Jayarod7, you are conspicuously ignoring the most knowledgeable contribution to the thread, which is Hellestal’s post.
And just to clarify: Jayarod7, would fractional reserve banking be forbidden under your system?
I do appreciate the intelligent and well thought out critique. I have significant problems with many commentators that call themselves libertarians. It is unfortunate that the “libertarian” label means so many different things to different people. It has become kind of a cool “third option” that people claim when they feel disillusioned by the two major parties, even though they know very little about classical liberalism or the theories behind the ideology. That is how both Glenn Beck on one hand and Bill Maher on the other can claim to be libertarians at one time or another.
I think it is merely a product of the corruption of the modern political spectrum and the dichotomy we are presented between Republicans and Democrats where labels have been distorted to confuse rather than illuminate. For many on the Left, libertarians have been seen as some sort of adjunct political philosophy of conservative Republicans when that is not historically the case.
I also vehemently push back on the notion that libertarians are somehow the friends of corporate oligarchs or whose values are contrary to those of civil rights oriented Progressives. That is why I make it clear that historically speaking, opposing the State and reducing its power was always considered a leftist tradition. Until the mid 20th century people did not assume that corporate power and State power were competing factions where to reduce the power of one was to inversely increase the power of the other.
I feel the libertarian and leftist tradition has been and should again be to reduce concentrations of power, whether political or economic, wherever they might be. Thus smaller, competing companies are better than large monopolies. And thus smaller, competing political entities (states or local communities) are better than a massive central government that trumps all other political units.
I know we agree that the modern State has been corrupted by corporate special interests. Yet you see the problem as deregulation. This is the conventional answer by leftists regarding these problems.
We have to first clarify, what exactly is regulation? We certainly have a lot of rules and hoops to jump through to do almost anything in the economy. But we first have to recognize that there are two types of regulations that governments pass. The first is a rule passed that is written and designed to protect consumers or hold in check business behavior that is destructive, like some anti trust laws.
In this category I would place Glass Steagal and things like the Clean Air Act.
The second type of regulation is one that is passed due to pressure from a large corporation to hurt smaller competitors or grant them a monopoly. It is not designed for consumer protection, even though many are put forward with the lie that they are, and they hurt the consumer and protect the biggest corporate firms from failure, from competition or consumer choice. These are very pernicious and bad regulations and any progressive should support their repeal.
Regulatory capture happens from the very outset many times.
But most leftists don’t even seem to grasp this nuance in regulatory code. We are merely presented with the choice of “deregulation” on one hand or “more regulation” on the other. If you want deregulation you are a corporate crony and a Republican and if you favor more regulation you are a liberal and a consumer advocate.
This is a false choice. Objectively speaking, of the hundreds of thousands of regulations and laws on the books governing every aspect of economic life, a great majority are written by larger corporations that don’t want you to start a business and compete with them. Special interests get legislation drafted by themselves all the time. They might get a subsidy or some benefit from it but so frequently the consumer gets shafted.
So if your rallying cry was “we need to reinstate Glass Steagal and then drastically downsize and eliminate bad and corrupt regulations that hurt competitors and do nothing to help consumers” I would be on your team on the subject. The problem is that all I hear from the left is that we need MORE laws and MORE regulations without even touching the monstrosity of the current regulatory code and its ineffectiveness and pernicious effect of propping up the Corporate state.
This is why I claim that many progressives unwittingly are aiding the corporate cronies they claim to despise.
As for the Fed printing trillions of dollars in secret, I already posted this link but in case you missed it:
I also want to disabuse you of the notion that libertarians want a society with no laws. That is NOT the case. All we want is a society were the laws affect everyone equally, where there is no privileged class that is above those laws.
You might think you agree with this, but in every modern society with a central bank and a government, the political class, bankers and corporate cronies are immune from the laws that govern us. We can’t counterfeit, but the Federal Reserve can. We can’t steal but the government can take a third or more of our paychecks at the point of a gun, we can’t murder but our government is legally allowed to engage in assassinations and wars without repercussions.
In a libertarian society no government (even ones that some libertarians would allow) is permitted to violate the rights of private citizens who are minding their own business.
In a libertarian society, all just and moral laws can be confined to only to.
-
Don’t initiate force or violence against the person or property of another person.
-
Live up to your agreements (contracts).
That is essentially all that is needed for a peaceful society to function. I need to make the point that a libertarian sees environmental protection as part of the initiation of force as we all breath the air, drink the water etc. If your person or property has been effected by pollution, the offending party should be punished for the the action.
As far as your request for examples of libertarian societies, I think there are plenty throughout history that demonstrate the feasibility of a free society. The absence of any “perfect” example is irrelevant as there is no perfect example of ANY society in history.
I refer you to these links:
http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf
Ancient Ireland is an example of a libertarian approximation that existed for a thousand years.
“The libertarian society of Ireland, which lasted for a thousand years was able to resist English conquest for hundreds of years because of the absence of a State which could be conquered easily and then used by the conquerors to rule over the native population.” - Murray Rothbard
“PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE”:
What about the Iroquois Confederacy, a Native American libertarian society that existed before Columbus?
