[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

Mr Jones mrjones2020 at gmail.com
Tue May 10 19:56:09 UTC 2011


Particularly interesting to me were these few sentences...

Yes, I believe that coercion
> is a prima facie bad.  But I also believe that it is prima facie bad
> for people to fail to get what they deserve, or for their basic needs
> to be unmet.  These moral beliefs, to my mind, have just as firm a
> standing as my opposition to coercion.  I see no reason to believe
> that in a conflict between them, the opposition to coercion should
> always trump.


I agree the govt doesn't get to dig into your pocket for any lil' ole thing
they want/need/desire.  But until people have their basic needs met, society
deserves the burden, as a whole.  Amass as much capital as your greedy heart
desires, once children aren't starving to death because some company like
Glencore<http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/20115723149852120.html>
has
found a way to game the system.

"Stability is to be prized," said Oxfam's David Green. And that is the last
thing Glencore wants, as it's instability which is most profitable - for
those who have the inside knowledge to exploit it.

Govt provides a kind of balancing against the power of capital (at least
it's supposed to, when working properly).  What we've witnessed the past
few'ish decades, is what happens when capital rules the roost
semi-unchecked.  De-regulation hands the keys to the inmates.  On the other
hand, micro-managed regulation mucks things up too; as always there's a
balance to be found.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110510/25b27c48/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list