brzrk. I think you’ve gotten your basic questions answered, and we’re likely to see more posts along the lines of Oy!'s diatribe.
So, instead of closing this, I’ll reluctantly move it to GD.
samclem GQ moderator.
Thanks to all who kept it as factual as possible.
I find the invocation of “modern technology” absurd. Negative effect of industry (pollution et al) are not at all new; but we know more about them now than before, and it’s rather dubious to claim – on the internet of all places – that people are now* less * able to gather information they need to make wise choices.
All that said, plenty of libertarians have no problem recognizing the problems you point out. Other than the tinfoil hat crowd, no one thinks a perfectly libertarian system – which not all of necessarily want anyway-- would result in a “perfect” society. But while we agree citizens, as individuals or en masse, do not always make enlightened choices, we question assumption that someone else – be he philosopher-king or bureaucrat – would. Given that uncertainty, we’d like the chance to try it our way.
If nothing else, a person have the right to own their own mistakes.
I think Libertarianism as an economic concept would really be viable if companies were much smaller and generally locally based.
Say I own a small chain of clothing stores, and so does Liberal. Both of us provide approximately equal quality product at about equal prices. The factory that supplies Lib’s product adopts more efficient processes that enable it to make more product for less money, which means Lib can offer the same product for less. I have the option of looking for a new supplier so I can purchase, r agree to do business with my current supplier if they will adopt more effcient/less expensive processes and sell the products at a price that will fairly compete with Lib. Then Lib can decide that the way to compete with me is to offer better customer service, and I can do the same. Thus the competition between us assures that our respective customers get the best possible products, with the best possible service, at the best possible prices, which insures a steady supply of customers for both of us, continued profits and a decent wage for our employees.
Then along comes some huge mega-corporation that sets up a massive store that undercuts both of our prices. Of course, part of the way they do this is to pressure its suppliers to cut costs to the point that the quality of the product sufers, but it takes the consumer a while to figure out that the jeans they bought fall apart after six months… also, they pay lower wages than either Lib or I do, and do not maintain sufficient staff in their stores to provide any decent customer service.
So, now our options would be to cut staff and reduce the wages of the employees we keep, or go under, but even these measures do not enable us to lower prices enough to compete with the giant corporation’s mega-store, so we both go out of business, and all of our employees become jobless, as do the employees of the toy store up the street, the sporting goods store around the corner, the hardware store on the other side of the parkig lot, and the supermarket about a mile from here.
Of course, these people can all go apply for jobs at the mega-store, but in reality, more jobs are lost in the community than are provided by the mega-store… So the workers suffer from a shortage of jobs, or from being forced to take jobs that don’t pay as well, the consumers suffer because by having to replace the products they buy every few months instead of having things that will last for years, they are ultimatly having to spend more money, the factories that Lib and I purchased our products from end up going under because the mega-corp has squashed so many other potential customers, putting those workers out of work…
I think the existance of mega-corporations makes Libertaranism a terrible idea for he modern economy. The mega-corp doesn’t compete in the marketplace, it drives potential competition out of the marketplace, and that’s bad for all parties concened.
Unfortunately, the proof is in the pudding, as they say, and human nature seems to preclude a viable Libertopia as much as it precluded a viable Bolshivistan. The core philosphies of libertarianism and Marxism look great on paper, but do, or would probably, lead to catastrophes when implemented by real-life human beings, as opposed to the idealized Workers who inhabit these theoretical economies.
We need only look at the collapse of the Eastern Block to see the folly of Communism. It will be interesting to see if China can avoid the fate of the USSR and its puppets. If it can’t, we will witness a true, globally significant disaster.
