I currently give money to a couple of charities every year that I respect. I have volunteered in my community and will continue to do so. What you are doing is supported the dis empowering fallacy that if government doesn’t do something, then it won’t get done. It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside because you support the Democrats and they help the poor for you, but you have merely abdicated your own responsibilities to your fellow man by supporting this notion.
The libertarian anti poverty program is to endorse a moral and efficient economic and social order which alleviates hunger and provides the greatest possible creation of wealth and prosperity and the most equitable distribution.
When one puts down the guns and works with his fellow man peacefully it is amazing what you can accomplish in alleviating our mutual societal problems.
This is a ridiculous statement. You only need to abandon the concept that because no society in modern times approximates what I would consider ideal, somehow discredits libertarianism. Libertarianism is not a form of government that is “imposed” upon a society.
Rather it is the systematic reduction in coercive acts and an intellectual rejection of a monopoly of violence. We should put political coercion and violence in the same category as petty violent crime or gang warfare. There is no substantial moral difference.
Furthermore, we all act within libertarian principles within our daily lives. I can clearly observe and compare the real world differences between voluntary transactions and behaviors and violent and coercive behaviors. For example, I can observe the outcomes of a private charitable group and the outcomes of the modern welfare state. One has the effect of helping to uplift a vulnerable segment of society and teach them to be self sufficient and the other has the pernicious effect of leaving people hopeless, breaking up families, keeping people in poverty and many other unintended consequences.
Thus I can safety say that if we increased private charity and reduced government welfare, we would see better outcomes for society. Similarly through an examination of history, I can clearly see examples of the effects of fiat money on society. This has been documented in many volumes of economic literature (I could link to a few books for you).
So we can clearly observe and draw valid conclusions from actually existing societies in the real world and in history to support the libertarian position. To make the case that since no one society has adopted the libertarian “ideal” is no argument at all. The same argument could be made of nearly any political intellectual, from Noam Chomsky to Murray Rothbard. Everyone is trying to improve upon society and made it better than it has been in the past.
If you grant someone a choice of a political and economic system and say “now, you HAVE to choose from a currently existing system in the world. You must pattern your countries political system precisely on one that exists right now, not some theoretical and not currently existing idea”, that would be profoundly absurd.
Most of the worlds economies are enmeshed in a worldwide economic crises which we would surely NOT like to emulate.
Also, I believe it is extremely fallacious to suggest that a libertarian society is similar to a unicorn in that there is no precedent. There have been many libertarian-like nations in the world and countries that have extremely libertarian policies that have been clear successes. Switzerland has a libertarian like foreign policy (non interventionism, no standing army), the Netherlands have a libertarian social policy (legalized drugs and prostitution) which has lead to far lower crime than in other nations with prohibition. And so forth.
But I want to make the important point that it is not necessary for me to do all this and point to specific examples of working libertarian programs (though they are numerous).
It is like criticizing the early American abolitionists who called for abolishing slavery. Opponents of abolition might have said “How could our economy function without slave labor? Show me one industrialized society similar to ours that functions without slave labor? How would we pick the cotton without slaves to do it? Your argument is not valid unless you can provide a concrete real world example of a prosperous Republic without slavery.”
This would have been a ridiculous argument. The primary argument against slavery is moral, not utilitarian. It is similar for libertarianism. I don’t have to explain how everything will work in a free market. No one can possibly know that. I only have to explain how the current system is immoral.
What if I explained to the objector of abolition of slavery in 1820 that in the future less than 1% of the nation would be farmers and that giant machines will pick all the crops and we could support over 300 million people with that system and without slave labor, I would have probably been locked up and committed.
All I would have to say is that using slave labor is immoral as it violates their rights as human beings. I don’t care how you pick the cotton. You will find a moral substitute for a clearly immoral method.
Similarly, the primary argument for a libertarian society is a moral and ethical argument. It is blatantly immoral to violate the persons and property of another except in self defense. Similarly it is immoral to allow a privileged class to violate the laws that the rest of us have to abide by.
Therefore, while I can easily explain how desired ends can be achieved in a libertarian society, it is sufficient to point out the blatant immorality of the current means to achieving those ends.
Of course not. Anyone can have any beliefs they want, but they cannot act on them if they violate the person or property of another. In a minarchist society, the government would exist to punish violators of property rights and a court system to adjudicate disputes.