But back to a central point. I am completely astonished at how the left, under the guise of caring for the “common man”, ends up supporting central banking and money creation by the State.
I see that it is nearly an impossible task to harness the power of an expansive government and use it to further the interests of the middle class and poor. It seems inevitable in my mind that the most powerful will become more powerful and the lobbying ability of the rich and influential with always outweigh that of the middle class and labor unions.
That is why I put forward that the State is not an engine of human progress but a huge detriment to human happiness and prosperity.
This is true but you are missing a very critical element. Ludwig von Mises ONLY considered a government legitimate IF it was a voluntary association and any party was free to leave at any point.
At the founding of our nation, we had that form of government. The principle of secession was defended and not questioned. We had a voluntary union. That is the form of government that I might be able to support.
Yet other Austrian economists and thinkers from Hans Hoppe to even Murray Rothbard go a bit further than Mises questioning the necessity of government monopolies of law enforcement and defense.
The argument is that if competition leads to better services on the market, why should law enforcement not also benefit from competition?
The arguments (and I have read them extensively) are persuasive but I will grant that the concept of anarchy is harder to grasp.
Though I call myself a libertarian anarchist, I would not oppose the type of voluntary Republic advocated for my Mises.
Okay this is very important and I want you to remember this. The non aggression principle only means that neither private citizens nor the government should ***initiate ***force or violence against peaceful individuals.
Got it? Initiate. That means that laws that punish criminals and use force in defense or to protect the victims of violence are permitted in a libertarian society.
These types of laws do NOT violate the Non Aggression Principle.
There were certainly “major avoidable negative impacts on the economy” prior to 1971, but no I wouldn’t say they were the result of the Gold standard.
You have to remember that no one is advocating going back on a gold standard that is exactly like what we had before. But that was a “sound money” monetary system of sorts that prevented the growth of government and the expansion of the money supply. In those respects it created a solid foundation for the most prosperous society the world has ever seen.
The remaining fact is that all in all, we did exceptionally well as a nation from 1776 to 1971 I would say. Are you denying this?
Even if you were to cite some problems with the gold standard in those years, the hyperbole I am hearing on this thread is that it causes entire economies to collapse, causes the rich to kill all the poor and any other assortment of nonsensical rantings.
I am only proving my case that societies can and do thrive under sound money.
To turn the question back at you, can you notice any negative economic and social trends during the last forty years that might be related to fiat money creation?
Which is opposing civil rights and supporting corporate oligarchs. The State is the only real restraint on them, and is the only reason that rights of any kind have any meaningful existence.
Except that’s just not how the world worlds. Small is not inherently good, nor is big inherently bad.
Empty rhetoric. Regardless of their intentions, that or outright violent anarchy is what the results of their proposals would be.
Printing money isn’t counterfeiting, nor is taxation theft.
The inevitable result being either collapse or a society of lords and serfs where the wealthy have near absolute power, and the serfs can’t fight back without the government crushing them - but otherwise, the government leaves them to suffer. It also absolutely cannot be a genuine democracy, or it would simply be voted out of power.
Because outside of the goldbugs, no one considers that a problem.
History demonstrates the exact opposite however. A small government means that the rich simply run roughshod over everyone else, the middle class barely exists at best, unions are either co-opted or killed off, and what government there is is just an extension of the corporations.
And it was also dysfunctional, which is why it was replaced.
Because the name for that is warlordism. This is classic “just move to Somalia” stuff.
So you want to disband the monetary systems of the entire world and end any kind of government assurance of the maintenance of organized society in favor of the right to enjoy drugs, games and hookers?
Perhaps after reflection you’d like to list some more fundamental human dignities you’re being denied?
Which means society collapses, because there’s so many non-violent ways to wreck society. The fact that there’s no way to collect taxes by itself means society is as good as collapsed; no one pays their taxes, the government can’t keep running, and everything falls to pieces when the police and everything else the government does vanishes.
Let me change the subject somewhat. I am genuinely intrigued by you Der Trihs. I assume you are entirely genuine on this thread and are not being contrary for its own sake.
How old are you? Where did you go to school? How did you arrive at your political views? Where do you get your political news and information from?
It seems almost staggering that someone could be so removed from the reality that we are living in. You think the government is FAR too small?
Nearly four trillion dollar budgets a year not enough? An excess of two hundred trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security not enough for you?
Its funny how much more our government spends in 2013 (which you called “underfunded”) than we spend twenty years ago yet the American people are not better off and the economy is not more prosperous.
Can you cite ANY wasteful government programs? Do you work for the government? That is one logical explanation for your answers.
Are you familiar with Constitutional law? Does it concern you that you have a blatant disregard for the limitations placed by that document on our government?
I know you want all the conservatives and moderates and libertarians and anarchists to die off then you can take control of the State and you can centrally plan your workers paradise I mean progressive society through government violence and fiat money creation.
It is always fascinating to hear people like yourselves if only as a reminder of the disastrous effects of the American education system on young minds.
