The Jungles effect on libertarianism and it's branches

I believe in the free market and all that. No government involvement libertarian stuff. But one of my friends always counters with The Jungle. Not sure how to counter. Stuff was pretty bad and the regulations did help in a way

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM
mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Maybe he just has a point? Look at how corrupt and inhumane some companies can be, and that's WITH a bunch of arbitrary restrictions.

Human nature is a shit to trust. It's why we need a regulatory body in the first place.

Nobody forced people to work in those factories.

Or work as farmhands, in Grapes of Wrath.

Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to do anything.

>No government involvement libertarian stuff.

1st stop calling yourself a libertarian, becuz your not one

2nd How do free markets work without courts?

118029155
I agree. I thought that when he said that that they could work somewhere else or strike if it meant that much to them.

nobody forced anyone to open their factory in the US where health safety laws exist.

Guess dems the brakes

To be fair, conditions in food-processing plants back then really were disgusting.

What about the people who received tainted meat in the book?

I would like to think of myself as libertarian, but libertarians never address how to bring their free market policing into the court system. Unless there is a blatant death from a lack of safety you would have to spend millions in legal fees to bring justice against unsanitary and unsafe practices

How am I not libertarian?

There's a difference between "regulating a few things to ensure safety and health" and "regulating everything to the point where the companies you force regulations on will just go somewhere else with less regulations, and still sell you products that you buy and eat and probably stick your dick into every night".

>reading The Jungle as if it were a legitimate historical document rather than a propagandistic work of fiction

You can still be overall libertarian and recognize the fact that we should not be eating rat shit mixed with our food.

Even libertarians recognize that government has SPECIFIC duties such as defense, diplomacy, keeping our food free of rat shit ect. The second you denounce any sort of reasonable regulation in the name of libertarianism you sound like an idiot

>No government involvement libertarian stuff.
>dude health and safety regulations are gay XD

Just fucking move to China already

>No government involvement

That's called ANARCHISM

Libertarianism or "Liberalism" is a philosophy about the proper role in government. It does not reject the social contract.

I look at my own city and how 70+ people died in the MGM Grand fire because buildings didn't require fire sprinklers back that.

As much as people can try to argue the consumer choice would regulate that, the hard truth is you don't see that shit anymore. It simply doesn't happen after the fire codes were put in place

This, people can ship food into the country with zero regulations and the food that is farmed here is full of antibiotics and super bugs.

Well I feel stupid. I'm sure they were bad, but yeah, it is propaganda. I fell dumb

>China
>Libertarian

This
*tips tinfoil*

NO.

Regulations did not help in a way.

Today Americans sicken themselves on an industrial food chain stamped as safe by the institutions created in response to conditions described in that book.

What if that hadn't been possible? What if they had read the book and decided that factory food wasn't to be trusted and that the safe way to eat was to bin all that factory crap get to know your farmer? What if we'd followed that path for a hundred years rather than the one that led us to pink slime burgers?

Anarcho-capitalism is a branch of libertarianism

There are no health or safety regulations

therefore it is a libertarian paradise.

But they're communist. Opposite end of the spectrum man.

No . Its Shit.

It rejects a state.

Libertarianism doesn't.

Don't conflate that moral preaching bullshit, with a philosophy based on dealing with the practicalities of REAL societies.

NAP is a as retarded as an idea as any other moral absolutism.

You lost me. The NAP makes law obsolete pretty much

The fact that a society is libertarian does not mean it is not imposed on the people who live within it. The fact such a system is in place alters people's constraints and motivations, in such a way that your social relations are profoundly affected. This means that one can indeed be forced to live in a libertarian society. Your system is no less restrictive than any other. OP's book is an example of that.

wrong

communism was mostly abandoned. These days it's a corporate/globalist conglomerate state pairing with companies like Walmart and Apple to give you the shittiest lead laced products imaginable

It's corporatist. That's by no means a libertarian or even capitalistic society.

So the book just put the problem or of sight so that they could pretend people weren't hurt by their wants?

Perhaps you've just discovered why libertarianism is a meme.