In an anarchist society, private dispute resolution organizations would accomplish the same thing.
I also want to add, that if someone has stolen your property, it is NOT against libertarian ethics for you to “steal” it back. Libertarians are not pacifists. You can defend yourself, you can recover your stolen property.
And of course, there are police and courts to adjudicate disputes and punish those that violate the rights of others.
Then I would suggest that you are very confused about what libertarianism even is. All libertarians I know of have denounced the derivatives market and the excess of the housing bubble as stark examples of the corporate crime and speculative binge that typically comes from Fed created bubbles. It is nothing to be celebrated.
Think of all the smart people that graduate and instead of starting a business and producing something, they engage in casino gambling on Wall Street. This is purely unproductive and exploitative behavior. This is caused by government fiscal and monetary policy that makes it more lucrative to profit from government than from consumers in the market.
This is one reason I framed my OP as I did. I would benefit you to realize that many libertarians are in agreement with you regarding our shared contempt for Wall Street crooks and corporate criminality. What I am attempting to illustrate is that things like the derivatives bubble, the financial instruments and complex ponzi schemes that have been prevalent over the last decade are brought about by central banking and fiat money that is subject the no oversight.
The leftist Keynesians are the one who set up this type of economic system, telling us they wanted to “help the poor” yet the opposite has occurred.
I am just asking you to be open to the possibility that the libertarian program might better serve to deliver the outcomes you want for the middle class and the poor.
This is not an even remotely intelligent response to my post. Try again. Go through my examples and explain, in detail, exactly how the corporations would be able to hurt the people under libertarian conditions I outlined.
"Society would collapse entirely’? How can you defend such an ahistorical statement? Our country survived almost half our history with a very small government. You might say it was problematic (no arguments there), but we DID have an industrial revolution, and the creation of tremendous prosperity. There were problems but society did not “collapse”.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to refrain from ludicrous hyperbole.
I feel like joining hands and signing kumbi ya with all this pie in the sky baloney. The reality is that humans are at their very heart self interested. I will look after me and mine before anyone else. So some kids are starving in another state? Not my problem mate.
This what the welfare state does well, it re-distributes money where it is needed and it sounds like you agree. Or who is this person doing the endorsing? Is it a group of people? If so it is a government.
You will get no arguments from me in regards to the derivatives markets etc, but I would say that the issues we have today are due to non-regulation of those markets.
It’s no fallacy, it’s the historical truth. Volunteerism and charity simply aren’t up for the job.
The actual "libertarian anti poverty program " is to let the poor starve and machine gun them when the food riots start. Your noble sounding descriptions of libertarianism have as much connection to reality as the noble sounding rhetoric of Communists did with the reality of Stalin and Pol Pot.
Because the corporations would have all the power, and because people would be forced to turn to them to provide the services and protection the State isn’t under your system.
But it’s not making a profit. The government just gives away its services without regard to who’s paid for them.
A government operated police force defends everyone in the community from crime. A police business would only protect its customers from crime and only to the extent it collected more money from them than it spent on its operating costs.
A libertarian would argue that this is a sign that the government operated police force is the less successful one because it’s failing to earn any money from its crime fighting.
“Produce wealth” isn’t the same as “make a profit”. It’s quite possible to produce wealth without making a profit, or to make a profit without producing wealth. The two are only loosely connected at best.
That’s pretty much a load of bull. The idea that if government doesn’t do something it won’t get done is a reality not a fallacy when you’re talking about social services. People, as individuals, only give token sums of time and money to charity. Once they’ve given enough to feel good, they stop. But they do not voluntarily give enough to get the job done.
Read a book. The historical solution to things like poverty was its victims died. There was nowhere near enough private charity to feed and clothe and shelter the poor. Then the government took over the job. Yes, it cost a lot of money but poor people no longer die of poverty in this country. I don’t see this as a problem that needs to be fixed.
That’s you, a libertarian, imposing your beliefs on other people by force. You believe in private property so you’ll have police and courts enforce that belief. Even against the people who disagree with those beliefs.
That’s the moment when libertarianism becomes coercive.
Borrow that book from jayarod after he’s done with it.
Seriously, you’re asking for a cite that poor people used to die? I can believe you slept through every history class you ever took but you can watch Les Miserables on DVD.
