Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Laminations · 14-05-2010 1:12pm

wrong wring wrong. Under the current system you have a choice just the same as libertarianism, in fact you have more choice. Basically if you dont like doing something, don't do it (but know there will be consequences). Under libertarianism if I don't like the way my boss treats me I have a choice, I can leave - the consequence of which is I have to find another job. alternatively I could stay, this would not be entirely volitional as my circumstances my force me to accept the abuse, as not having a job and relying on charity could endanger my life. So yes I still have a choice but it becomes a choice between life of exploitation and abuse vs. sickness and death. Under the current system I have more choices, I can stay and accept it or I can leave or I can bring the power of the state down on him. This in no way curtails the choice of behaviour available to me boss it merely introduces some more consequences.

And if you don't like paying tax you still have a choice - leave. Just because you may not like the choice doesn't mean you don't have one. I'm sure many people wouldn't like the choices they are left with under libertarianism.

14-05-2010 1:13pm

So, an employment contract can be torn up on a whim..do you therefore also believe in the destruction of other contracts?..you dont for example think anything should be done re mortgages in this country, where it is essentially the same thing, the mortgage holders says to the bank i can no longer afford to pay this back, as opposed to the employer saying i can no longer afford to pay you, sorry..
Or is that just one of the many benefits of 'Limited Liability'?

And, as it seems, the PS contracts do actually say they cant be torn up, are you in favour of the PS in our current Public vs Private debate?

Permabear · 14-05-2010 1:13pm

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce · 14-05-2010 1:13pm

Not on the street, but in a business if a person in a position of power over another does so it becomes another story. I think that people in power have a responsibility to ensure staff are safe and free from harassment; if it is the boss himself (usually him) who is the problem, then a higher authority must step it. I don't accept that the solution is for a person to simply leave the job- in reality, they might not be in a position to (and this would become even more acute in a world with no social welfare), and be forced by circumstance to grin and bare it.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 1:24pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 1:24pm

again you only seem capable of talking in absolutes, no one is talking about legislating foe every situation in which people can take offence. In fact it's not really offence we are talking about - it's abuse of power, something you see the state doing all too often but you can't recognise it when one individual holds power over another

Scofflaw · 14-05-2010 1:28pm

That's not an argument against sexual harassment legislation in principle - it's an argument that the use of it you cite would be ridiculous. I would have no difficulty saying the above is extremely unlikely to be a case of sexual harassment. If the press' best-selling genre is indeed romance, and there is little use to Ms Smith's position if it is filled by someone who cannot read steamy novels, then Ms Smith is unsuitable for the job and this is not a case of sexual harassment.

However, if the press has a wide range of publications, and Mr Jones has given Ms Smith the steamy novels because he enjoys forcing her to read sexual scenes against her preferences, even though she could equally well be reviewing engineering manuals, then that is obviously a case of a man abusing his power to get a kick out of making a subordinate woman do something quasi-sexual against her will.

Under libertarianism, Ms Smith has no recourse in either case but to leave her employment, quite possibly with a bad reference ("not a good sport").

regards,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 14-05-2010 1:30pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 14-05-2010 1:33pm

Let the jury decide!
(Or an employment tribunal).

Permabear · 14-05-2010 1:35pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 1:44pm

This post has been deleted.

14-05-2010 1:45pm

Ah, no...dont go bringing up the Muslim cartoons..it's pretty much the one thing they ask, that their prophet is not depicted in an image..is it too much too ask to let them have one thing you cant do?..these people's religion is very important to them..as a godless capitalist, imagine how you'd feel if people started burning money in front of you?..This is the entire reason behind Political correctrness...its nice to be nice...its not nice to be needlessly offensive to people..

So in answer to your question, both should, because if people dont take other people's offence into account what have we become?

14-05-2010 1:46pm

WTF?