Look at it like this. Someone will always hold the power and authority to enforce their own laws. Under libertarianism these laws and this power are created and held exclusively for the interests' of businesses.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but investing all of your faith into a concept that can just as easily work against you is moronic. I suggest you look into fascism, in which economics amounts to coorperatism, which is the government promotes capitalist growth, while making sure business isn't harming the lives of the nation's people.

Authoritarianism doesn't work. Just take a look at history

Maybe if you're an autistic child (libertarians) with no critical thinking skills

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs

Society is based on force, and therefore on government

There is no conceivable replacement for government.

It's based on capitalism but has certain government policies

none of those policies are aimed at safety and health regulations. The Walmart contractors are left to their own devices which leads to terrible standards that will kill chinks.

But thankfully China has a vast overpopulation problem so no one really cares. Life is cheap over there. That's also why it's fine to pay people shit wages.

Why is China shit? Well mainly people have no say in their government. They can't kick out the giant globalist corporations out anymore than they can lobby the government to enact actual safety regulations.

Or you change the conditions in the factories.

>But one of my friends always counters with The Jungle.
>always counters with a fictional novel

Not an argument.

You're stupid. If someone breaks the NAP then appropriate amount of violence is used to correct the problem (their aggression)

"Goddammit, I wrote a book about the horrible conditions in which the American worker toils hoping to further socialism, and all the normies care about is fucking tainted meat." -Upton Sinclair

>Authoritarianism doesn't work

kek

The fact states exist is empirical proof to the contrary

What if they use overwhelming collective actions to impose their will on a geographical region and enforce their beliefs?

Then they become a government

What happens if you do the same thing to stop them?

You become the government

either way if you use force to control a geographical region yo are the sovereign and you are the state

until then enjoy getting BTFO by police

youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM

What if I enforce the law of I don't give a fuck what you do if you don't hurt anyone. It's like controlled anarchy

Sinclar was an actual communist.

He also wrote "Oil!".

Define "hurt".

Do you think you live isolated from others?

Directly effect my livelihood without an agreement

>I enforce
In other words you are using force

>controlled anarchy
lol

not even Rothbard bought that shit

>do if you don't hurt anyone

So there are laws then, and you are the sovereign lawmaker and enforcement.

Glad we cleared that up

user, do you really think a disgusting, filthy meatpacking house with bad conditions that were reliant on costly transportation methods could out-compete localized competition if they were not being protected by an over-powerful government?

kek

I see no way to abuse those definitions

I thought rothbard was an anarchist

>He failed to realize that Americans couldn't care less about abstract ideals as long as the burgers flow.

Competition is what drives capitalism

Since 1978 they've largely abandoned Marxism-Leninism in practice.

That is literally everything unless you state to the other person "You can do everything to me.".

Again, do you think you live isolated from others?

Perfect, now we have no factories and no jobs, liberal paradise!

if they're voluntary they're not slaves and can leave if they wish. And also anarcho-capitalistic people don't have things for kids

I increasingly feel libertarians have created in their heads such a simplified and linear world that they can't see their abstraction does not fit minimally with reality.

cheaper, more availability, advertising
money is power

If it results in bodily harm, physical harm to property, or theft

>We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.

mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists

>were reliant on costly transportation methods

fucking roads REEEEEEEEE

Do you know what a contract is? People commit to each other. You can leave but there is a high cost associated with it.

Now, that's almost nothing. You are excluding so many ways people affect each other negatively, it is astounding.

And, in the end, the weasel word here was "hurt". Refrain from using it.

You didn't say anything about it being voluntary

you just said that anyone who is "affecting your livliehoods" on your land is initiating force and therefore you can do whatever you want with them.

In other words you can name yourself king and everyone on your land bonded serfs, i.e. what most states were prior to Republicanism


I think the technical term is autism

It said voluntary slave. Paradoxical

Use assault instead?

There's no such thing as Anarchy as a state of society. Anarchy is what happens in the transition from one state of society to another, it by definition cannot be sustained.

A democracy collapses into anarchy, from anarchy, Monarchy arises because Bubba had a bigger stick and decided he wanted to be king.

Libertarians need to let go of these ideological beliefs. There's no use in pursuing a daydream that doesn't fit reality. In fact, the whole reason the free market somewhat works is because it works with human nature (greed) rather than against it.

