Libertarians and the Noncoercion Principle

Great Debates
201

Uhhh, Lib, I did check the links. I have mentioned some problems with the “auction” which have not been addressed. THe assertion has been made that this auction would provide enough funds to take care of things like the national debt, pensions, and the phase out of social programs.

That’s a pretty strong assertion and I think it recquires some backing up.

I’m sorry you find my insistence on some kind of basis in reality for these assertions hilarious. I find it reasonable.

What I don’t care for is this claim you have for knowing my motivations and thoughts. I also don’t care for your assumption that I didn’t check any links or do any reading before I posted these things.

I have read several of the Libertarian threads, checked out most of the links, read Mr. Browne’s freedom budget, asked questions, and given careful consideration before I posted my opinion.

Those that have read my posts know that I am open to changing my mind as I have done so several times, and admit it when I am proven wrong. I had thought by now you would have seen and hopefully respected that.

At any rate, your assumption is false.

THere has been no serious work done on this freedom budget that I was able to find. Nobody has bothered to inventory U.S. sovereign assets, and attempted to place a market value on them. Nobody has shown any figures to suggest that this would provide enough money to accomplish the goals of paying off the debt and phasing out the other programs. Nobody has suggested who the realistic potential buyers for these assets might be. Nobody has made an argument to suggest that a fair value might be received for these assets when government auctions of the past seem to contraindicate this. Nobody has made the vaguest reference to what the effects of the withdrawal of all this capital would do to our economy.

Is that enough? If you have links or information to figures or methodologies on these issues that I have missed I would love to see them.
Lib said:

"See, you just don’t like the answers, and then accuse people of dodging you. If you
would bother to click a couple links, you could find out for yourself such plans as
auctioning federally seized property, and others.

                I don't think Cecil ever intended his ignorance fighting campaign to mean that you could
                never leave his site or learn anything outside it."

I consider that a personal attack, and unworthy of you.

202

Scylla, if you must nit-pick, then so shall I

So, a person that does not have a college education can’t be a leader? If that’s what you are saying then comes down to a snobbish view.

Does a college education make you great and me retched because I don’t have a BS degree after my name?

In fact I got my GED, a year of college behind me. I therefore, from what you are saying, can’t possibly have any sense of what is good for me. Pardon my lack of an education but my recorded IQ is higher than the average person, and I learn differently. What takes one person 3-4 months to absorb takes me a week, I get bored otherwise and can’t focus (based on a typical college semester.)

Oh and 'scuse me for using “wizard” or using economist instead of advisor. The purest sense of those two words may be different but the essense of the context with which it was brought up doesn’t change.

Done with serious nit-picking.

If it’s so absurd then why are you bothering with this? I have answered questions in a way that is well thought out I think, and I even have come to a point in some of my answers that border on non-Libertarian views in the purest sense. So pardon me for taking some of these situations and having a view on how it my be best for all involved. But don’t throw at us that we haven’t attempted to answer your questions, that we dodge it, there is something that obviously you want to see said that isn’t being said otherwise you wouldn’t accuse us of such. Please review my “conversation” with Nurlman and tell me that I haven’t explicity stated my views of his initial question.

If I haven’t answered it to your liking, I can’t help you there as your own opinions are then over looking the essense of my responses as mine are concerning your responses now. Hey, at least I admit it as you can read that I am frankly frustrated with your continuous need to nit pick.

Okay then you agree that much, but must it be your sole intent to focus on the purest of Libertarian views and what you think is so wrong with it? I opened a thread (haven’t looked at in a while) that gives you a chance to voice your opinion on what may be done to fix the excesses of our current system.

As with any philosophical discussion, it’s easy to focus on every little word or phrase and stretch it to a point that, in many cases on this thread (not just you but others too,) the issue is an action or situation that may happen one time in 6 billion. There is no black and white answer and you know that, as do I. There are times when the philosophy (no matter how much I believe in it) needs to take into consideration an individual situation and work with that based on the over all meaning of the philosophy.

I consider myself to usually be a reasonable person and look to the middle ground on most issues. When it comes to my personal liberties I take those seriously. The Libertarian view as a whole gives me a better chance at living a life that I want to live.

All this while I am watching a paid advert. for the NRA…

203

Now that’s the sort of detailed argument about the Federal budget we expect on this board.

Geez, Lib - even the $2 T was a significant rounding. But going somewhere (lotsa good links in the ‘Firefly Challenge’ debate) and getting (a) the actual size of the budget, and (b) an idea of what the most significant components were, so you could legitimately criticize them by name (instead of just listing a bunch of stuff you don’t like but barely matters, dollar-wise) shouldn’t have been too much to ask of a reasonably intelligent person.

OTOH, it’s perfectly consistent with a guy who makes slippery-slope arguments.

204

Techchick:

Your answers have been thoughtful. Perhaps dodging was a bad choice of words. I will withdraw it with apologies.

While I don’t think you are doing it on purpose, you really aren’t answering my questions. I would guess that you are answering the part that is most important to you. This may be the cause for our mutual frustration.

