Intellectual Dishonesty

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by Red »

@Commissaris
Honestly, just rewatching it I feel as though this is an example of intellectual dishonesty, since he's giving his own definitions for words in political debates to suit his narrative. Sure, his definition was in all likelihood first, but some other dudes had their definition become the colloquial term, and though I agree it sucks, you don't really have much of a choice when it comes to an honest political debate.
But yeah, I'd be willing to be shown otherwise! It seems you have already though ;) .
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:00 am "Libertarianism" only refers to a strand of free-marketers in the US and to people who especially freedom of choice and voluntary association (contrasted with authoritarianism) everywhere else around the world. Even politicalcompass.org uses "libertarian" in that sense.
Which means people have the freedom to accumulate wealth, and freedom of contract to join a company as workers instead of as owners if they want to (and freedom to hire workers who agree to those terms without making them owners).
Removing those freedoms to enforce those socialistic ideals requires government authority, in conflict with libertarianism.

Libertarian Socialist Rants is trying to redefine these in very specific ways to avoid the contradictions and yet retain the positive associations and cultural capital of these terms (which is why I think he wants to use them; to appeal to people who are actually libertarians and socialists by the modern definitions which have been formed in light of the implications and necessary facts of those systems).

Of course there are levels of intellectual dishonesty. This is pretty minor and may be due more to ignorance of the realities of economics.
I think what Ask Yourself is doing in redefining "logical contradiction" and ignoring proper use of terms from objectivism to subjectivism while picking and choosing between colloquial and formal terms makes this libertarian socialism stuff look pretty tame by comparison.

At least it is possible to say "A socialism which is as libertarian as possible while still being a socialistic society".
User avatar
Commissaris
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:50 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by Commissaris »

Red wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:56 pm Honestly, just re-watching it I feel as though this is an example of intellectual dishonesty, since he's giving his own definitions for words in political debates to suit his narrative.
The terms given and their definitions are very widely used in leftist circles so I guess we're all just being intellectually dishonest to suit our agenda ;). I'll remember to agree the next time someone objects to vegans referring to animal agriculture as 'genocide'. Definitions are decided by majority consensus after all, and deviation from that consensus shows bad faith. I employed some sarcasm there with (hopefully) comedic effect to illustrate my point.

I'm not going to die on the rock of defending specific terms as long as I have access to the words I need to describe my world view (remember, control of vocabulary is also control of discourse) but I think we should just be careful of ascribing malice when a difference of opinion is the more likely culprit of a disagreement on terminology.

PS: Wikipedia seems to believe the Youtuber's use of both terms is actually fine.
User avatar
Commissaris
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:50 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by Commissaris »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:13 pm Which means people have the freedom to accumulate wealth, and freedom of contract to join a company as workers instead of as owners if they want to (and freedom to hire workers who agree to those terms without making them owners).
Removing those freedoms to enforce those socialistic ideals requires government authority, in conflict with libertarianism.
Sure, that's one way to use the term, a use that is only common in the US afaik. Are you interested in discussing whether or not the nominally free choice to sell one's labor to another is actually a free choice? I don't believe libertarianism entails "as much individual freedom as is possible" by the way, but rather "as much individual freedom as is possible while producing a sustainable and pleasant society". Perhaps we agree that some nominally free choices such as the choice to sell oneself into slavery are detrimental to society as a whole, and should therefore be prohibited? I hope to hear your thoughts.
Libertarian Socialist Rants is trying to redefine these in very specific ways to avoid the contradictions and yet retain the positive associations and cultural capital of these terms (which is why I think he wants to use them; to appeal to people who are actually libertarians and socialists by the modern definitions which have been formed in light of the implications and necessary facts of those systems).
I can just as easily assert that others are trying to change the definitions for the same purposes, in the same way that anarcho-capitalists seek to mask the (or are convinced there is a lack of an) authoritarian nature of capital by pre-fixing a term associated with horizontalism to their ideology for example. I think I went over this so I'll leave it there for now.

