Bastardised Libertarianism

[tdw]

"This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of oppression"


A mate of mine sent me this link, thought I'd be interested. In turn I thought it might rate a comment or ten.

This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of oppression | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

[killarney_sailor]

Well-written article - the man can certainly turn a phrase. I fear the discussion here will not match it in terms of clarity of expression or clarity of thought.

[jzk]

"Rightwing libertarianism recognises few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others."

Quite the generalization that he is making. However, the discussion should certainly take place.

If I get a sexual urge, do I have the freedom to rape? No. If I like Bristol Sailboats, do I have the freedom to dump the owner and his family over the side and take the sailboat just because I can? No.

Do I have the freedom to spew harmful particulate into the atmosphere for you to breathe? NO. (But society needs to make intelligent decisions on what, exactly is "harmful particulate."

If I have a tree on my property that you love, do I have a right to cut it down? You betcha. And you have the right to buy some property and plant one.

Do I have the freedom to offer killarney_sailor $50,000 for his Bristol? Yes! Yes I do. And killarney_sailor has the right to accept, reject or make a counter offer. Do we need the government to approve our transaction because $50,000 is not a "fair" price for a boat that nice? What if killarney_sailor has found himself in a pinch and really needs $50,000. Am I "exploiting" him? And killarney_sailor is free to put a for sale sign on his boat asking a million dollars for it. If someone pays him the million, good for him!

Same goes with minimum wage or work hours. If I offer killarney_sailor $2.00 per hour to clean my sailboat, and killarney_sailor accepts, what business is it of society to object? I am free to give my $2.00 to killarney_sailor, and he is free to scrub. Of course there are well meaning people in the world that would start asking questions like "How can killarney_sailor support a family on $2.00 per hour." Well, he can't, of course. So, maybe instead of scrubbing my boat to support his family he writes a sought after text book and sells it for the highest price he can command. Good for him. But there will always be $2.00 per hour waiting for him if he wants to accept my offer.

So maybe I find such a "sucker" that has a poor educational background, and I "manipulate" him to take the job. He can just clean day after day for the $2.00 per hour. Or, maybe he can develop some really good boat detailing skills with his "on the job" training. Maybe he gets to wandering around the dock and figures out that there is no shortage of people willing to pay $5.00 per hour to clean their boats. And, he might further discover that if he buys a $40.00 buffer and some bonnets, he can polish/wax people's boats for $25.00 per hour. Good for him. So now this uneducated person is making $25.00 per hour, and has more work than he can handle. All because society didn't take away his freedom to clean my boat for $2.00 per hour.

But, instead he doesn't get the job. And, there is no better job available because by definition he would have taken that one over the $2.00 one in the first place. So society will just pay him to sit home and watch TV instead. Maybe that is "better" than working all day for $2.00 per hour, but maybe it is not better than having the guy start and grow his own business with the knowledge he learned from that job. So the "government" can feel good about themselves knowing that they instituted a "living" wage, but instead they just blocked a whole lot of people from rising up out of their economic positions.

[jzk]

Since it seems that all of the world's problems are traced to "greed," someone needs to put a stop to it.

In 2010 Bruce Springsteen "exploited" his fans to the tune of $70 million. That kind of "greed" just can't be tolerated especially when the "service" that he is providing isn't really "needed."

He should be limited to max $500,000. The rest gets redistributed to make things fair. $500,000 is way plenty for anyone. A gift really.

Charlie Sheen is up next. $30 million in 2010. And look how he treats women. What kind of example is he for the young people? Like the other poster said, when you are doing Cocaine, you have too much money. He doesn't even deserve Bruce's $500,000 because at least Bruce seems to be a good guy.

U2 $130 million dollars. And the nerve of Bono pretending he is so righteous when really he is just exploiting and swindling all of those stupid fans.

Simon Cowell $80 million. And, he is pretty mean to some of the American Idol contestants. Do you know how much guts it takes to go up on stage and sing your heart out just to be ridiculed by this guy? And then if you do succeed you have already signed your life away to this guy. This is the very pinnacle of "corporate greed." I hear he is much nicer to the X factor contestants, but he is still pretty greedy.

