108
109

Rothbard vs Sanders (imgur.com)

Libertarian__gamer が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]VovaPoutine -7ポイント-6ポイント  (60子コメント)

"We must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children."

-Murray Rothbard

[–]gay_unicorn666 7ポイント8ポイント  (11子コメント)

What's the relevance of this quote here?

[–]HamsterPants522Autarcho-Privatist 23ポイント24ポイント  (9子コメント)

This individual is trying to cherry pick examples of unpopular things that Rothbard said in a juvenile attempt to discredit him entirely.

[–]VovaPoutine -4ポイント-3ポイント  (8子コメント)

Well, HamsterPants, I think it is far less juvenile to discredit someone by pointing out their stated support for the buying and selling of children, than to discredit someone by posting a picture of them looking goofy.

[–]gay_unicorn666 11ポイント12ポイント  (7子コメント)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Rothbard referring to a market of child labor, rather than a market of children as property?

Also, these quotes don't have anything to do with one another anyways. One "bad" quote doesn't discredit everything else they said.

[–]Wesker1982Free Market Anti-"Capitalist" Christian-Universalist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

He was talking about the adoption market. Taken in context, what he said isn't shocking or controversial at all.

[–]VovaPoutine -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

"Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children."

So he supports both the sale of children and child labour. How is that not child slavery?

[–]Cato_Keto_Cigars 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

He may give the child out for adoption,

Already occurs. People hand over children to a third party group (the government, non-profits, etc) or individual (family/grandparents, etc) all the time. Third party accepts the burden. Contract complete.

or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract.

Again, already happens. Third party in possession of child (under contract from birth parents) charges customers (parents seeking adoption) who wish to adopt a varying monetary amount to receive the child. Some children cost more than others; based on age, race, sex, intelligence, and birth location. Voluntary adoption of a newborn through a non-profit agency will generally cost between $10,000 and $25,000. Attorney adoptions of newborns generally run from $20,000 to $30,000. In this way, rights to the child's 'parental contract'[1] are transferred (sold) from one party to another for a few thousand dollars, and society acknowledges these transfer of rights (via the costs paid, the actual contract, etc) This, as opposed to kidnapping; where both parties have not agreed upon contractual terms, and the rights to said parental contract have not been transferred.

I think your looking for something that isn't there. Each individual is property of themselves. This does not vary by age, what is in contract is the 'parental contract' - that a child can break at any time using the courts - not the child itself. One could not buy a child and, say, cannibalize it (as it would be a violation of property rights). Rothbard is clear on this in all his books - I suggest you give them a shot. Amazon even carries them as audiobooks. 

Notes: 
      [1] Parental contract: The voluntary contract between Parent and Child. This is what
      is being transferred, sold, etc. This contract relies on the consent of all parties, 
      and either party can terminate (to give up for adoption/to seek parental
      independence) through an arbitration process if they choose. This is because both 
      observers of the contract are property in and of themselves, and thus own themselves.

PS: Also, your waaaay off topic. No one cares about strawman arguments.

[–]HamsterPants522Autarcho-Privatist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wait a minute, I need more context for this before I can be convinced that he supports child slavery. All he did was provide a descriptive analysis based on what he thinks would happen in the event of certain criteria being met. Nowhere in that quote did he say he preferred it, though. And even if he did, it doesn't mean that other people would prefer it. The vast majority of people cherish their children and do not want to sell them to other people as mere items.

[–]PonaldRaul 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Idk how long you've been on this subreddit, but we have had numerous discussions on this very topic.

There are some Rothbardians that accept his belief that children are property, but they are fewer in number. Most libertarians believe children are not property but rather just in temporary custody of their parents. So most here believe parents could not sell their kids into slavery (as child slavery would not be permitted)

Of course nobody really knows how an anarchist society would deal with children. I don't believe it would be any worse than the indoctrination camps and legal kidnapping by the state.