The Libertarian philosophy applied to society would cause radical changes. What you consider nitpicking are actually some very fundamental issues.

There is a world of difference between a financial advisor and an economist. I see no problem with pointing out that you had supplied Mr. Browne with credentials that he had not earned.

The fact that Mr. Browne did not finish college can in no way be constued as an attack against you. Mr. Browne is identifying himself as an expert in this area, yet he has no formal training. While this does not automatically falsify his assertions, it is suspect. He is recquired to produce evidence if he wants to be taken seriously just as anybody else would. To date, he has not, or I have been unable to find it.

As far as I can see you have not offered a plan for economic reform for this country or labelled yourself as an expert in this area. Your credentials are not at issue.

These issues that you call nitpicking, are actually pretty basic.

There are precious few individuals or corporations with the means and motivation to acquire these Government assets. Really the only qualifying parties for the bulk of this stuff are foreign governments. I have a real issue with selling our nation’s heritage and land to other nations. Is this nitpicking?

Do we have a realistic idea of what we might realize from this auction? No, we do not.

Do we have the foggiest notion if this will be enough to pay off our governments obligations? Again we do not.

Has anybody thought about what such a reduction in the money supply would do?

Why is fiat money bad? Mr. Browne wishes to do away with it. Why? What will it be replaced with?

I am surprised that this is considered nitpicking. An interesting and radical idea is being espoused, but there is no evidence that anybody has done the necessary homework to see if it is at all possible, much less desirable. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that this homework needs to be done before we just jump into such a change? How can the idea even be suggested seriously without it?

You obviously feel strongly about your beliefs. That’s fine. What you consider nitpicking I look at as akin to checking if there is any gas in your car, before going on a long drive.

I think this is a reasonable standpoint.

205

Since nobody has responded, I am going to assume that everybody now agrees with my contention that the freedom budget is a half-assed crock of &*#@.

206

Go to http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal.html

You’ll need the Adobe Acrobat reader and lots of time.

I recommend you start with “The Federal Budget,” by Stephen Moore and Tim Penny. The Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 106th Congress under the budget policy section. You can read the other thirty or fourty articles later.

207

Let me ask a fair question before I delve once more into the Cato institute.

Is there anything in all those works that suggests a market value for the U.S. Government’s sovereign assets?

Is there a study on the effect of the withdrawal of the capital from the economy this auction would entail?

Is there a discussion on the withdrawal of fiat money?

Is there a discussion on who the buyers of these Government assets might be?

208

Well since I don’t have acrobat at home, and wasn’t at work today, I can’t actually read the articles cited.

Since I didn’t get an answer to my last post, I’m going to make a comment or two.

I noticed that the provision of the link started up a whole new debate. :slight_smile:

I look at it this way:

I say “The Dept. of Treasury says Canadians should pay US income tax because they enjoy benefits due to their proximity to the US.”

Somebody else says “Oh really, care to back that up?”

I say “Sure, go to WWW.IRS.GOV you should probably start with individual taxation law for starters. You can go on to corporate taxation later.”

Is this an answer? not at all.

209

I think this is where Lib is supposed to say, “oh be nice ;)”

210

Lib, I’d like to clarify something before I forget. Several days ago, you said

And at an earlier point in one of these threads (I’ve been searching, but can’t find it), you said words to the effect of, so long as the Noncoercion Principle is the foundation of a government, the outcomes aren’t the measure of the system, as you see it.

I’ve been thinking about this, and it seems to be the root of many of our differences. Most of us (I believe; I could be wrong) don’t assume a divinely or naturally ordained political system; in deciding what system and what laws we favor or oppose, we tend to mentally compare what we think their outcomes would be with our mental pictures of what a good society might be like. Effectively, most of us are working backwards from the ends to the means, with respect to government.

So I’m asking, just to be sure - have I correctly understood you? Is your advocacy of libertarianism and the NP based on a belief that the NP is the divinely or naturally ordained principle of human government and conduct? I think that’s a pretty major statement.

211

Lib:

I have read every word of the two pieces you recommended. They are opinion pieces. I am not going to even mention if I found them worthwhile or not.

Because:
THEY HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING!!!
At some point in time you have to actually start dealing with facts, otherwise you are just playing games.

There are no facts or backing evidence to even remotely support the feasability of the Freedom Budget, the Abholition of taxes, or this half-baked government auction.

Unless you have specific evidence prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles by a reputable source you are pissing in the wind :slight_smile:

I have asked a specific question and you have provided me a link to general propaganda.

I consider the issue of the freedom budget and the sale at auction of Government assets at auction to be debunked as shallow fantasy.

But have a nice day.

212

Scylla

You did this just to make me come back, didn’t you? :slight_smile:

Harry Browne

I have no intention of defending Harry Browne or any other politician. It simply so happens that I think Browne’s auction idea (which isn’t his originally, but The Cato Institute’s) is a good one. As I said in the “Why Your Party?” thread, I support him only reluctantly, as the least of all the evils. But that’s like saying that I prefer to have only my finger cut off rather than my whole hand.