We need SOME regulation for industries like healthcare and finance, plain and simple. But there's room to deregulate a hell of a lot more than we are now.

You mixed two hardly related posts together. Go back and reread

exactly

the "anarchy" ancaps pretend to support (where a single sovereign owns the land) is just monarchism

The "anarchy" of literally "no authority" whatsoever just puts the pieces in place for monarchism to come about by creating a power vacuum.

I think you contradicted yourself

>"Goddammit, I wrote propagandistic fiction about the horrible conditions in which the American worker toils hoping to further socialism, and all the normies care about is fucking tainted meat." -Upton Sinclair

FTFY

You like the term relaxed minarchism better?

As the sovereign you can make any law you want on your land

any time someone acts in a way that doesn't benefit you, you can do whatever you want to them

after all you're the sovereign and it's your land.

Just if they violate the NAP. It worked in Chile

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Use more than 5 words. I'm not in your head.

Look at what I'm replying to then

By "ideological beliefs" I mean the daydream of a Rapture-esque commune in New Hampshire or wherever. People always jump to the logical extremes of libertarianism, but I care more about things like free ("hate") speech and a less convoluted welfare system.

And, while we're at it, a healthcare system that isn't government-monopolized like it is in Canada.

The "conditions" in The Jungle were completely fabricated. It is a work of fiction. It is the equivalent of using the Harry Potter books to make an argument.

What I meant was you hated on libertarianism and then turned around and said we need a government with little regulation

Thanks for the info

>Perfect, now we have no factories and no jobs, liberal paradise!

Except that we still do? Only those jobs aren't worse than slave labor and those factories aren't death traps?

Minarchism is also a pipe dream

>we should have limited to no defense

what about invaders? Have you ever heard of history? Do you know who the Mongols were? The huns? The Arabs?

Good luck fighting them off without collectively funded and managed military.

>It worked in Chile

You realize that Chile was a dictatorship right? It wasn't "minarchist" by any means it was a military dictatorship.

There was also nothing "anarchist" about it as Pinochet was only mildly advised by Chicago School economists, who were never and have never been remotely anarchistic in their philosophy.

>How do free markets work without courts?

Free market refers to a market economy where all transactions were entered voluntarily. It doesn't mean there are no courts. There would still be courts in place to enforce contracts when parties can not agree to third party arbitration. Read more.

There can be a minarchism dictatorship. He just ran a minarchism by himself lol

That's what I did. Never mind. Arguing with you is pointless.

The guys picture said voluntary slave. That's not a thing.
Someone said hurt was a weasel word so I asked if I should use assault instead

was that nerve gas?

>He just ran a minarchism by himself

You realize that even under Pinochet, numerous industries were owned by the state right? There was still publicly owned infrastructure. There was still a military. There was still a central bank. The was still taxation.

How is that different from a regular government?

MINARCHISM IS STILL GOVERNMENT. It's just chillax government. Also the picture the guy violated the NAP by owning slaves so he isn't an ancap

Minarchism is the ideal. And defense is the one area that a government should fund on a central level.

There is no reason the government shouldn't be as minimalist as possible.

Maybe they're willing indentured servants.

Then they're not slaves

Fellow libertarian here.
A LITTLE government is alright. Government is like fire and water. A great tool and servant when controlled, but a horrific master.

When government gains too much authority over the private lives of citizens, sociopaths invariably are drawn to it and over time convert it into a tool of their own means.

Smartest person I've talked to today

Savage. Thank you

Minimalism and restraint are vital to a successful and fulfilled life.
But these cannot come from without, only from within.

You look at almost any problem a person OR society has and it can generally be traced back to someone, something, or a plurality therein losing control and/or restraint.
This doesn't mean one should not take risks. But to exercise control over themselves while taking the risks.

Government often becomes the wrong answer to a problem caused by people losing control.
All government is really good for is providing a forum to dispute problems, a forum to seek justice for wrongdoings, or as said above, a tool of defense against hostile invaders, which will always exist as long as ego exists.
Even the living body has a government against outside invasion. The immune system.
But like the body, when that government gets out of control it can fucking KILL you. Your own body.

Read this and you will have questions answered you didn't even ask. You should be libertarian anyways.