[–]gay_unicorn666 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

First of all, I don't see where he said there that he supports it or that he thinks it's a positive thing, only that he thinks it would happen. Second of all, doesn't that basically already happen now with adoption? What's the difference? Thirdly, it is possible for people do disagree with him on one aspect while still accepting the validity of other statements he's made, so your whole attempt at discrediting him by providing one disagreeable quote is totally illogical.

Also, I don't think that most of us here have a direct problem with child labor necessarily. Child labor is not automatically child slavery.

[–]Beetle559 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

He didn't say he supports it.

I don't "support" the meth market but I acknowledge it as economic fact.

[–]PG2009 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not relevant. That's the problem.

[–]robstah 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

"There are a lot of things that a business can do that would get an individual thrown in jail, but making an inordinate profit isn't one.

One can't really fault someone for making a profit. If I perform a paid service for you I should be compensated for my time, and I should have something that I can reinvest.

The question you should be asking is one much closer to the heart of the problem: not whether the profit a business makes over its operating costs is theft, but rather if the value it extracts from its workforce is theft.

Most private businesses operate by employing people to work for them, and then appropriating most of the value their employees create. The profit they make when they actually sell the product only exacerbates the greater theft, the theft of another's labour."

  • VovaPoutine

"I can't imagine they could make it much worse than an actual Land Rover.

Actually scratch that, at least a regular Land Rover won't give you lead poisoning."

  • VovaPoutine

"Except people aren't rational and if you ever interacted with them you would know that. People also have a rational reason to protect their own lives, but are often too cheap to maintain their own personal vehicles. Regular taxis are already really bad about this, it could only get worse with no regulations.

You're not entirely wrong, though. Eventually a statistically significant number of the unscrupulous cabbies are going to die in accidents in the theoretical unregulated 'free market' and the remaining ones would tend to be more responsible, but a lot of innocent people are going to die just to maximize market efficiency. Only the most indoctrinated market-fundamentalists would think that that's an acceptable price to pay just so commercial vehicle operators don't have to suffer the oppression of mandated regular vehicle inspections."

  • VovaPoutine

[–]VovaPoutine -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I like arguing with AnCaps and Libertarians.

[–]robstah 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

You said it yourself, we aren't rational. So, why rely on a few quotes by one individual to smear an entire ideology?

[–]VovaPoutine -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I have more thoroughly refuted anarcho-capitalist thought in other posts. Murray Rothbard's advocacy of child labour and slavery is a useful microcosm of the ramifications of Austrian economics.

That being said, I am certainly not averse to arguing against the specific quote in the OP. Everyone in society pays taxes of some kind, so it is not "someone else" paying the cost, everyone does collectively. I am guessing the rub lies in the fact that the rich pay the majority of taxes. Well, they ought to pay more not only because they can afford to pay more, but also because their wealth is unearned. Stolen in fact. They exploit the labour of others who are in a far inferior bargaining position to them to get rich.

[–]robstah 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Which posts are those? Are they off in some subreddit where you feel superior and circlejerk to your intellectual dishonesty with other like-minds? I have yet to see any worthwhile post out of you, here, at least. You came in guns blazing, so go ahead, start a thread and be embarrassed like the other socialist AMAs that get posted here when you fall short of consistency, especially against reality (and not be banned, unlike your pathetic, disrespectful kin).

[–]VovaPoutine -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can hardly keep up with all the messages I'm getting currently, let alone the deluge I would get if I started a thread myself! I can only post every 9 minutes you see.

[–]robstah 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

That being said, I am certainly not averse to arguing against the specific quote in the OP. Everyone in society pays taxes of some kind, so it is not "someone else" paying the cost, everyone does collectively. I am guessing the rub lies in the fact that the rich pay the majority of taxes. Well, they ought to pay more not only because they can afford to pay more, but also because their wealth is unearned. Stolen in fact. They exploit the labour of others who are in a far inferior bargaining position to them to get rich.

