In fact, not to long ago we had an entire thread devoted to this. Americans have an almost innate sense of federalism and often apply that to any system being discussed, including Libertarianism. But as I noted in that that thread, there is nothing about Libertarianism that would demand there even be states as separate entities from a federal government.
In Libertaria, you could not hold a gun to someone’s head say “work for me or I will shoot you”. In [some versions of] Anarchia, you could.
In Libertaria, you could say: Sleep with me or I won’t hire you. That’s because you own the job, and have no obligation to offer it to anyone under any specific conditions.
But this is where the term “coercion” gets muddy. Some will say that Worker has “no choice” but to accept to sleep with Sleezy Boss, or else the Worker will starve. Well, in Libertaria, Sleezy Boss is not responsible for whether Worker starves or not. Worker is solely responsible for his/her own welfare-- putting food on the table, clothes on his/her back, etc.
Been hanging onto that for awhile, huh? :rolleyes:
Sounds interesting! Any chance you could link to it, if you recall enough to search for it?
In addition to what John Mace wrote, libertarians don’t believe that all coercion is wrong, that’s more of an anarchist view. A government that uses violence and coercion to punish and prevent violence and coercion amongst the citizens is perfectly acceptable to a libertarian.
Quick summary: libertarianism holds individual liberty to be the highest ideal. It doesn’t hold it to be an absolute. Liberty is meaningless when anyone stronger than you can just take it away. Hence the need for a Leviathan.
IIRC, it started as a discussion of the Paul’s views so you might try searching for them.
I don’t know that anybody says that libertarianism ALWAYS works better as an organising principle for everything, or even that it produces the very best results conceivable. As a clarifying thought principle, it may be useful to approach things from the other end - in what situations can a command and control type of organising principle work well?
In many economics classes, a case that is often used for analysis of a given situation is the “Omniscient benevolent social planner” - one who knows everybody’s preferences, and has the ability to command the economy so as to try and fulfill them. This usually gives what are regarded as optimal/best scenarios. It should also give you a pretty good idea of where command and control systems work better, and where they work less well.
In a small family with young children where parents can be reasonably expected to know each other and their children’s preferences and want to fulfill them, a command and control system would work well. As you deviate from this - the parents are not benevolent, children start growing up and they stop knowing their preferences etc. - more liberty would start working better.
The essential factors at hand are small scale, information and control. The more you have of these three, the more likely it is that command and control systems are better. If you work in a small business where you can see each employee go about their tasks, you’re better off deciding every small thing. Most organisational structure problems come down to reducing what every employee deals with to some such mechanism where command and control can work - the lowest level manager will have 10 employees reporting in to him, he will have good information on what they cost and what they earn, and will have good direct control over what they do. This span of control is repeated right up to the very top(most evident in armies). There are variations in the details of course, particularly as nature of work changes. The less well defined(less information) a job is, the worse command and control becomes as an organising principle. Even to the limited extent it works, it works because organisations(particularly armies) have a very limited mandate - earn a profit, take a hill, knock a plane out of the sky.
The more large scale, complex(low information), and difficult to control something becomes, the worse off you are going with a command and control system. As other posters have said, this does not imply that libertarians(not that I am one, although I’m sympathetic to their views) think that the other end of the spectrum is anarchy.
Disingenuous to the argument outlined by the OP yes but a perfectly valid statement within the context of libertarianism.
It’s not a libertarian mandate that competitors in a free market will turn on each other. The players could, or they could also collude and form cartels (cooperation). Which path the market takes (without Governmental intervention) depends on the circumstances of the players. Capitalism makes a prediction that the players will turn on each other because that’s the path that maximizes profit but libertarianism makes no such prediction - just sets up the premise.
You can’t both give autonomy yet demand adherence at the same time. You can’t say “OK, have at it. Your actions alone determine the success of your division” and give out bonuses correlated to sales (incentivizing the short term at the expense of the long term). You don’t get to set hours when Black Friday starts. You don’t get to have a say in what the catalogue looks like. The divisions weren’t allowed to freely compete and come up with their own strategem for success. Everything was handcuffed in a no-mans-land of responsibility and I’d argue a very compelling argument FOR libertarianism rather than against it.
