Sam, Exactly which “liberals” are advocating “central planning”? I challenge you to name a single liberal policy on the economy that amounts to anything like central planning.
You wrote: “The ‘war on poverty’ has been going on for 50 years, and the only poverty that has been alleviated during that time was due to the rise in the economy because of the free market.”
The above is a completely illogical statement. Either there has been a government sponsored war on poverty for the last fifty years or there has been a free market that was able to alleviate poverty through economic prosperity. You can’t simultaneously claim that government has waged an ineffective war on poverty and that there have been gains in poverty in which government’s role has played no part.
Perhaps it would help if you understood that liberals don’t see the economy (a/k/a the private sector) and the government (a/k/a the public sector) as disconnected or competing domains. If you want to say that the economic gains for, say, the working classes or the middle classes were achieved during a given period because of expansion in the private sector that’s all fine and good. But it’s not something that any liberal would need to deny to support his or her philosophy since liberals do believe in a market economy.
Moreover, no market economy is absolutely “free” as your own post admits. So, as in the example of poverty, you are simply wanting to claim success for the so-called free market and claim failure for government or liberalism. IIRC that is exactly the fallacy that another poster (sorry I forget whom it was) attributed to libertarianism earlier in the thread.
Please provide some concrete examples of natural monopolies in these markets.
What do you mean by “radical free market economies”? Real-world examples?
Wow, do you ever argue against anyone who isn’t pure fucking evil? Libertarians are sociopaths. Soldiers are murderers. Christians are evil. Well, let me just thanks the fuck out of you for being on the side of justice and light.
Seriously, though, what need do you think you fill by assigning venal motives to people who disagree with you?
You’re arguing against a strawman. Libertarians don’t want to make fraud legal (nor, as in your second example, murder). These arguments would carry some weight if we were talking about anarcho-capitalists, but we’re not.
Double-digit inflation, huh? I’d recommend a quick google on French and German inflation rates Sam. Making an absurd claim like that really renders your other arguments unpersuasive at best, and mendacious otherwise.
I didn’t say they wanted to make murder legal; that was an analogy. As for fraud, of course they want to make that legal; that’s an inevitable part of any unregulated free market, since stopping fraud is a regulation. And preying on people is part of their social-darwinistic view of life anyway.
Libertarianism has one fundamental flaw - and it’s exactly the same fundamental flaw as Communism. Both ideologies presume that all people will, at all times, behave exactly as predicted in their respective models. Unfortunately, people aren’t sheep or ants, we’re people. As soon as individuals start behaving contrary to the model, the model collapses.
German inflation rates are at 3%, as of January, this year (cite). Further, French inflation is at 3.2%, as of February, this year (cite).
(Perhaps you were mistaking French and German unemployment rates with inflation rates, which currently stand at 8.1% for France and 7.7% for Germany, as of beginning 2008 (cite), and are no doubt a lot higher in more economically depressed areas).
As for standard of living decreases? Cite? Every indication is that Scandinavia has the highest standards of living in the world, which is problematic for your position, as Scandinavia is infamously socialist, even within Europe.
The “model” Libertarianism relies upon is the natural tendancy of people to better themselves; to provide what others want because there’s a buck in it. You don’t have to educate or force most people to do what comes naturally, just give them the freedom to pursue it.
Communism’s model requires suppressing this natural urge and replacing it with an altruistic one where your interests must always be subordinated to the “good of the whole”. A Communistic society must constantly fight to retain this artificial drive which flies in the face of reality, using force if necessary.
Also it looks like there’s a whopping 10% difference between the overall tax rates of Germany and the US, yet when you consider Universal healthcare and public transport they do seem to get worthwhile benefits for that extra money.
And this table doesn;t seem to share your despair regarding the Eurozone’s balance of trade. I think many Americans over egg the demise of Europe.
I know, but what I’m wondering is why, in your estimation, are those your opinions in the first place?
Most posters here strongly disagree with a libertarian approach, but they all argue that libertarians are simply mistaken, even foolish – except for you, who says that libertarians are sociopaths who just want to get government out of the way so that they can take advantage of other people. Most posters here strongly disagree with the war in Iraq, and many even think there’s an ethical obstacle to joining the U.S. military in the context of that war – but you’re the only one (or nearly the only one) who says that all American servicemen are murderers. Most posters in this forum, probably, are atheists, and many of them like to criticize religion in general, and Christianity in particular – but you’re one of a small, vocal handful which maintains that Christianity (and, in fact, Christians) are just plain evil. That’s all that comes to mind right now, but I don’t doubt that a cursory search would turn up additional topics in which you’re right and the other side is malicious.
So I’m really curious: why is it that, on so many issues, those who disagree with you are evil, instead of merely mistaken? Why is it that other people’s errors are driven by spite or greed, while yours are in good faith?
You implied that libertarians wouldn’t want the government to prevent people from dumping toxic waste into drinking water; that is false. You state that “stopping fraud is a regulation”; that is false. Fraud is a matter of civil and criminal liability, just as it would be in a minarchist system.
Thank you for making my point. Libertarians rely on the fact that all people at all times will behave as their model predicts (enlightened self interest). That’s not the way real worldworks. There are a lot of people out there who are more than happy to intimidate / bully / threaten etc. rather than do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s profit.