See, that's the problem with your twisted ideology. You can't see what is literally right in front of your face. You claim that "everyone pays taxes" and "social contract" and "do it for the collectiveTM!" while reality is showing physical theft of resources and money (money coming from labor) by the state. Then you bitch about labor "being stolen" by one entity that isn't the government and freak out.

Look, I do side jobs occasionally. I recently worked on a Ford Focus for a guy. I showed up, did the work, and then left with money in hand. He made the same amount that I did. You know why? He isn't stealing it from me. He sourced the job, diagnosed the work needed to be done, provided a place for me to work (he has a lift, and that saved time and money across the board for both of us), has to pay rent, has to deal with the customers if they stiff him pay, and has to find more business. He has to cover taxes, and other various things to make sure the business stays afloat and running appropriately. Plus, with all that said, I voluntarily agreed to the verbal contract for labor. Key word: VOLUNTARILY. I was not scammed, I was not abused, I was not exploited.

[–]Subrosian_SmithyPerrin Sequence Intern 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

"I don't like OP's post, so I will regurgitate irrelevant quotes to make Rothbard look like he's wrong."

[–]max225 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you discredit an intelligent point on the basis that the speaker of the point also made bad points you are an idiot.

[–]themarketliberalClassical Liberalism and Free-Market Capitalism 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Re-quoting myself as this has already been addressed and it is disingenuous to cherry-pick only part of a quote while conveniently leaving out the rest:

And to elaborate on the rest of the quote, there is already a market in children, one in which the state sets maximum price controls and grants monopolistic privileges to a select few agencies. Of course if one were to worship the state under the belief that it can do no harm and there is no possible way that humans could voluntarily cooperate when it comes to issues like child adoption, then I can see why they would think an anarcho-capitalist society would lead to a neo-feudalistic dystopia where slavery, child markets, and mass exploitation are the norm. It's really just economic illiteracy at its purest.

[–]VovaPoutine 1ポイント2ポイント  (37子コメント)

"Child labor laws have systematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force, thereby privileging their adult competitors."

-Murray Rothbard

[–]TheAmpcaMilton Friedman 12ポイント13ポイント  (14子コメント)

Look at this beautiful piece of work i found yesterday in /r/worldnews

Thank god I live in a country where unpaid internships aren't legal so companies can't profit off the willingness of intelligent young people (and also so internships aren't only viable for the wealthy).

That had 1300 upvotes.

[–]VovaPoutine -3ポイント-2ポイント  (13子コメント)

And rightfully so! People should not have to perform work for free just to "get experience" so that they might be considered for paid work in the future.

[–]robstah 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

You must have a worthless degree and zero experience and are bitter about it. Explains a lot.

[–]VovaPoutine -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, actually I'm a skilled tradesman. I merely have compassion and a sense of justice, things evidently alien to many AnCaps.

[–]robstah 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

You're a union brat. Congrats. Last time I messed with someone like you (for doing TOO much work in a half breed union/non-union shop), I was being threatened for my life for working too hard.

I don't have compassion? You don't even know me. Your assumptions are premature at best.

[–]VovaPoutine -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm not unionized actually, though I've tried. Half union/non union shops should not exist.

I don't know about compassion, but you sure do come across as an asshole.

[–]robstah 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Anyone who promotes force against me is the real asshole. You promote such a behaviour. Not my fault I am having to "defend" myself against the likes of someone like you.

[–]TheAmpcaMilton Friedman 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

You may not like doing it, but what if someone thinks that the work is worth their time? Maybe they are interested in the subject, or genuinely want experience so they can either better themself or put it on their resume. Why deny them that? Unpaid internships aren't for everyone, but there are people who benefit from them and its beyond dumb to deny people the ability to make that assessment for themselves.

You seem to make the assumption that it is some injustice to not compensate someone monetarily for work, but that is not true. The person is receiving compensation for their work in the form of experience/knowledge, no it is not monetary but it is compensation nevertheless and they would not be trading their time away if they didn't expect to receive something of greater value from it. There is no justice in denying people the ability to think for themselves.