Laminations · 14-05-2010 1:49pm

And you dont see the power relationship affecting this? where the employer has many alternative options for employees and the employee has limited options for alternative employment? You are justifying the exploitation of individual circumstance. Yes I'll admit this happens today, we all 'prostitute' ourselves to a certain extent (e.g. we dont all work in our dream jobs, we compromise) but we have the state to ensure the compromise does not jeopardise our fundamental rights.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 1:54pm

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987 · 14-05-2010 1:55pm

I wouldn't be in favour of conscription so yes conscription is an overextension of government power but that is not to say government enforcing worker safety is the same as enforcing conscription, one protects the individual another enslaves the indivdiual.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 1:56pm

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ABUSE OF POWER FOR EXPLOITATION!!!!

sorry to use caps, they are a poor substitute for expletives...
this is increasingly frustrating. We are not talking about offence, people do not have the right to not be offended.

14-05-2010 1:56pm

Ah, i saw that one coming...

Permabear · 14-05-2010 1:59pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 2:00pm

I agree with you on this. Freedom of speech, freedom to offend but NOT freedom to harrass or abuse, which you accept as a freedom in which the state should not interfere.

Anonymous1987 · 14-05-2010 2:01pm

But we are not giving the state absolute power, just because you have to wear a safety harness on a building site doesn't mean you are in the hands of the state, again thinking in absolutes lead to very poor reasoning. Treat each case on its merits.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 2:04pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 2:35pm

Its why we have a judicial system to perambulate over these things.

In my eyes 'the visual depiction' would have to be threatening or an abuse of power, repeatedly running after a muslim and flashing a cartoon of their prophet in their face would be harrassment, publishing such pictures, although insensitive and possibly offensive, remains freedom of speech. Again we have courts to decide these things.

thebaldsoprano · 14-05-2010 2:41pm

No doubt the free market would punish this employer for hiring employees he wants to sleep with rather than the best sports shop employees it has to offer...

Permabear · 14-05-2010 2:45pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 14-05-2010 2:49pm

More likely, a consumer will have absolutely no inside information regarding the behavior of the manager toward one or 2 of his staff.
Since they don't know about the abuse, it wil not factor into the decision to shop there.

Even if they DID know of the abuse, they might still shop there depending on their own needs, the prices of the goods, convenience and their own pov.

In effect, this means that the victim must be rather public in her protest and win the empathy and resolution of the general public.
A much harder hill to climb and probably one in which most people would be intimadated from trying.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 2:51pm

Yes. The people in that office are dicks.

If an employer does not satisfactorily deal with workplace complaints (the muslim case would be a case of workplace bullying - so would the other case if it continued to occur after it was made clear it was unwanted) then there are other avenues the woman has, other then stay and endure or leave (as with a libertarian system). There are internal HR procedures that she could access, (if not, or if unresolved) she can go higher up or get the state involved. If someone left a sheeps head on my desk I'd be equally inclined to go to the boss and expect a resolution, if it happened repeatedly then it would be a failure of my boss to regulate the situation and the state may get involved.

EDIT: the boss still has all choices open to him. He can do nothing, or he can intervene etc etc. The consequences of his choices have changed somewhat so as to balance the power dynamic between him and his workers.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 3:00pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 3:06pm

Ah ok, notice board. The way I read it first time I though it was office desk. Yep internal procedures should deal with potentially offensive material to ensure worker congeniality. If it becomes a case of office bullying then there is a role for the state acting under legislation (if the issue is not resolved by the internal procedures). Again the courts can decide

BluePlanet · 14-05-2010 3:06pm

The reason those workplaces have those internal HR procedures is to mitigate against getting sued by one of their employees or the State.
So in effect, it is because of the State that those procedures exist.

Akrasia · 14-05-2010 3:12pm

Again, the straw man false dichotomy. Its not just a choice between no regulation at all, and excessive regulation of everything.

Nobody in their right mind is in favour of excessive regulation, most people are in favour of sensible regulations that are balanced and realistic.

The correct balance isn't always reached, but imperfect regulation is not an argument in favour of no regulation at all.

Like who?

Plenty of people who aren't right wing libertarians also argued that point. Banning or not banning something because it's offensive is a different issue entirely to protecting people against sexual harrassment in the workplace. Freedom of speech is different to freedom to use your position of power as an employer/manager to sexually intimidate your employees.

Akrasia · 14-05-2010 3:23pm

What are you, the script writer for Ally McBeal?