Right, hence a police force to arrest those who intimidate, bully, or threaten others to make a living, and hence civil courts in which those who swindle others can be sued.
It also relies on a model that everyone will rigidly adhere to libertarian values, and not manipulate the market for their own purpose. It also relies on a a model of consumer omniscience; that people can figure out that they are being tricked or exploited under all circumstances. And, a model of willing expendability; that people will put up with being exploited again and again by corporations; that people will die by the thousands or millions to things like tainted medicine and simply turn to a competitor instead of demanding regulations to keep from being poisoned in the first place, or turning to violence.
Because I don’t think that they ARE mistaken; I think they know exactly what the results of their desires will be. And because such people tend to show an utter callousness to the suffering of others.
No, that’s truth. The oppose just those sorts of regulations, and they oppose compassion for others.
Except that swindling would be legal - if you get tricked, it’s your fault, and not the government’s business. And you can intimidate and bully people perfectly legally in a libertarian system, as long as you use economic methods. You can, for example, get together with the rest of your rich buddies and set up a blacklist of people who all of you will refuse unemployment, and and ruin the business of anyone else who employs anyone on the list. You could even make such a list public. You could decide to do that to whole groups of people, like Jews or Gays. You can tell women to have sex with you or be fired and become unemployable for defying one of the wealthy elite. And so on.
“Libertarianism is the anarchy of the right”. It’s essentially a semi-anarchy designed to favor the rich.
Der Trihs, would you mind taking a crack at the question I asked before: “Why is it that other people’s errors are driven by spite or greed, while yours are in good faith?”
You are factually ignorant in this matter. In a “libertarian” society, if you poison a private water distributor’s supply, he can sue you. If anyone drinks the water and is harmed, you are subject to criminal prosecution. And aside from those basic facts which all libertarians would agree upon, there are many “green” libertarians who are in favor of aggressive environmental protection and don’t see it as incompatible with free market ideals.
Again, you are simply ignorant. Fraud is a crime, and leaves one subject to both civil and criminal punishments. Libertarians do not consider this to be an injustice.
I’m curious to know what you base this one, since you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about (see above).
In a state with a scope similar to our own , the government can be slow, inefficient, and systemically corrupt. It can also perpetrate witch-hunts and genocides against whole groups of people, like Jews or gays. It can initiate wars with other, similarly powerful states in which millions of people are killed.
The difference here is that your scenario is a hypothetical fantasy, while mine represents common aspects of governments all throughout history, including the present day.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m willing to lay even odds you don’t even know what a natural monopoly is. So how about this: you give me the economic definition of a natural monopoly without looking it up, and then I’ll find you some cites.
Libertarianism is not a shield for fraud and not anarchy, as you seem to suggest. The rule of law is not relaxed just because there is considerable freedom. Freedom does not give anyone the right to become a thug and Libertarians support a strong police and court system based on objective laws.
And while there will always be those rare individuals who try despicable tactics, I cannot believe that most people feel it is better to be a bully than an honest worker who gets an honest day’s pay. Or perhaps your observation of basic human nature is different from mine.
That’s a pretty twisted idea of libertarian concepts and relies on a lot of “newspeak” to make the point.
“…manipulate the market”: Everyone wants to manipulate the market for their own purpose, but it rarely works because of the others who are attempting the same thing. That’s what competition does. The alternative is production by government permission, which historically has resulted in shoddy goods, high prices, poor distribution and little innovation.
“…that people can figure out that they are being tricked”: Define “tricked”. Is it trickery that offers a product I want for a price I am willing to pay? If you mean fraud, that is covered by laws, and no libertarian is suggesting that fraud be allowed to run rampant. What libertarians prefer is to let voluntary organizations exist to inform those who wish to be informed about the good and bad in the marketplace, not have the government step in to make a decision that some people cannot agree upon.
“…exploited”: Now here’s a newspeak term if ever there was one. Am I being exploited if I take a job for a wage that is satisfactory to me? Or am I being exploited only if my wages don’t match what you think I should make? Is it exploitation to sell something I made? Buy something I want? Am I being exploited by “corporations” if I am offered goods and services that I could not afford if I had to provide them myself? If so, let the exploitation begin!
“…that people will die by the thousands or millions to things like tainted medicine”: See fraud, above.
“…exploited again and again”: There’s nothing in the libertarian concept that requires consumers to be sheep, and there’s no desire to have a nanny state, either. And there’s that word “exploited” again. If I have something I want to sell and someone wants to buy it, is anyone or anything being exploited? Perhaps, but that’s a good thing.
Getting beyond the economic issue (because economic freedom is only one aspect of Libertarianism) the central fallacy of Libertarianism, as I see it, is that they make the assumption that the government is the only source of tyranny. And that’s ridiculous. Other people can take away your freedoms just as readily as any government can. Heck, the government is other people.
I want a system that maximizes my freedom not one that just redistributes my tyranny (and may increase it). A government can (and usually does) inhibit some of your freedom. But a government can (and usually does) protect you from other individuals who are trying to inhibit your freedom. What I want is a government with a minimum of inhibition and maximum of protection - a government that leaves me with more freedom on the balance.