By removing peoples ability to get unpaid internships you haven't magically created better conditions for interns, all you have done is denied them the ability to acquire work, plain and simple.

[–]VovaPoutine -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah, sure, in theory. Except its just used as a tool to get free labour. Want to work here? You need experience! Want to get experience? Come work for us for free!

You seem to make the assumption that it is some injustice to not compensate someone monetarily for work, but that is not true. The person is receiving compensation for their work in the form of experience/knowledge.

You can't eat knowledge, nor will it pay your rent in the present.

By removing peoples ability to get unpaid internships you haven't magically created better conditions for interns, all you have done is denied them the ability to acquire work, plain and simple.

It's not as if they suddenly won't need people to do the work, they just won't be able to expect people to work for free.

You libertarians always put things as if we're trying to limit people's freedom to choose. Why shouldn't someone be able to choose to work for free, or for a dollar per hour? Why shouldn't someone be able to choose to work their kids in the spice mines rather than go to school? Why shouldn't people be able to choose to work in dangerous conditions?

Except its not a choice. Everyone is under the compulsion to work to make money to live. Only a very small fraction can work for themselves, most have no choice but to work for someone else. Libertarian "freedom" is only freedom if you have money, if not it is despotism. You trade state despotism for private despotism, but it is still despotism.

[–]TheAmpcaMilton Friedman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can't eat knowledge, nor will it pay your rent in the present.

Yes, which is why this isnt for everyone, and many people will not take unpaid internships if they need money.

Yeah, sure, in theory. Except its just used as a tool to get free labour. Want to work here? You need experience! Want to get experience? Come work for us for free!

You make it sound like there is some huge conspiracy out to get everyone. Its just simple logic, people who have put in time into a field have a much greater chance of being something of value. Why risk paying money for an inexperienced person when you can just as easily get someone who is experienced to do the work.

It's not as if they suddenly won't need people to do the work, they just won't be able to expect people to work for free.

Most unpaid internships I know of are actually like this. The company just has some work that no one wants to do and it doesn't really urgently need doing, so they just hire an unpaid intern to do it because if the intern fails its no big deal, the work wasnt that important anyways. Otherwise, if the work is important they just wont risk paying inexperienced people for the work and will hire someone who they know will get it done which makes it even harder for the potential interns to get a job.

Except its not a choice. Everyone is under the compulsion to work to make money to live. Only a very small fraction can work for themselves, most have no choice but to work for someone else. Libertarian "freedom" is only freedom if you have money, if not it is despotism. You trade state despotism for private despotism, but it is still despotism.

I don't think you really grasp the meaning of the word freedom. Freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want, freedom simply means the government wont stop you. Freedom is having the ability to make the best choice for yourself given your circumstances. Are you poor and need to feed yourself? Well then you probably don't want to get an unpaid internship, there are plenty of jobs out there that require no experience and offer enough pay to live.

I mean, do you hate schools because schools dont pay people anything and instead just give them knowledge/experience?

[–]VassiliMikailovichКоба, зачем тебе нужна моя смерть? 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I really love socialist logic. Kids in impoverished countries that are prevented from working in sweatshops aren't going to school and living the good life, they're either engaging in even worse work (prostitution, etc) or they're starving to death.

Like, imagine there was a man dying of dehydration in the desert, but a Bedouin caravan passed by, offering him water on the condition that he cleans their horses. By socialist logic, this man is somehow worse off now because he is "compelled" to assist the Bedouins, ignoring the fact that their arrival only increases his options.

[–]VovaPoutine 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So they should slave away and be grateful for the opportunity? Bullshit. Fuck the sweatshop owners and fuck the people that contract them out. It isn't as if they lived in poverty and some merciful sweatshop owners swooped in to save them, they're being exploited just to make someone rich.

You swine see slavery and call it freedom. I would like to see you work 12 hour days for pennies on the hour and be beaten for taking too long in the washroom. You'd become a socialist in a week.

[–]WashbagMacy's 5ポイント6ポイント  (21子コメント)

What's wrong with that one?