence of informal economies, neither that you said formal ones are nonexistent. Things work in THEORY, but not always in reality, and assuming that makes something fallacious it's WRONG.
B) You have said that some of the 'the individual economic rights' depend on another right to function, ALWAYS. And that for me it's not by any means individual. Your theory though it's not illogical, but I do not think it's right.
C) I DO NOT STATE HOW THINGS WORK. It's that I didn't find anywhere the term individual economic rights, and that can mean a lot of things, yes and it's vague, because ECONOMIC RIGHTS in the term of human,individual rights refer to the economic rights related to social ones, like right to adequate work conditions and such. Not the right to trade.
Therefore, I will still consider economy as a collective thing, as the rest of the world. I think everything it's clear now. Thanks for reading all of this.
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.