For clarity: what definitions of socialism and libertarianism do you adhere to?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:29 pm Are you interested in discussing whether or not the nominally free choice to sell one's labor to another is actually a free choice?
Would you agree that if it is, libertarian socialism may generate a contradiction? ;)
As long as there is informed consent, it is. If you're talking about absolute freedom from consequences of choices, maybe not, but I don't think that's a coherent term; the important thing is that there are not consequences to free choices from the government.
Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:29 pmI don't believe libertarianism entails "as much individual freedom as is possible" by the way, but rather "as much individual freedom as is possible while producing a sustainable and pleasant society".
There is a point at which certain liberties compromise liberty more than they enable them.
The freedom to swing one's fist ending where another's nose begins, for example.
Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:29 pmPerhaps we agree that some nominally free choices such as the choice to sell oneself into slavery are detrimental to society as a whole, and should therefore be prohibited? I hope to hear your thoughts.
The freedom to give up ones freedom may be one of those things. Agreeing to work for a certain wage, then working, then being paid for that work doesn't constitute that. There's nothing temporally binding about such a contract so it's not slavery. I think if you're calling that slavery (not sure if you are) we're running into definitions with the word slavery too.

If we really want a pleasant society, and that's coming before liberty, then we should probably have very little liberty; only the amount necessary, or an illusion of liberty necessary, to optimize pleasantness.

The question is what ideology you're serving. No man can serve two masters; we have to understand which is subordinate to the other. Placing them on par as if they will always be in agreement and are without conflict is a problem.

Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:29 pm I can just as easily assert that others are trying to change the definitions for the same purposes, in the same way that anarcho-capitalists seek to mask the (or are convinced there is a lack of an) authoritarian nature of capital by pre-fixing a term associated with horizontalism to their ideology for example.
It's certainly worth asking who keeps the free market free if not a state.
Anarcho-capitalists seem to be blind to the concept of monopoly, and warlords who control and exploit people with threat of violence in the absence of government to stop them.
Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:29 pm For clarity: what definitions of socialism and libertarianism do you adhere to?
Socialism:
From Google: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
From Wiki: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]"

Libertarianism:
From Wiki: "Libertarianism (Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment and self-ownership.[2][3][4][5][6]"

It's worth noting: Unless you're saying that companies can not sell products to other companies, and service companies are completely forbidden, it's still entirely possible to arrive back at essentially the same capitalist system; it's just structured in a hierarchy of companies rather than people (many contractors and subcontractors). The "means of production" misses the enormously important variable of human beings, personal knowledge, relationships, and competence, which are incredibly valuable and can organize superior industries and dominate the market.
You can try to crush that by taxing everything from abstract systems to brand identity until all products cost the same no matter what, but then you crush the incentives for hard work and efficiency and you also lose the essential psychological quality of getting tangible feedback and profiting from your own achievements that makes worker run companies better.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:18 pm I'll remember to agree the next time someone objects to vegans referring to animal agriculture as 'genocide'. Definitions are decided by majority consensus after all, and deviation from that consensus shows bad faith.
Not sure in which sense you meant that sarcastically, but this is a good analogy anyway.

We probably should agree when people object to the use of the word "genocide". It isn't genocide. Not in any sense. Using words like that is more likely to make people angry than sympathetic.
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]
It is a mass killing, but there's no intent to cause extinction of the breed of animal.

You might call policies against pitbulls genocide in the most general sense of trying to destroy a genetic group. Even that's a stretch, but I probably wouldn't be too excited to object to that.

I think using these terms IS intellectually dishonest. I think most people using them know that by the definition it doesn't really fit and will be misleading, and do it only due to motivation for more emotional punch. The same for terms like murder, which are pretty much inseparable from their legal terms.

I think this is a big problem in activism, and not just for vegans. If we want people to see reason, we need to remove the emotional charge and defensiveness, not give people more excuses to ignore us.

Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:18 pmI'm not going to die on the rock of defending specific terms as long as I have access to the words I need to describe my world view
Glad to hear it. Also one of the reasons I'm so insistent on certain word usages; drifting definitions make it harder to articulate concepts, and can cause overlap and contradiction (as in the Ask Yourself case).
Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:18 pmbut I think we should just be careful of ascribing malice when a difference of opinion is the more likely culprit of a disagreement on terminology.
I don't think it's malice, I think it's bias. I'm sure they have good intentions, but they're letting their bases give them excuses for using words poorly.
User avatar
Commissaris
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:50 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by Commissaris »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:41 am We probably should agree when people object to the use of the word "genocide". It isn't genocide. Not in any sense. Using words like that is more likely to make people angry than sympathetic.
It turns out I was actually misinformed of the possible definitions of the term. I thought they included a minimal definition referring to basically just "killing on a massive scale" but I can't even find it now. So it's a wrong example on my part. Thank you for setting me straight there. I'll agree that it's not very effective but I don't see a reason to assume bad faith on someone's part for using it in a way that doesn't line up with your expectations. I believe bad faith comes into play when someone doesn't disclose their definitions (and ideally the reasons for using them when feasible). Telling people about the different uses of the terms is actually a sign that someone is nót being intellectually dishonest for that reason.
I think using these terms IS intellectually dishonest. I think most people using them know that by the definition it doesn't really fit and will be misleading, and do it only due to motivation for more emotional punch. The same for terms like murder, which are pretty much inseparable from their legal terms.

I think this is a big problem in activism, and not just for vegans. If we want people to see reason, we need to remove the emotional charge and defensiveness, not give people more excuses to ignore us.
If that were true: what sense does it make to hold onto terms that either have negative connotations (socialism) or lack positive associations (libertarian)? I'll get into whether the term fits or doesn't later on. I agree with your final statement: people should be convinced by the merits of the ideas rather than be manipulated by fanciful phrases that couch on emotional appeals. A common instance for me of this online is seeing (proto-)fascists constantly shift their terminology to make it easier to spread their messages. Suddenly a white nationalist re-brands him/herself as an identitarian but it's totally not the same thing.
I don't think it's malice, I think it's bias. I'm sure they have good intentions, but they're letting their bases give them excuses for using words poorly.
In this specific case I disagree but I'll agree with the general notion. Being specific is important and when concepts are vague it can be (subconsciously) tempting to interpret or use them in ways that suit you, even just by invoking negative or positive associations in a tactical way.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:31 pm Would you agree that if it is, libertarian socialism may generate a contradiction? ;)
If it's a free choice then yes, it would generate a contradiction, assuming we consider 'the freedom to sell one's labor to someone who privately controls means of production' and 'the freedom to privately control means of production' to be necessary traits for an ideology to call itself libertarian.
There is a point at which certain liberties compromise liberty more than they enable them.
The freedom to swing one's fist ending where another's nose begins, for example.
I'm glad you said that, because it establishes our agreement that one can call their ideology libertarian without endorsing áll possible freedoms. I'm going to guess that we'd agree that the harm principle should guide our way in establishing which freedoms should be protected, and which ones shouldn't. I'm going to be extending that principle further into the indirect than you might be willing to, and whether or not we end up agreeing seems likely to depend on how far each of us is willing to take it.
The freedom to give up ones freedom may be one of those things. Agreeing to work for a certain wage, then working, then being paid for that work doesn't constitute that. There's nothing temporally binding about such a contract so it's not slavery. I think if you're calling that slavery (not sure if you are) we're running into definitions with the word slavery too.
I only mentioned slavery to establish whether or not we agree that individual free choices can be legitimately prohibited.