Akrasia · 14-05-2010 3:36pm

I find inconsistency in the fact that you are comparing apples with oranges. it is the intent to harrass that is protected against by the state. Workplace bullying is not permitted, whether it is on the basis of sexual orientation, race,religion, or the colour of someone's hair.
If the muslim employee was being targetted for harrassment by other employees who were pinning up offensive images (to him) where they knew they would offend him, then they would be breaking the law. If it was just an oversight and the other employees didn't realise that it was offensive then they would just take down the poster and leave it at that.
These situations are decided on a case by case basis by a tribunal

Permabear · 14-05-2010 5:12pm

This post has been deleted.

14-05-2010 5:31pm

DF, you're starting to sound like you feel that in cases of sexual harrasment, the offender's freedom of expression trumps the victims rights?..isn't this where the argument for freedom of expression gets muddy..if everyone went around doing whatever they pleased, with no concern for anyone but themselves, thats pretty much the breakdown of civility..

Permabear · 14-05-2010 5:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 5:51pm

Yet again it seems it has to be spelled out for you. There is a great difference between 'causing offence' and 'creating an offensive environment', the second constitutes harrassment

Anonymous1987 · 14-05-2010 5:52pm

What about those lads who bought a rocket launcher to blow up a rival gang should their property be protected or is the rocket launcher somehow a symptom of the welfare state :rolleyes:.

BluePlanet · 14-05-2010 5:52pm

Yet each one of those things could be used as a means to intimidate, humiliate and sexually harass someone.

I just don't understand why having the freedom to sexually harass someone is so important to you.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 6:01pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 6:05pm

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 14-05-2010 6:16pm

That is for society to decide via elected representatives in government, who pass legislation. Under your state, the government wouldn't have the ability to pass legislation in this area.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 6:21pm

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 14-05-2010 6:27pm

Proposed state (Unless you are currently communicating from the Liberated Territory of Donegal

)

Permabear · 14-05-2010 7:01pm

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce · 14-05-2010 7:34pm

Not just any poster of course, I mean if material is being circulated which is somehow designed to personally upset a person- like a doodle (serious point here) of someone in a compromising position - then this is harassment and bullying. Simply having offensive material around isn't harassing an individual. I incidentally think that public posters aimed at humiliating individuals shouldn't be allowed either- we can't have people running ads all over the place ridiculing someone they don't like.

If a business decides it wants to keep porn on the walls, then no, that's their business and the employees can get used to it.

Scofflaw · 14-05-2010 7:48pm

All of that, though, seems like it's just a question of where you draw the line. Presumably, the libertarian perspective is that on principle you do not regulate such things at all, whatever their effect. Anything else is just hanging out on the fringes of social democracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater · 14-05-2010 8:43pm

Indeed. That is probably the reason I would be so in favour of the free market. For example, Amhran Nua suggested earlier that if I wasn't happy with the education system I should vote for different policies. I think this misses the point. Why should there be a one-size-fits-all model, where we all have to accept the prevailing opinion? Why should we all have to learn, say, Irish? And there's also the issue that when voting at elections we vote for a wide range of issues, and it's necessary to prioritize some concerns over others.

Still though, this thread has been interesting (if a little hard to follow when one doesn't constantly check up on it). I think the libertarian position on regulation (in the sense being discussed the last few pages) is a little harder to defend than freedom of enterprise.

I'm not entirely satisfied that one can argue everything from "first principles, for example.

The government banned head shop products the other day, handing a sizable chunk of the drugs market to the kind of people who do wield rocket launchers. As I've always said, we had a choice between head shops and the kind of people who burn down head shops, and this "nanny state" ban is clearly in favour of the latter. In a liberalized drugs market, undercutting gangsters who spend so much money on smuggling and weaponry wouldn't exactly be rocket science.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 9:15pm

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987 · 14-05-2010 9:17pm

While the gangs were indeed drug dealers I wasn't arguing for banning drugs or head shops, my point was that the kind of libertarianism supported here on boards argues for the protection of property from the state which it considers violent. This line of thought it seems to me is the reverse of the labour exploitation that Marxism preaches i.e. in libertarianism the government exploits the owners of capital rather than the capitalist exploiting the worker.

If an individual can own property such as rocket launchers that can be used to coerce others through threat or use of violence then what is there to stop a libertarian society returning to tyranny in the same way as an overbearing government leads to tyranny?

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Comments