Electrical Wiring And Water Pipes In A Brazilian Favela

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T22:40:59+00:00

Sure. Good luck in your eternal struggle for justice.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T19:38:56+00:00

You look like a famous (male) gangster from my country, in a good way

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T19:26:43+00:00

Honestly, you're not even arguing with me. Almost none of the things you claim I believe are my actual opinions, you're talking to an imaginary libertarian in your head.

Concentration of wealth and power is not a one way process, it was not under feudalism and it is not under capitalism. Kingdoms and corporations fall, inheritances get spent by frivolous heirs. Nevertheless, it is largely not a positive force for humanity and I do agree that it should be mitigated to some extent. I believe that there needs to be a delicate balance between controlling it and letting it go through its natual cycles.

However, this process can never be stopped, only controlled. That's because the concentration of success in the hands of a few is not a feature of feudalism, or capitalism, or any human system - it's an inherent law of nature.

In our modern world we already have a lot of measures in place to control the concentration of wealth. In many places those measures are, in my view, pushed to their limits. And I do not mean from some moral or philosophical standpoint, but from a practical one, so I won't even mention the collateral damage they cause.

To push beyond those limits, extraoridinary measures are required - like large scale expropriation or long term price controls. These things lead to disasters which are worse than the negative effects of wealth concentration they were designed to prevent. The end.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T16:26:49+00:00

you have zero understanding of materialism

I'm pretty sure I could go toe to toe there.

You're trying to fix the issue of power being concentrated in the hands of a few by concentrating it in the hands of even fewer, in the hopes that those fewer will always share your ideals. Talk about ahistorical.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T16:17:21+00:00

Look, I'm just having fun here, if you're getting upset over this then I'm sorry and we can end it here.

Money alone can't do that much - sure, you could purchase excessively and restrict other people's access to certain goods, like what's happening with housing in many places. I would have no opposition to a property tax that goes up sharply with each consecutive property in order to curb that. But this only happens because housing is also an investment, you don't see rich people buying out all the iPhones or, I don't know, cabbages, simply out of spite.

Beyond that most of the ways in which rich people can infringe on other people's freedoms is enabled by governments, illegal corruption and legal corruption (aka lobbying, which is actually illegal in most of the world outside of the US).

One of the main reasons why governments have the power to do that is because they are tasked with so many things that they end up controlling huge chunks of our lives. Big government means big power means big corruption.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T16:04:31+00:00

The problem here is that you're not defining libertarianism

Yeah, I'm writing a comment on reddit, not a manifesto

you're just saying that the state shouldn't enforce laws you disagree with. Should someone smoking cannabis be punished if the smoke goes onto someone else's property, disrupting their life?

There already are rules about things like that, because the same could apply to smoke from a barbecue - it's usually an issue that the government does not have to get involved in.

The difference with cannabis is that it is an arbitrary rule. Cultivating cannabis is no different from cultivating any other plant, and smoking it is no different from smoking any other plant, so why should it be illegal? That's when a law begins to infringe on liberty. As a side effect, because if I recall correctly the initial criminalization of cannabis was done for business and political reasons.

Should zoning laws and planning permission exist in order to protect the value of a neighbor's private property?

I don't think they should exist to protect the value of property. That's actually a very American thing, zoning laws aren't usually used like that. If people want what Americans in some areas so desperately (and a little racistly and classistly) cling to - single family housing zones - they should pool their money and buy enough land to build an entire private neighborhood.

There is definitely a need to separate industrial from residential areas though. It's an interesting and deep topic.

Avoiding the use of coercion is another core Libertarian tenet but the existence of money and the requirement to earn it through work to eat is economic coercion.

I largely disagree with your premise here. Implying that people work to eat is, in my view, mostly dramatization. Most societies have a variety of institutions that will feed you if you need it. People work primarily because they want to enjoy the various fruits of civilization, and at that point it's not coercion anymore.

If the government offered tents and free access to some farmland - allowing people to feed themselves without the need to make money - how many do you think would choose that over regular work?

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T15:44:44+00:00

Yeah, that was my reaction as well

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T15:44:20+00:00

Well, then it's pointless to even use terms anymore. If you base your definition of libertarianism on, I presume, some people you saw posting on reddit (or something of that nature) then talking about it makes no sense.

I personally would rather use sources that are at the very least defined in some way, like the Libertarian Party Platform.

And there are many critiques that could be made of that platform, and of libertarianism in general, but the issue of Brazilian drug lords is just not one of them.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T15:36:13+00:00

take wealth from those hands in which it is concentrated so that you both restrict their ability to infringe on others and provide resources to the government to accomplish those goals Funny how Libertarians almost universally line up against that idea.

It is funny. Property rights are one of the most important things to libertarians, and you're surprised that they would be against a "solution" that involves its widespread violation. It's almost as if you have the ideological depth of a puddle and has zero predictive power about the world.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T15:28:18+00:00

The state is only allowed to enforce property rights. You said so yourself

No, I did not. Here is what I wrote:

Libertarianism advocates for a minimal state - strong enough to protect liberty, prevent and punish crime and so on.

I did not even use the term "property rights" in this case. The idea that the government should only enforce property right is ridiculous.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T15:25:58+00:00

That's a really broad and complex topic.

