Hacker News Reader

Comment by VMG | Hacker News Reader

How can an ideology based around property rights be greedy? Is it greedy to keep what is yours?

The world is a club run for the benefit of its members, not a contract enslaving all future generations. Therefore property rights must be balanced against other considerations. The definition of greed is to want to keep what is yours in the face of its inutility to yourself and its absolute necessity to someone else.

Libertarianism advocates for the privatization of EVERYTHING and the destruction of the social safety net. Have fun enforcing your property rights when the guy with more capital can drain you dry in the private court system. Most people who advocate libertarian ideas would be a serf/slave in a real libertarian paradise. I would also be a serf/slave, I have no illusions about that.

> Libertarianism advocates for the privatization of EVERYTHING and the destruction of the social safety net.

The privatization of everything including the social safety net.

> Have fun enforcing your property rights when the guy with more capital can drain you dry in the private court system

Users of the current court systems are having "fun" too, you know. What's the benchmark here?

My point is that wealth stratification under a libertarian system would rapidly approach the 1% owning 90+% instead of the 40% they now hold.

Robber Barons, Gilded Age. <--- Read about this era before advocating for libertarian ideas

It's hard to have discussions about the present if you don't understand the past.

> Robber Barons, Gilded Age. <--- Read about this era before advocating for libertarian ideas

The most rapid increase in prosperity in the history of mankind, where millions of people were lifted out of abject poverty. Currently repeating in other countries that embrace free-market capitalism. What's your point?

The highest class differences ever in America, save the present day. What's your point?

Class/wealth stratification is bad for everyone. The poor suffer, and if things get bad enough, emperors and their families are gunned down, [1] and the rich are beheaded. [2] Nobody wins. Striving towards a saner wage/wealth gap will have more benefits for society than hyperbolic wealth stratification.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_famil...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

You're making good arguments against communism.

The French Revolution predates communism.

It's more fair to say he's making good arguments against wealth distribution so bad for the majority that they're willing to kill their masters to have a chance at improving things.

If the rich were interested in self-preservation they'd treat wealth inequality as an existential issue.

Privatization of the social safety net? You over there pretending market forces exist that reward resolving starvation, poverty, homelessness, or any of the other myriad social problems caused by class warfare?

Market forces are the only way to reduce starvation and homelessness.

I think pretty much every charity would like a word with you.

Charities are a market force. They exist due to the prosperity created by capitalism.

Charity existed long before capitalism.

How can you be charitable without any capital?

As a counter-argument I would like to refer you to every 3rd world country on the planet, systemic (and growing) poverty in the first world, worldwide homelessness, and the handful of oligarchs who's net worth would pay to resolve these issues several times over if their assets were seized and redistributed. What is it you were saying market forces do again?

We can't talk about what's "ours" without talking about how it became "ours" in the first place. Keeping land that your ancestors "claimed" back when the world was much less populated, most likely driving other people off by force to do so, is indeed greedy.

...the king said, just before the blade fell.

Absolutely not, however it is greedy to take what isn't. (ie Irak, Syria et al ...)

We're getting off-topic, but can you name a libertarian that is pro-war? Most are vocally anti-war.

Ron Paul advocated that we pull out of every foreign military installation we have and look inward. This action would cause such a huge vacuum of power that WW III is a foregone conclusion in that scenario.

The lesson here? Libertarians have good ideas about: The war on drugs,

Yet he received more money from active duty military than all other candidates combined.

Add this to your list: blowback.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com