First I'll ask the practical question, and then the more abstract one. In society today, how free is the typical working person to sell their labor? What is their alternative? In most places around the world, that person who does not sell their labor to someone (private or state) will starve to death. Nominally, choosing between working and dying is a choice, but because being alive is a necessary condition for making choices I don't think we can call it one. Under those conditions the choice is coercive in the same way choosing between working and a bullet through the head is a choice. In the abstract you can say the person "chose" or "agreed" to sell their labor but in the concrete: what other choice did they have? You can bring up that they might "choose" to leave society, but again that choice can only be made if they have the means to do so, are not dependent on others and have no others that depend on them.

Onto the theoretical question: selling your labor allows someone that controls the means of production to extract surplus value from your labor which gives them the resources (over time) to exert a greater influence on society than other people like you are able to do. This position allows that person to influence even laws and policy in order to change the rules of society and bend them towards their own interests rather than the interests of everyone equally. In this way, the individual choice to sell your labor ends up as a net detriment to society as a whole as it leads to social and economic inequality (and all its associated ills) and corruption (for example in the way I described). That turns the nominally harmless "choice" of selling your labor into an indirect violation of the harm principle, in the same way that someone's nominally moral choice to honestly tell a Nazi about the Jews you're hiding in your attic into a violation of that same principle. I think my description lines up with reality pretty well but I hope to hear your thoughts and/or objections.
If we really want a pleasant society, and that's coming before liberty, then we should probably have very little liberty; only the amount necessary, or an illusion of liberty necessary, to optimize pleasantness.
While I disagree with that assessment it does prompt me to ask: what is the purpose of liberty in your estimation if not as a trait necessary for a sustainable, pleasant society? If liberty doesn't make society more sustainable (including stable) and/or more pleasant, what's the point of it?
The question is what ideology you're serving. No man can serve two masters; we have to understand which is subordinate to the other. Placing them on par as if they will always be in agreement and are without conflict is a problem.
Could you elaborate what you mean by this paragraph?
It's certainly worth asking who keeps the free market free if not a state. Anarcho-capitalists seem to be blind to the concept of monopoly, and warlords who control and exploit people with threat of violence in the absence of government to stop them.
A bit of low-hanging fruit example on my part, to be sure.
Socialism:
From Google: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
From Wiki: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]"

Libertarianism:
From Wiki: "Libertarianism (Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment and self-ownership.[2][3][4][5][6]"
The first seems fine but you cut off a section from the second:
Wikipedia wrote:Some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights,[7] such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. Others, notably libertarian socialists,[8] seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[9][10][11][12] An additional line of division is between minarchists and anarchists. While minarchists think that a minimal centralized government is necessary, anarchists and anarcho-capitalists propose to completely eliminate the state.[13][14]
I assume the section you quoted is the part you recognize? Good to be clear on this, we're on the same page on the first and I'd describe capitalist libertarians in those terms as well.
It's worth noting: Unless you're saying that companies can not sell products to other companies, and service companies are completely forbidden, it's still entirely possible to arrive back at essentially the same capitalist system; it's just structured in a hierarchy of companies rather than people (many contractors and subcontractors). The "means of production" misses the enormously important variable of human beings, personal knowledge, relationships, and competence, which are incredibly valuable and can organize superior industries and dominate the market.
You can try to crush that by taxing everything from abstract systems to brand identity until all products cost the same no matter what, but then you crush the incentives for hard work and efficiency and you also lose the essential psychological quality of getting tangible feedback and profiting from your own achievements that makes worker run companies better.
You seem to think "common or cooperative ownership and management" is essentially a euphemism for "state ownership", am I correct in that assessment? We can get into the merits of (historical?) state capitalism (I'm not in favor) if you like but I'd rather stick with the concept of libertarianism until we've exchanged ideas on that front before we move on if you don't mind.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 am If that were true: what sense does it make to hold onto terms that either have negative connotations (socialism) or lack positive associations (libertarian)?
Quite a bit: he's not a politician working off general public sentiment, and this broadens his niche appeal. Particularly on the net where both are more popular (but particularly libertarianism).

Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 am If it's a free choice then yes, it would generate a contradiction, assuming we consider 'the freedom to sell one's labor to someone who privately controls means of production' and 'the freedom to privately control means of production' to be necessary traits for an ideology to call itself libertarian.
I think I addressed the concept of means of production. Even capitalists have issues with monopolies.
You don't need absolute social equity to compete.
Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 amI'm going to guess that we'd agree that the harm principle should guide our way in establishing which freedoms should be protected, and which ones shouldn't.
We might, but libertarians do not; they value freedom in and of itself whereas I do not. I appreciate the consequences of certain freedoms.

Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 amFirst I'll ask the practical question, and then the more abstract one. In society today, how free is the typical working person to sell their labor? What is their alternative? In most places around the world, that person who does not sell their labor to someone (private or state) will starve to death.
Freedom does not mean freedom from consequences.
Libertarianism values freedom and personal responsibility. In the most basic terms it must only be possible to pull oneself up by the bootstraps.
Freedom is a philosophically complicated term; what is it? Are we talking about free will here? Because in the absolute sense it doesn't exist.
Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 amNominally, choosing between working and dying is a choice, but because being alive is a necessary condition for making choices I don't think we can call it one.
We don't need to consider dying a choice. We can look at the choice to work at company A or B in a non-monopolistic labor market.
Competition for workers, in an ideally functioning capitalism, will produce better jobs.
Then there's the choice of C, to become an entrepreneur yourself, but this choice doesn't need to be easy to mean you still have freedom of choice. Not all choices have to be perfectly equal to be choices.
Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 amOnto the theoretical question: selling your labor allows someone that controls the means of production to extract surplus value from your labor which gives them the resources (over time) to exert a greater influence on society than other people like you are able to do.
You're also a consumer. Companies are controlled by consumers, so really you have just as much sway as pretty anybody does. Rich people aren't significantly larger consumers, and they're such a minority that their collective voices are drowned out by the majority of consumers anyway. You can choose to boycott and destroy companies you don't like as long as you have options and access to credible information (that's the informed part of informed consent, and it's crucial).
Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 amThis position allows that person to influence even laws and policy in order to change the rules of society and bend them towards their own interests rather than the interests of everyone equally.
In a libertarian society, not so much, because government is minimal.

There are two ways to reduce corruption: make government work better, or minimize government. Libertarians take the latter approach. Socialism basically demands the former because of what's necessary to make socialism work.
Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 amWhile I disagree with that assessment it does prompt me to ask: what is the purpose of liberty in your estimation if not as a trait necessary for a sustainable, pleasant society? If liberty doesn't make society more sustainable (including stable) and/or more pleasant, what's the point of it?
There is no point of it if it doesn't. That's why I'm not an ideological libertarian.
Ideological libertarians, however, disagree and see liberty as a goal in and of itself.
Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 am
The question is what ideology you're serving. No man can serve two masters; we have to understand which is subordinate to the other. Placing them on par as if they will always be in agreement and are without conflict is a problem.
Could you elaborate what you mean by this paragraph?
Socialism and Libertarianism are at odds; you can be one of them, and then with whatever flexibility you have left you can try to satisfy the other.
Trying to satisfy both without priority isn't viable.
Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 am The first seems fine but you cut off a section from the second: [...]
I assume the section you quoted is the part you recognize? Good to be clear on this, we're on the same page on the first and I'd describe capitalist libertarians in those terms as well.
Anarcho-cap libertarians, maybe. I think the capitalist libertarians generally agree on the minimum regulations needed to make capitalism work (and unlike in the case of making socialism work, these are restrictions on the liberty of creating monopolies that preserve the minimum possible choice, short of work or death as discussed).