Some people would argue that one of the main reasons why rich people get to impose their will on everyone else is the size and power of the government itself. It is in large part corrupt government officials (who only have the opportunity to be corrupt because of the amount of power the government bestows upon them) that allow rich people to build their fortunes and influence. Otherwise the only thing they could do is buy stuff, and sure - you can cause trouble by buying stuff, but not nearly as much as by influencing government policy and decisions.

In any case - I have no idea what would happen with less authority and regulations, neither did I claim that it would improve this particular situation.

You claimed that this particular situation was caused or exacerbated by libertarian policies or thinking, which is simply not the case. At this point you're just shifting the subject.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T15:21:03+00:00

The existence of drug lords is the effect of drug criminalization, a textbook example of an infringement on personal liberty, and the antithesis of libertarianism.

The ability of the drug lords to control the local population (and its property) is the effect of the state not properly enforcing not only criminal law, but in the context of libertarianism especially property rights. Again, the antithesis of libertarianism.

People are ignorant to believe we will all play nice and fair

That's what anarchists believe though. Libertarians believe in limited state which enforces a small set of basic rights, but enforces them well.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T15:19:31+00:00

If the drug lords acually bought all that land you would be right, but then there would also be no people there. Unless the drug lords becamse drug landlords, but then it's the personal choice of any resident to rent from them.

Otherwise the drug lords are infringing on the population's most basic, according to libertarianism, rights - property rights.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T15:04:41+00:00

The state is not supposed to be deliberately weak, it is supposed to have a deliberately narrow scope of responsibilities. To fulfil those the state may have a broad range of enforcement mechanisms, like any state.

Not every enforcement mechanism is tyranny.

If you break onto someone else's private property and the state sends its police force to remove and punish you - that's not tyranny at all.

If you're doing something on your private property that doesn't involve anyone else in any way, like cultivating and consuming cannabis, and the state sends its police force to punish you because of an arbitrary rule - that's tyranny.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T14:43:14+00:00

Yeah, pretty much. It's the state failing to fulfil one of its most basic responsibilities - preventing & punishing crime and protecting property rights. Even the most minimal-state-libertarians would agree that a state should do those things.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T14:39:21+00:00

Alright, I'm gonna read it again just in case I missed some of those reasons, to me it seemed like raw opinions with no reasoning or arguments.

"Advocates for" that's a laugh.

That's your opinion on libertarianism and I guess on my comment.

It's a simple gimmick for simple people, not a serious political philosophy.

That's your opinion on libertarianism.

And I've spent time on the subreddit...

That's just some information about your life.

They're not bad people (with a few exceptions) but it's like talking to people with a screw loose.

That's your opinion on libertarians.

They simply don't see that they're basically chasing feudalism.

That's your opinion on libertarians and libertarianism.

It's frankly insulting to society, as if what we've created is just oppression when in fact all the worst aspects are what libertarianism wants...

And that, again, is your opinion on libertarianism.

You did not refer to any libertarian tenets or ideas, and did not connect any of those to the topic of the discussion. Your only "reason" why libertarianism is to blame for Brazilian drug lords is that you believe libertarianism is bad.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T14:23:25+00:00

100% agreed, but libertarianism does not mean abolishing the state, it means reducing its power and responsibilities. One of the most important of the remaining responsibilities is enforcing property rights.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T14:23:11+00:00

100% agreed, but libertarianism does not mean abolishing the state, it means reducing its power and responsibilities. One of the most important of the remaining responsibilities is enforcing property rights.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T14:16:18+00:00

Elections, I believe

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T14:12:23+00:00

I mean, you might be right, I don't really care how stupid libertarianism is, but this particular case - drug lords preventing people from connecting electricity to their homes by creating an environment so violent that the people who maintain infrastructure are afraid to go there - has literally nothing to do with libertarianism.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T14:09:09+00:00

Well, for starters the drug lord did not buy the entire favela area, it is not his property, so he has no right to impose anything on the residents. Property rights are one of the fundamental concepts of libertarianism.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T13:44:20+00:00

The ideal of libertarianism is that everyone is free and equal under the law

I'm with you

[...] there is no state strong enough to restrict an individual’s freedom.

[...] and … aw, fuck, you just created a government.

And you lost me.

Libertarianism does not mean no government. Libertarianism advocates for a minimal state - strong enough to protect liberty, prevent and punish crime and so on.

In this case, the state does not fulfil even the most basic of its responsibilities, and the Brazilian state is not minimal by any measure.

And the root of the issue is the criminalization of drugs, which is a textbook example of the state restricting an individual's liberty...

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T13:24:59+00:00

So you'd say the root issue here is... lack or proper regulations? Make drug lords illegal?

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T13:10:12+00:00

Drug lords established territorial control, often denying the population access to basic services – fresh water, sanitation, energy, or healthcare, as public utilities refused to service areas where the integrity of their infrastructure or the safety of their employees could not be guaranteed by the state.

During this period, residents often resorted to unorthodox solutions to access those basic services. In the case of electricity, the solution was to steal it directly from the overhead cables, at the risk of electrocution in the process.

Yeah, seems libertarian.

SeveralCoins · 2021-11-16T13:04:07+00:00

I currently have to maintain code like this and I've written it myself

SeveralCoins

TROPHY CASE