brazenautomaton:mugasofer:brazenautomaton:the libertarian counterargument would be that since people
brazenautomaton:mugasofer:brazenautomaton:the libertarian counterargument would be that since people pay money for things they want and that is the entire purpose of money and the entire existence of money, it is nonsensical to claim that people wanting money is the reason work is not being done, because work that needs to be done always represents money that can be made. and that therefore the problem is not “corporations maliciously want money” but either “people are being prevented from doing useful things even though they have reason to do them and people want them done” or “people claim they want certain things but do not actually want them and do not make any attempt to do those things because their claims of wanting them exist exclusively as means of social attack”OK, but that’s wrong. There are ways economies can break other than “people with sticks are maliciously preventing us from doing useful things” and “revealed preferences lol”.To pick an obvious example, hyperinflation can definitely happen without government. It can even happen as a result of rich people being too rich, sort of how the poster describes!Just randomly assuming that the problem is Insufficient Communism is dumb, sure. But so is assuming the problem is Insufficient Libertarianism.right but the thing he was talking about was not hyperinflation, it was the current situation in the US, which is not hyperinflation, and was described as “there are things that we want to be done that nobody is doing”there was a reason I phrased it as “the libertarian counterargument” instead of “my counterargument that I 100% believe” because I don’t 100% believe it; but I do think it has more truth to it than the OP, which I see committing the lazy Communist fallacy of pointing at something that is bad and saying “This isn’t how I want it to be, therefore, corporations did it.” Every time someone tries to help the poor, society actively goes out of its way to stop them and punish them for bringing the poor back into their zone of perception. Our infrastructure is crumbling because it’s owned by the government, who refuses to allow people to do the useful thing of fixing it, and is not behaving like a private enterprise in doing so. Our schools are not awful because not enough money is being spent on them – the worst schools in the country have the highest amount of money spent per student – and when people try to make it so that educating students IS in the profit motive of business, everyone becomes incredibly upset and tries to stop them and if they cannot stop them decries how Wicked And Depraved they are. And I know it is not true all over the country, but there are most definitely places where housing shortages are driven by shortsighted laws whose real purpose is to prevent people whose self-image is I Care About The Poor from having to be reminded the poor exist.We don’t have All Those Problems because work is related only to satisfying the profit needs of business. We have All Those Problems because work is related only to satisfying the profit needs of business, and our society actively and tirelessly attempts to ensure that certain things we all want to happen are not allowed to satisfy the profit needs of business. We built a society where we expect one type of process to solve every problem, and then when a problem really needs to be solved, we all try our hardest to ensure it is never allowed to touch the one thing we permit to solve problems. We have problems because everyone is ruled one hundred percent by their emotions one hundred percent of the time, useful and productive things happen only by accident, and all knowing and deliberate effort is destructive. Communism is not going to solve that. Communism is going to make it unfathomably worse.a few questions.first, why even bring up a “libertarian counterargument” that you yourself don’t fully believe? why not present your own position first, instead of presenting someone else’s argument, and then, when challenged on it, declaring “no no, that’s not what I believe, that’s just what libertarians believe, who i agree with more than OP, but who i don’t agree with enough to take any responsibility for when it’s debunked”moreover i think you’re forgetting that for something to be profitable, someone needs to not only want it, but they need to also have the money to pay for it. if there’s a town full of poor people who’s drinking water is tainted, but they don’t have the means to pay anyone to clean it, and meanwhile there’s a rich dude who wants his house to be diamond-studded, and he’s willing to pay any amount to make it happen, well, obviously for anyone trying to make a profit, it’s more profitable to diamond-stud the rich guys house. this doesn’t mean the poor people are just lying about wanting clean drinking water. a few questions relating to your final couple of points- i’m not sure if these are things you 100% believe, or just things libertarians believe, which you may or may not also believe, but either way-We have problems because everyone is ruled one hundred percent by their emotions one hundred percent of the time, is this also true of you? if not, how come you are the only person not ruled 100% by your emotions 100% of the time?useful and productive things happen only by accident, and all knowing and deliberate effort is destructive.did you write this post by accident? just hitting the keys at random? if so, that would explain a lot. if not, weren’t you worried about the dangers of putting “knowing and deliberate effort” into writing the post, since “all knowing and deliberate effort is destructive”? -- source link