The link between libertarianism and socialism precedes modern knowledge of economics and politics that resulted from putting Marx's theories into practice. It may not have originally seemed oxymoronic, but these terms have evolved to embody more functional ideologies and as such are in conflict today (and for good reason).
Commissaris wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:41 amYou seem to think "common or cooperative ownership and management" is essentially a euphemism for "state ownership", am I correct in that assessment?
No.
User avatar
Commissaris
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:50 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by Commissaris »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:57 pm Quite a bit: he's not a politician working off general public sentiment, and this broadens his niche appeal. Particularly on the net where both are more popular (but particularly libertarianism).
That's quite a stretch: niche appeal is precisely nót what a political activist tends to go for. And I'm quite sure that people interested in libertarianism (as a standalone term) are typically not interested in left-wing economics. It makes way more sense in my estimation that he's simply being intellectually honest.
Freedom does not mean freedom from consequences.
Libertarianism values freedom and personal responsibility. In the most basic terms it must only be possible to pull oneself up by the bootstraps.
Freedom is a philosophically complicated term; what is it? Are we talking about free will here? Because in the absolute sense it doesn't exist.
This is a non-sequitur to what I was saying. I'm calling into question whether or not the choice is to work is actually a choice, in the vast majority of cases today. I'm arguing that it's not reasonable to call selling your labour a choice in those cases because the alternative is death.
We don't need to consider dying a choice. We can look at the choice to work at company A or B in a non-monopolistic labor market.
Competition for workers, in an ideally functioning capitalism, will produce better jobs.
Then there's the choice of C, to become an entrepreneur yourself, but this choice doesn't need to be easy to mean you still have freedom of choice. Not all choices have to be perfectly equal to be choices.
There's a difference between "choosing to sell your labour" and "choosing who to offer your labour to". I'm saying the first is functionally un-free ie coerced in the concrete reality of this world. The second doesn't matter for my argument. Choice C isn't a feasible choice in the vast majority of cases and the vast majority of new start-ups fail, typically leaving the would-be entrepreneur in debt. If a freedom effectively exists in a technical, theoretical sense I don't see why we'd defend that status quo unless we cared only about freedom in-and-of itself in the way some right-wing libertarians might, but you say you don't.
You're also a consumer. Companies are controlled by consumers, so really you have just as much sway as pretty anybody does.
No I don't, and I don't think you actually thought that statement through. More wealth = more influence. Being able to extract surplus results in having more wealth.
Rich people aren't significantly larger consumers, and they're such a minority that their collective voices are drowned out by the majority of consumers anyway. You can choose to boycott and destroy companies you don't like as long as you have options and access to credible information (that's the informed part of informed consent, and it's crucial).
Rich people aren't by definition larger consumers as spending individuals but they have a lot of power through their wealth. Threatening divestment, lobbying, doing favours etc are all potent ways to shape society which are used consistently, daily. You can (try to) boycott a company or even some companies but that doesn't change the system overall. The extraction of surplus continues, hence the power disparity continues, hence the harm continues.
In a libertarian society, not so much, because government is minimal.
I'll agree in the abstract that 9 lashings are less painful than 10 lashings (ceteris paribus). Beyond that your statement is just a smokescreen because the lawgiver and -keeper is still influenced in the same way, and likely to an even greater degree. I hope you haven't fallen for the notion that politics and the law should be privatised?
There are two ways to reduce corruption: make government work better, or minimize government. Libertarians take the latter approach. Socialism basically demands the former because of what's necessary to make socialism work.
Socialists want to do both: typically by democratising society and decentralising power wherever it makes sense. Companies would be democratically run by the workers and overseen by elected bodies composed of workers from their ranks. Governments only proliferate in the sense that there's an organisational structure but its form and function is vastly transformed.
There is no point of it if it doesn't. That's why I'm not an ideological libertarian.
Ideological libertarians, however, disagree and see liberty as a goal in and of itself.
I don't agree with defining the term that way that libertarian socialists see liberty as a goal in an of itself. Guess we're back on definitions again. Glad we agree that the value of liberties should be judged by their consequences as it means that we both don't defend capitalism based on the abstract ability of people to make choices freely.
Socialism and Libertarianism are at odds; you can be one of them, and then with whatever flexibility you have left you can try to satisfy the other. Trying to satisfy both without priority isn't viable.
I disagree. I see libertarianism differently from how you do. It's not a dogma that states that one should always pursue freedom regardless of outcome, it's the conviction that we should leave people to their own devices as much as is reasonable to defend. I won't defend someone's freedom to reduce the freedoms of others (a contradiction) simply based on an appeal to libertarian purity and I don't believe anyone else who is seriously involved in political thinking does, even by accident. Terms interpreted in this way become meaningless and useless.