Following Hellestal’s lead, I located the GAO report which was misrepresented in the Forbes article. Table 8 is the one with the $16 trillion total * but it is prefaced with the caption*:
It seems very clear that Forbes’ $16 trillion figure (amplified to $20 trillion by OP) is bullshit, as Hellestal already explained. (OP, is this clear to you?) A trillion dollars is a lot of money but it isn’t the same as $16 trillion. (If this isn’t clear, the former averages out to $3100 per American, the latter to $50,000.)
BTW, I learned long ago that forbes.com is in the same category as American Enterprise or Faux News. It’s just not a go-to website for factual info. Even if you initially acquire info via such a source, please have the courtesy to track down a reputable cite before posting.
jayarod7 posted a very long response to me much of which could be summarized as “good regulations are good … bad regulations are bad.” I was ready to stipulate to that before his post. 
I’ll just excerpt a little to show his tone:
Much of the money “stolen at the point of a gun” goes for Social Security, schools, law enforcement and other things even jayarod7 might approve of. But why do we need to speak of “the point of a gun” ? :smack: Another Libertarian already has a thread going equating tax with violence. jayarod7, would you mind putting this kind of comment in that thread and leave this one for adult dialog?
A Savings & Loan where Mr. and Mrs. Smith earn interest on their savings after paying off their mortgage, with their funds then turned over to Mr. and Mrs. Jones to buy a starter house creates new money in exactly the same way that commercial banks create money via “fractional reserve” checking accounts! The main difference is the former is M2 money, the latter M1. Through the magic of simple arithmetic, money creation can multiply.
Yet laymen whose understanding of money creation comes from sensationalist YouTubes think that banks’ money creation is some sort of illusion or fraud. :smack:
Sigh. Okay, the threat of violence is equally as pernicious as enacting violence if it is threatened against peaceful individuals. If you are a completely obedient person subservient to the State you might get away with never having overt physical violence used against you by the State. But you wouldn’t be free.
Police forces doing drug raids, drone strikes, imprisonment for victim less crimes, kids dying in illegal and immoral wars are all examples of overt physical violence by the government that occurs every day.
I presume that in Libertopia, there is no commons; all property is privately held, and use of that property is controlled by the owner. So I would have to pay a toll every time I left my driveway. I just want to go from my property to the marketplace, but if all the property in between is privately owned, I have to submit to the demands of the owners. I have no contract with them, yet if I cross their property without paying the toll, they can respond with violence to prevent me or collect the toll.
How is this society superior to what we have now?
You have a point. I shouldn’t have stated that the way I did. No of course they cannot lock us up on anything without a trial (unless they declare us an enemy combatant or a “terrorist” in which case they can). I was merely making a point that there are so many laws on the books that should be there that law enforcement practically cannot enforce all of them. So they make priorities.
If they chose to shift priorities, we might easily be targeted from prosecution for doing something we have always done.
For example, in California medical marijuana is legal, but it is illegal under federal law. For quite a while they didn’t enforce federal law, but then they started doing raids and prosecuting people, destroying their property and their lives. This happens.
I will take the criticism about exaggeration and hyperbole but the point I was making still stands.
Of course we aren’t. Not only is there a global economic mess, but we’ve let the rich hog most of the money in the country. We need a major tax increase on the rich.
Somehow I doubt that you and I agree on what those are.
:dubious:
Seeing “government violence” and “fiat money creation” lumped together like that is just so bizarre. Like the next printing of dollar bills will be red…because it’s made with the blood of the innocent! MWHAHAHAHA!
jayarod7, I do hope you understand this point. You may feel that your essential argument is similar whether the amount was twenty trillion or just one, and whether the loans were “secret” or public.
But if you have the integrity to admit that your sources are bullshitting you, you may achieve enlightenment.
(* - Based on my impression of forbes.com competence, their bullshit number may be less a matter of Machiavellian propaganda then simply some junior reporter told to browse through the PDF and look for the largest dollar amount mentioned. :smack: )
Thats not the point. The point is you were doing something illegal and it should NOT be illegal. You could have gotten caught. You could have gotten in plenty of trouble. To argue against what I am saying by claiming “I am really good at evading the law” is silly. We shouldn’t have to hide from law enforcement. We should eliminate tons of laws that should not have been laws in the first place.
What is this link supposed to prove? It seems to say that secession might be a reasonable principle but that libertarians shouldn’t support the Confederacy in the Civil War. Fine. Sign me up for that. I certainly don’t support the Confederacy.
But I am saying that our nation did quite well with a dollar pegged to gold. What does the Civil War or the principle of secession have to do with that?
Of course, slavery was the most abhorrent violation of libertarianism and the non aggression principle imaginable.
Can you please respond to the totality of how the United States evolved and became more prosperous and built a large vibrant middle class with a dollar pegged to gold?
So you are assuming that if the government doesn’t perform a function, no one will?
This is absurd. Policemen should be a local institution.
There are plenty of ways for the government to collect revenue that don’t depend on the income tax. There are import duties, toll roads, optional taxes levied against people for engaging in activities they could easily avoid if they chose. I limited Republic could be funded in a libertarian way that does not involve the non aggression principle.