Yeah, some of you might say that in our wonderful world of "freedom" these people should have the right to earn whatever that they can command in the marketplace. That they provide a valuable service as is evidenced by their fans freely parting with their hard earned money. But don't you believe it. They are the most evil on this planet because they would use the word "freedom" to exploit all of these fans just so that these few people can amass an unreasonable amount of wealth.

[Bene505]

I got part way through it, then I couldn't stand the filth of it.

About the tenant of the apartment that cut down the tree... He should get his own tree instead of bitching and complaining what someone else does with theirs. Making firewood, improving a distant view, not liking bird poop, allergies, wanting to put a veranda their, or just wanting to piss off an always-complaining tenant -- it doesn't matter why he wanted it cut down, it was his.

Maybe if the tenant saved some money he could buy his own place. Pay his existing loans back on time to get a better credit rating and then get a mortgage. The he can enjoy the pleasures of tree (and yard) ownership. Yes, cutting the grass and trimming the trees will be all his responsibility. Then he can listen to others complain about how he treats his tree and about his grass getting too long.

Someone needs to do a followup on the demonized land (and tree) owner. It's people like this complainer that drag down the economy, making it harder to develop new business and grow. It's people like this that eat our seed corn, whether it's actually eating seed corn or overtaxing people who spent the last 15 years in school to make something of themselves while this asshat stared out the window.

I remember the first time I owned a tree, it took me 30+ years. I love that tree. It's a cherry tree and it blossoms every spring. It's still mine to cut down if I want. Go stuff yourself if you feel oherwise.

Regards,
Brad

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by jzk

Since it seems that all of the world's problems are traced to "greed," someone needs to put a stop to it.

In 2010 Bruce Springsteen "exploited" his fans to the tune of $70 million. That kind of "greed" just can't be tolerated especially when the "service" that he is providing isn't really "needed."

He should be limited to max $500,000. The rest gets redistributed to make things fair. $500,000 is way plenty for anyone. A gift really.

Charlie Sheen is up next. $30 million in 2010. And look how he treats women. What kind of example is he for the young people? Like the other poster said, when you are doing Cocaine, you have too much money. He doesn't even deserve Bruce's $500,000 because at least Bruce seems to be a good guy.

U2 $130 million dollars. And the nerve of Bono pretending he is so righteous when really he is just exploiting and swindling all of those stupid fans.

Simon Cowell $80 million. And, he is pretty mean to some of the American Idol contestants. Do you know how much guts it takes to go up on stage and sing your heart out just to be ridiculed by this guy? And then if you do succeed you have already signed your life away to this guy. This is the very pinnacle of "corporate greed." I hear he is much nicer to the X factor contestants, but he is still pretty greedy.

Yeah, some of you might say that in our wonderful world of "freedom" these people should have the right to earn whatever that they can command in the marketplace. That they provide a valuable service as is evidenced by their fans freely parting with their hard earned money. But don't you believe it. They are the most evil on this planet because they would use the word "freedom" to exploit all of these fans just so that these few people can amass an unreasonable amount of wealth.

None of them made a nickle from me.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Bene505

I got part way through it, then I couldn't stand the filth of it.Regards, Brad

Good to see that you keep an open mind and thoroughly investigate opposing views.

[bljones]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

None of them made a nickle from me.

That's cuz you're old.
And cheap.

[bljones]

Y'know, when i quickly read the title of this thread, my first thought was "huh? Librarians born to single parents are out of control? What, is the Dewey Decimal system endangered?"
And then I realized it was another square peg/round hole op-ed piece.

I gotta tell you, I was hoping for hot chicks in glasses and hairbuns looking to get freaky.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by bljones

That's cuz you're old.
And cheap.

You're not old until you think you are - my kids tell ME to turn it down.

And I'm not cheap, I'm PRUDENT - that's cheap but with good taste.