Beyond that, even by your definition, who said you can't give priority of one over the other, or even differing priorities based on the case? Those decisions are made based on the context someone is operating in. Speaking on abortion for example I can freely endorse women's choice, but if we're talking about the freedom to pollute I'd draw on other arguments to end up concluding that restrictions should be put in place.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

I think you have the wrong idea. I'm not defending political ideology, I'm criticizing political ideology.

In my view, all we should be concerned about is meta-ethics and science: once we determine our ethical goals through philosophy, the rest should be left up to scientists to work out.

Being of any political ideology, from libertarian to socialist to monarchist to whatever, is a bias that gets in the way of achieving the ends of well-being through evidence based policies.

I don't condone politics. This is entirely academic, as if as an atheist I were critiquing the idea of a Christian Muslim or something, and the contradictions between the two scriptures. I don't believe in any of it.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 am That's quite a stretch: niche appeal is precisely nót what a political activist tends to go for.
I thought he was just a youtuber?
Either way, activists who are short sighted often appeal to niches because of the appearance that their activism is working via. a passionate base (and no understanding of how small it is because they haven't done rigorous surveys).
I don't know what his motivations are, but as an observer it appears intellectually dishonest and that's really all I can judge by. Intellectual dishonesty may not always be intentional.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 amI'm arguing that it's not reasonable to call selling your labour a choice in those cases because the alternative is death.
You could say the same thing about eating. We have the choice of what to eat, but not whether to eat. Should we recommend that the only free society is one where people have the option for IV nutrition if they don't feel like eating? Where does it end? There are pragmatic limits to choice, and those fall on how not having a choice affects people. Most people understand that they could work really hard and start their own business, but don't have a problem working for somebody else; the more important thing is enjoying one's work (which is something we need to work on as a society), not "owning" your own work (whatever that means, most people don't care; the relevance of that is Marxist hypotheses which have not borne out empirically).
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 amThere's a difference between "choosing to sell your labour" and "choosing who to offer your labour to".
You're still choosing to sell your labour when you make a product, the labour is just embodied in the product now. Either way, to get people to buy that product it will have to contain more value vs. what they could make themselves. You're still being short changed by the market itself. In fact, self employment often generates a lower income than working for others does, which is why few people pursue it as a main source of income. You're in competition, so you have to price your goods way down. There are novice artists selling their work for pennies per hour, and if that's what they get value out of that's fine, but that doesn't mean everybody is going to feel that way.

What's worse, if you don't control ANY of the means of production (let's ignore for a moment that "means of production" is incomplete as a concept), what stops people from spending two minutes using those means to make their own widgets rather than buying yours which you're charging a premium for over the two minutes of labour you put in?
If the answer is nothing, then you can not sell the fruits of your labour for a premium. At most you can get exactly what it's worth, which is the same when you're selling your labour to others.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 amI'm saying the first is functionally un-free ie coerced in the concrete reality of this world.
So is breathing.
As mentioned above, there's not really an alternative to selling your labour in some form.
And I mentioned this in the previous post too, a la Mondragon. You can structure entirely worker owned companies into a hierarchy of contractors and subcontractors and arrive at virtually the same system we have now.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 amthe vast majority of new start-ups fail, typically leaving the would-be entrepreneur in debt.
That's because they're based on passion and a bad idea, rather than good information and business acumen.
The same would be the case in any society. Somebody is going to decide to make a business selling tchotchkes that literally nobody wants, and nobody will buy them. All you're doing is protecting them from the material consequences if you have a good safety net, but they've still lost all of the work they've put in.