Now, when you look at some of the “free trade zones” established in the Third World, the theory of the benefits of unregulated economies smacks very hard into the realities of capitalist excesses and abuses. It would appear that, for the time being, corporations simply cannot be trusted to look out for the common good. Rather, they seem to do quite the opposite, and the results can be appalling. Corruption, cronyism, environmental destruction, inhumane working conditions, complete lack of worker benefits. I find it difficult to defend sweat shops and child labor for the sake of free trade. We’ve dealt with our Love Canals to some extent at home, but more are being created apace in these havens of unfettered globalization. The depredations of a completely free market economy are patently manifest, yet the pure free-market economists seem incapable of acknowledging the human factor, the power of greed and self-interest. It simply does not good to ignore the potential for abuse of free markets, and the ideal of complete deregulation is nothing more thant that; an ideal, a theory for a perfect world inhabited by perfect worker-saints.
It ain’t that way, I’m afraid, any more than it’s a world inhabited by worker ascetics, willing to do any job for equal pay, and to cede all of their material existence to the state. Competative markets are far superior to the obselecent industrial bloat created by Bolshevism. But taken to the opposite extreme, it does appear that we really do inevitably wind up with a host of chattel used and abused by robber-barons. There’s got to be a middle way, and I see no hope of achieving it without some restrictions.
Apologies to all. I got to this thread from another thread that cited it, and failed to notice that it was in General Questions.
I humbly beg all and sundries’ pardon.
Not a Libertopian government. Price fixing is neither force nor fraud, and therefore I assume it’d be legal.
That’s how a single economist looks at it. A libertarian economist, who made no attempt to be objective while teachings. I’m not bitter. Really.
And if you’ll reread my post, I never said they were more productive. I said they were more productive per dollar. That is, “they so are much cheaper that a group of them can produce more than a single American worker for the same price”. I do not believe we are in disagreement in regards to this matter.
As to why companies move to these other nations under current conditions, my former professor would probably argue that minimum wage laws are the cause. Since minimum wage laws raise the price of labor in certain markets above the equilibrium price, companies will naturally seek alternatives. I did say it was the monopolistic part of wages that would be vunerable, and minimum wage laws cause there to be a monopolistic part of wages.
Since minimum wage laws don’t exist in the economy in question, that’s not something to worry about.
And for the record, this is my professor’s way of thinking, not mine.
That’s precisely how consumers would behave. Unless I’m mistaken, this is going to lead to a single-price monopoly when the non-subsidized competitiors are put out of business. Exchanges with single-price monopolies have dead weight losses, and are considered economically “bad”. You are correct, however, in that there is an opurtunity cost when we enact a tariff to prevent dumping.
Or you’ll give Lib a call and you’ll agree to sell crap at high prices with no service.
Since we’re just moving mannequins around, let me introduce John. John is an entrepreneur. He notices that Lib and Mango are providing crap goods at high cost with no service. A lightbulb flashes over his head. “Hey,” says he, “if I offer quality goods at reasonable prices with good service, some of the other mannequins might buy from ME!” His investment capital mannequins agree, and together they all become rich and live happily ever after.
Unless the two first mannequins call John and split the market three-way instead of two. Sure, it’s less profit for each of the first two, but it’s better than having to cope with all that quality and service.
As Priceguy says, John might be invited to join the cartel. More likely, John starts out small and local, so MegaCorp can temporarily bring in better goods at lower prices (maybe well below cost) and hire staff (maybe at high wages for now), subsidizing as needed from other locations, until John is driven out of business. Then MegaCorp goes back to “providing crap goods at high cost with no service”.
I don’t see why John should start out local and slow. In fact, investment capitalists typically don’t want to invest less than considerable sums — because iddy-biddy investments don’t pay out much. In any case, let me introduce Enterprises, Inc, a consortium of entrepreneurs and investment capitalists who monitor the market for opportunities like this. There are thousands of them. They network. And unlike all the mannequins who roll over and play dead in your scenarios when Big Ol’ Meanie Corp tries to sell crap by the ton, these guys have actual brains of their own! 
good evening friends,
my questions for libertarians:
what about the necessary infrastructure regulated by government agencies? public utilities: power and water for example and roads and bridges for another. it is one set of problems (as i see it) to have a libertarian society inherit an existing infrastructure and maintain it, and another to build this from scratch.
second question: government regulation of building codes and safety standards. if there were no laws requiring companies to install and maintain (for example) fire alarms in apartment buildings and hotels there would be few systems installed.