Government activities are often less efficient than entrepreneurial activities, because they lack profit incentives. But this is only a tendency; many types of exception have been pointed out. For example, many government programs are operated where there is no profit incentive for good public policy, e.g. rural electrification.
One of the biggest misconceptions among sophomoric lay economists is failure to grasp that the long term is more than a succession of short terms. Hardwood trees grow in cash value when they’re cut down, but the long-term value of forests diminishes. Where I live, the government has outlawed the cutting of certain hardware trees even by the landowner. But huge damage had already been done.
Activities like stock trading or poker playing can indeed be non-productive but to blame this on government is absurd. In the phrase “that Wall St. shenanigan is like highway robbery,” the term “highway robbery” does have a real-world metaphier! Is highway robbery, in its original sense, caused by government or its absence?
This is so wrong as to not even be laughable. The inclusion of “by definition” is especially peculiar.
jayarod7, if you want anyone to take you seriously amend your quoted paragraph, if you can, to something less nonsensical.
While you’re at it, post a brief but clear paragraph denouncing the Forbes $16 trillion(*) headline you were so proud of. (Why is it I’m just sure that you’ll repeat that fiction for months on other forums, unwilling to learn. )
(* - Your figure was $20 trillion. Is there still another $4 trillion unaccounted for, or was this just a rounding error?)
Rural electrification. Rural landline phone connectivity (to be fair, with cell phones, this isn’t needed as much these days, though it’s still shocking some towns are only now getting landline phones and some still don’t have them). Rural broadband internet connectivity
The idea that government does some things (though obviously not all things) more efficiently isn’t exactly controversial, you know? That is, unless one has a huge ideological chip on one’s shoulder.
…I, like everyone else in the thread, would like to point out that this is fucking stupid.
No, they are activities which make society as a whole better off when measuring the net gains and losses.
Or, you know, the government taking wealth from some to give to more economically important groups. This is another point where your idea of “productive activities” falls apart - if I take money from, say, Steve Jobs, who is just sitting on the cash and doing nothing with it, and give it to a poor family to help them buy groceries, I’ve increased the cash flow of the economy (one of those groups will spend money, the other will not), and stimulated it as a result. Even better, if I take money from Steve and give it to a startup which is trying to establish itself, we end up with a business that might not have otherwise existed, and a net gain to society. The fact that your definition ignores this possibility makes it completely unrealistic.
Two problems:
The “inherent inefficiency” is bollocks. There is no natural law declaring that government is inherently inefficient. There is no particular reason for it to be more inefficient than a company, even under ideal circumstances.
Yes, actually, as in the above example, it is entirely possible for that money to go as far or further after redistribution. Especially given the fact that we are currently in a liquidity trap.
You know what your assumption here is? It’s that because government doesn’t have quite the same incentive to thrift as businesses, it won’t even try to be efficient. And this is just plain dumb.
No, I’m sorry, that’s bullshit. A market economy free of State intervention will be far more efficient in allocating the money towards the things that make more money. Take for example the highway system, which you lambasted earlier. If that was made by the free market, what do you think the tolls would be like? What do you think its extent would be? Similar to today? Well, seeing as it couldn’t rely on government for subsidies, nor to ensure that it had good coverage, what we would see is essentially just the stretches that could be made economically valuable, with far higher tolls - nothing like what we have today. How about the telecommunications network? Hell, we already see that many rural places really struggle to get any internet connection at all in America, and that with the bills providing subventions for it. How about projects to help the homeless?
Oh wait.
What economic value is there in a homeless shelter? No, really, what is there? There’s a reason they’re seen as “charity” projects - there’s no fucking money in it, unless you want to organize sponsored bum fights or something like that. In a purely capitalistic society, there is no incentive to provide services like Social Security, Medicare, or any other form of social welfare that runs at a loss. These are services that people rely on, and which do have actual positive economic benefits (getting the poor to spend money on goods is kind of necessary for the economy to function), but which no corporation would ever supply, save perhaps as a PR-induced charity action over a short period of time and a tiny scale.
I don’t have to, though, because it doesn’t matter if an individual is worse-off - it matters if society as a whole is well-off. And the perfect example of government productivity is stimulus in a liquidity trap - something no corporation will provide (because there’s no demand) and only the government is really capable of providing.