Unless you're going to mandate that people buy those tchotchkes, then the loss of all of that work can be just as painful (if not more so) than the loss of some capital in a system with good social safety nets.
People will not always like what you choose to make or do. And taking away the risk component (I agree it should not be a life or death risk, but there must be something to lose) not only encourages a waste of resources, but takes away a large part of the sense of meaning that self-employment offers in terms of enjoyment from winning an economic game (like a "game" with a win button: it's not fun to play and offers no satisfaction from success).

To be clear, I'm not arguing for capitalism or anything as the best system, I'm just pointing out that there are issues with this and we really need to rely on empirical evidence to understand what works, not political ideology.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 amIf a freedom effectively exists in a technical, theoretical sense I don't see why we'd defend that status quo unless we cared only about freedom in-and-of itself in the way some right-wing libertarians might, but you say you don't.
Nor should we insist on the freedom in practice of any kind for everybody in and of itself. It should be based on optimizing well being, which probably means maintaining some risk, and probably means focusing more on enjoyable and meaningful employment rather than who or what you're selling your labour to. Most people don't care that somebody is making a little profit from their work, as they in turn profit from others, as long as it's not materially harming them. I'm concerned with consequence, not alignment with any political ideology.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 amNo I don't, and I don't think you actually thought that statement through. More wealth = more influence. Being able to extract surplus results in having more wealth.
Do you think Bill Gates buys significantly more soup, or underwear, or anything like that than you do?

He might buy slightly more expensive versions of these things, but in doing so he's pretty much just paying more of a premium, and probably to a small company that focuses on the niche of ultra-high-quality goods which large companies are uninterested in because that's not where the profit lies. In reality, you probably have more control over these corporations than Bill Gates does, because you're a customer and he may not even be. the big companies causing all of the problems are serving the 99%, and they can be destroyed by the 99%.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 amRich people aren't by definition larger consumers as spending individuals but they have a lot of power through their wealth. Threatening divestment, lobbying, doing favours etc are all potent ways to shape society which are used consistently, daily.
In theory, and only for a short time until their resources are gone. But is this actually what happens?
Companies do this kind of thing, rich people usually spend money doing charity or advocating political interests -- and those are both conservative and progressive interests.

I don't know where you get the idea that the contributions of the rich are causing more harm than good, I don't think there's evidence for that. Just that they in theory could doesn't mean they do.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 amYou can (try to) boycott a company or even some companies but that doesn't change the system overall. The extraction of surplus continues, hence the power disparity continues, hence the harm continues.
Why do you think any power disparity is innately harmful?

If a company is doing something bad, the people have the absolute power to destroy them. They could also make a rich person's resources useless if they wanted to by threatening boycott of any company that person is involved in.

If you're interested in theoretical power rather than how it's used, the 99% are where that lies.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 amI hope you haven't fallen for the notion that politics and the law should be privatised?
No, I'm not a libertarian.
I'm not advocating anything here.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 am I don't agree with defining the term that way that libertarian socialists see liberty as a goal in an of itself. Guess we're back on definitions again. Glad we agree that the value of liberties should be judged by their consequences as it means that we both don't defend capitalism based on the abstract ability of people to make choices freely.
Without advocating an ideological principle like liberty or capitalism or equity or rule of god as an end in itself, I don't see how these ideologies are meaningful.
Are they just faith-based assertions that liberty or capitalism will always result in the best outcomes? If so, maybe. But if they give any credence to evidence, they all dissolve into the same thing based on the outcome one is after and the limits of the current evidence.
Commissaris wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:18 am I disagree. I see libertarianism differently from how you do. It's not a dogma that states that one should always pursue freedom regardless of outcome, it's the conviction that we should leave people to their own devices as much as is reasonable to defend.
Do you see how that then becomes trivial? Everybody believes that. Even theocrats and fascists. The sticking point is what's reasonable.
Post Reply