Liberal: In any case, let me introduce Enterprises, Inc, a consortium of entrepreneurs and investment capitalists who monitor the market for opportunities like this. There are thousands of them. They network. And unlike all the mannequins who roll over and play dead in your scenarios when Big Ol’ Meanie Corp tries to sell crap by the ton, these guys have actual brains of their own!
Is there any substantial difference between “Enterprises, Inc.” and “John” in your scenario? There’s no reason big investors can’t or wouldn’t join cartels, pressure smaller businesses out of a market, or be pressured out by larger businesses, just the same way a small, local entrepreneur could be.
I think the point here is that the libertarian economic scenario is indeed fine and dandy for a theoretical, ideally competitive free market, but in real life there just aren’t very many perfect free markets around. Simple Econ 101 supply-and-demand transactions aren’t adequate to describe what goes on in an economic setup where some of the actors are big enough substantially to control the market, instead of all the actors being impersonally controlled by the market.
Pooh-poohing such objections with sneers about “mannequins” and suggesting that the anomalies would magically disappear if the hypothetical actors “had actual brains of their own” and didn’t “roll over and play dead” isn’t convincing. This looks to me like a real problem with the libertarian scenario: in order to be reassured about it, I’d need to see a serious and detailed explanation of why it actually wouldn’t be a problem, not just an airy dismissal.
Longhair! Hello!
First question: all those things would be privately owned, similar to the electrical cooperative that supplies my home with (very reliable, thank you) power, or the cable company that provides us TV/DVR. (We have two in the area who compete against each other. Keeps prices quite low.)
Second question: Government regulation would consist of strict suppression of the initiation of force or deception. A company or landlord may build buildings as unsafe as they please, so long as they mislead no one to believe otherwise. Libertarianism calls the initiation of force or fraud “coercion”. Coercion is the only crime, and criminals (i.e., those who own the companies and buildings) stand to lose their property to their victims if they are convicted.
As I understood it, what the other guys were getting at was that a competitor could become an accomplice if he felt that it might be more profitable. I guess we’re all assuming here that people are basically looking out for their own best interests — not just the sellers, but the consumers as well. I bet you’re a pretty savvy shopper yourself. The point is that if there is always the freedom for entrepreneurs to compete, consumers themselves might decide that shoddy goods and surly service really aren’t what they’re looking for. So, there will always be a market for non-crap merchandise and service. But if there are thousands of potential entrepreneurs (as from Enterprises, Inc) and still no one is demanding anything better than being treated like hell, that’s pretty much a statement that what people want is to be treated like hell.
friend liberal,
hello, my friend. always a pleasure to read your posts.
next question: how would a libertarian society go about massive public works programs? examples: the interstate highway system, the brooklyn bridge, the erie canal, hoover dam ect.
the parks system: grand canyon, yosemite ect.
my point being that it is maybe possible to declare an already industrialized society with an existing infrastructure a libertarian one, but IMHO it is unlikely that a libertarian society would be successful at building one from scratch.
You know, I have a couple of questions myself. I’m specifically asking these questions to lib, since I want to know his view, though any of the resident libertarians could answer it.
I’ve never quite understood the exact level of government involvement in Libertopia, though it’s obviously quite a bit less involvement than under a current system. Specifically, I’m curious about public goods. While I agree that many infrastructures could probably be privatized sucessfully in this day and age, there are still a number of goods that are underproduced in a complete free market situation because they are jointly consumed and consumers can strategically avoid paying the producers. Examples include national defense and criminal investigation. Tell me, would the government continue to produce these public goods under your social vision, or do you envision alternatives?
I’m also curious about what’s protecting the environment in Libertopia, and it’s a concern that has been expressed by others in this thread. My former professor gave a few examples, but I’m not quite satisfied. What’s your view on the matter?