Blame the backtracking done in 1937 for that. Basically, as soon as things started looking up, the reaction was to look at the deficit and say “Hmm, time to cut spending”. The result? The recovery failed, and it was back into the depression.
Okay, you say Krugman advocated replacing the tech bubble with a housing bubble. Let’s have some citation on that claim, because I know for a fact that that is bullshit.
History says not really. Well, to an extent you’re right - whenever a republican enters office, spending goes up like crazy.
And doing that again today would be fucking insane. We’re in a liquidity trap. We literally cannot get interest rates low enough to make them attractive to borrow. That’s the problem - we can’t get enough inflation. Decreasing inflation at this point would seriously harm the economic recovery.
Today, Volcker wouldn’t be moderate - he’d be wrong. Are you concerned with inflation? Because people have been screaming about how runaway inflation is right around the corner for years - so far: no dice. And in fact, keynsian economic theory dictates that exactly this would happen - there wouldn’t be inflation despite an increase of the money base in a liquidity trap.
That’s just some of what I’m willing to address this morning. You’re completely wrong on just about every front.
You failed AGAIN to respond with any substance to what I said. How exactly would “corporations” have “all the power” with a minimal government that corporations weren’t involved with?
What is to prevent the masses of the people from rising up and creating their own businesses? You act as if “corporations” and businesses are some specific groups of people who don’t change.
We will all be “forced” to get our services and products from them why exactly? Why could decent people not become entrepreneurs and start their own businesses to serve their communities? What is stopping them?
And if existing businesses did not want to lose all their money and become one of the poor, why would they not be pressured into serving the consumers rather than deliberately hurting them?
This is simply basic logic. But you really have nothing of value to contribute if you insist on stating things like: "The actual “libertarian anti poverty program " is to let the poor starve and machine gun them when the food riots start.”
No serious economist or political commentator believes that all the poor will die and there will be food riots under a free market economic system. There might be a compelling case for some government intervention, but you discredit your own position by making unfounded, clearly untrue sensationalist statements like that.
There is really nothing more for you to productively add to the discussion if you cannot elevate your level of discourse beyond mindless hyperbole.
I have read quite a lot of books for your information and, not that I care to do this as it cannot be proven, from what I have gathered I have read more history, economics and political theory that most people posting on this thread. And most of it has NOT been libertarian literature, I understand Keynes’s positions intimately and I am aware of the various arguments given by “your side of the argument” and thus I am deftly able to dismantle the fallacious arguments with ease.
This one is not even a challenge. From your view, if we examine history, it should become clear that poverty is only alleviated and reduced if the government is tasked with combating poverty. There is no other way, as your argument goes.
Well examining the historical record we will see that poverty statistics fell steadily year after year from the mid 19th century until the mid 1960s. Once Lyndon Johnson instituted his “Great Society” program to fight poverty, poverty has flat-lined and we haven’t made further progress. If you examine the several decades before the start of the Great Society programs, poverty was declining at a significant rate.
This demonstrable fact destroys your argument that the ONLY way to fight poverty is for the government to provide welfare and assistance. How do you then explain the reduction in the rates of poverty that occurred before the Federal Government had any sort of anti poverty program?
Not only is that incorrect, but the notion that Americans are selfish and don’t give hardly any money to charity is completely ridiculous. Over the last decade, money given by private donations in this country has averaged around $300 Billion a year. No doubt that number would be even higher if Americans were taxed less and had more disposable income.
The thing to realize is that in a free market economy, even the activity that is motivated not by charity but by self interest, helps others. If I am the most selfish person in the world and I open a business purely to profit myself I can ONLY attain those profits if I effectively serve others. Otherwise I will go bankrupt. This is the invisible hand that Adam Smith talked about.
As we see, charitable donations are incredibly significant in the United States. If you want to talk about reducing poverty, why not reduce the devaluing of the currency by the Federal Reserve? Why not allow an easier ladder to economic employment and entrepreneurship by getting rid of the minimum wage laws and reducing regulations and red tape?
Politicians don’t see welfare spending as helping to alleviate poverty, they see it as buying votes pure and simple. They could care less if these people EVER get off welfare, in fact the incentive is to keep them dependent because it reinforces the idea that government is absolutely indispensable.
)