He might not be college educated, but so what? Neither was Lincoln. And neither am I. Yet despite my self-education, I have managed to take on a very academic career, not because I have scribbles on paper that say I can do something, but because I have demonstrated that I can do something.

A lying tyrant with a college education is just a college educated lying tyrant.

Twilight Zone

My link wasn’t in response to your conversation with TechChick about Harry Browne. Rather, my link was in response to our discussion — yours and mine. We had been discussing the privatizing of federal assets, and you demanded some back-up, thus:

So, I gave you the famous link from hell.

I then gave you specific directions to the article. I wrote:

How much more specific could I have been?

Nevertheless, you compared my own careful and deliberate specificity with dropping a link to the IRS home page in someone’s lap, and saying, “Look it up.”

I clearly did no such thing.

The Cato Handbook for Congress

But was that enough for you? Hardly. You came back again later, and reported that you had read the whole thing. I was impressed. But you proclaimed in all caps:

Izzat right?

Now I’m not impressed any more. Somehow, you missed the section titled, Privatize federal assets on pages 255 and 256, which begins, “Government owns about one-third of all the land in the United States — and in most years it adds to its holdings by purchasing or confiscating properties.”

It goes on to say, “The market value of oil lands alone is estimated to be roughly $450 billion. Government also owns tens of billions of dollars of other assets, including mineral stockpiles, buildings, and other physical capital. Most of those assets are not put to productive use and thus yield little or no return to taxpayers.”

It then bullet points eleven specific examples of federal assets that could be privatized, including federal lands, dams, oil and helium reserves, loan portfolios, housing units, Amtrack routes, and so on.

The budget proposal section of the handbook is not at all “general propaganda”, as you (mis)characterized it. It is very specific and loaded with data in tables, graphs, and expository, as in when it calls on Congress to end welfare for the affluent:

“An estimated 40 percent of the $1.4 billion sugar price support program benefits the 1 percent of sugar farmers with the largest farms. The 33 largest sugar cane plantations each receive more than $1 million. One family alone, the Fanjuls, owners of several large sugar farms in the Florida Everglades, captures an estimated $60 million a year in artificial profits thanks to price supports and import quotas (and to its generous campaign contributions to both political parties).”

Those aren’t generalities.

Hubris

Then, when it so happened that I took a vacation from the board, precisely because of dealing with crap like this, you still hadn’t had enough. Nope. You rolled out this eye-popper:

And this:

A veritable gloat fest:

One can almost see your finger wagging from the page (even through the redundant prepositional phrases):

Ha! You would hold up the federal budget as an example of generally accepted accounting principles? Oh, it is to laugh.

If I am pissing in the wind, it is only because you are blowing so hard my way.

Have a nice day yerself.

213

RT

Yes, you have.

Yes, it is.

Well, yes.

214

I think libertarianism is the political application of the Categorical Imperative. It is the ethic that, if followed by everyone, would create the best possible world.

I don’t see how the world can possibly be better than that each person in it is free to achieve to his own maximum potential. If you let Mr. Smith better himself at the expense of Mr. Jones, then you have no gain for the society — it’s a zero sum. It seems to me that if you let Mr. Smith do the best that he can do without bending the will of Mr. Jones, and if you let Mr. Jones do the best that he can do without bending the will of Mr. Smith, then you have given to each man exactly what God or nature has given him — that which is the best that he can do.

215

I just don’t get it.

What’s so great about a world where people don’t interfere with each other?

You said you can’t think of a better world, I can think of a hundred.

Wouldn’t it be better if Jones and Smith actually helped each other?

216

I am the author of the OP.

I had one post the first day… and then this thread just took off. Now I know how Jack felt when the beanstalk started!

In any event, much of where I wanted to go was ably covered by others, so it all worked out…

…just wanted to say thanks! :slight_smile:

  • Rick
217

In a perfect world, shouldn’t that be up to Jones and Smith?

Thank you for the thread. It has been a privilege.

218

Lib:

No, as neighbors they should feel compelled to help each other.

219

Well, see, Scylla, that might make your world perfect, but your unwillingness to let Smith and Jones make their own decisions makes it a prison for them.

Overall, it doesn’t seem objectively very good.

220

If a world isn’t the best it can be for every single individual person in it, then I hardly see how it can be the best possible world.

If Mr. Smith has, achieves, and is X, but you diminish X for the sake of Mr. Jones, then you have diminished the society’s Maximum. You might argue carelessly, “Ah! But Mr. Jones might have, might achieve, and might be more than X if only he had some resources from Mr. Smith!” Thus, by overruling nature, you create a disequalibrium. Only the vaingloriest pride could cause you to overlook, in your exuberance, that you diminished a man, robbing him of his best possible world.

Unless Mr. Jones is entitled by nature to succeed at Mr. Smith’s expense, then you have not made the best possible world for anybody except Mr. Jones.

Were your reasoning used to apply the Categorial Imperative, you ought to kill off everyone but yourself. Then you can have it all. But it’s not likely that many would see that as a best possible world, septin’ you.