I don’t think Lambert’s bastardization here is a very good model for reasons I imparted above. A better example would be how McDonalds franchised. An Ohio McD’s saw sales plummet on Fridays because their Catholic-heavy patrons don’t eat meat on Fridays. This led to that particular McDonalds to come up with the fish filet and it worked gangbusters. Indian McDonalds avoid beef. Things like this show how the lack of stringent uniform regulation from the top allows individual players the freedom necessary to thrive in a much more analogous fashion.
Eddie Lambert may be libertarian (Filthy rich from Wall Street? Check. Disdains other people? Check. Subscribes to vacuous Silicon Valley ideas of disruption and social networking? Check. Ayn Rand devotee? Check.), which may inform this strategy he’s attempting at Sears, but I’m not sure I’d call it a libertarian organization of the business. It certainly represents an almost religious belief in the power of free markets, but as Cheesesteak pointed out, that competition may make a division or two of the company extra profitable, but it’s a money loser for the company as a whole. All Eddie Lambert is doing is hamstringing the synergies and economies of scope that can give large organizations a competitive advantage. It’s dumb management predicated on faddish beliefs.
About the only way to defend it is if you buy Martin Hyde’s speculation, that he wants to divide the company into well-defined chunks that can be more easily spun off, which would certainly jive with his Wall Street background.
No; I’m saying that in the case of Sears, a company structured under (perhaps a flawed understanding of) libertarian economic principles failed, and I think that’s instructive for those who think similar principles could organize a larger society’s economy.
For this and similar posts regarding my use of the term “libertarian”, I think that what DoctorJ says is correct (Martin Hyde made a similar point, and on preview MOIDALIZE in the post just before this one has an excellent summary). So I was incorrect to paint Sears with a broad “libertarian” brush. My understanding has been that libertarians in particular value autonomous economic freedom higher than attempts to control certain aspects of the economy through unnatural coercions (regulations, tax policy, etc.), so that they would naturally approve of Lambert’s guiding principles if they were applied to a society at large.
I also think DoctorJ’s correction is helpful because–and I think this thread bears it out–“libertarianism” is exceedingly hard to pin down beyond a few general platitudes about freedom. Here’s an example:
[QUOTE=Human Action]
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual freedom to be the highest ideal. That’s it.
[/quote]
I don’t think its fair to simply state that and not study its ramifications in order to judge whether this philosophy is viable or reasonable. Here’s another:
No, it isn’t, but it sure seems as though that happens a lot when “individual freedom” is held to be the highest ideal, especially when applied to an economy. Again, following DoctorJ’s advice, I should really make this charge against the right-wing article of faith that competition and free market action are always preferable, rather than vaguely attacking “libertarianism”.
Thank you for this response; it addressed the weaknesses of the analogy directly rather than dismissing it out of hand.
The “Black Friday” problem boils down to, if one part of the store is open, all of them must be open. Hence any one division (or some other threshold; don’t know the exact number) can scuttle the plan by not cooperating–i.e. one division can unfairly limit/coerce the freedom of others who wanted to open early. Your opinion–if I understand corectly–is that this invalidates Sears as a true model of free-market economic principles. But IMO this problem strongly argues that some government equivalent (like the Sears company board) is absolutely required to mandate store hours because the resource itself naturally demands consensus, and that this kind of resource constraint happens all the time in the real world. If so, then free-market capitalism must have built-in exceptions, and these must be non-trivial if they caused these type of problems. I think a similar argument can be made for the catalog issue.
Yeah, and I’m reminded of it every goddamned time I have to go into Kmart, Sears, Walgreens, etc.. I’m sick of having them try to get me to sign up for a card, donate to a cause, or point out that candy bars are on sale. It adds to everybodys shopping time and it’s irritating.
As opposed to other political philosphies? They have the same trait. While volumes may be written about their nuances, they all reduce down to platitudes.
You need to study its ramifications in the arena where its use is intended, though. You shouldn’t judge a football player’s talents by how clean he keeps his garage, and you shouldn’t judge a political philosophy by whether a keen business model can be inferred from it. Are there any that would survive such a test? Democracy certainly wouldn’t, nor socialism.
Seconded.
Did you read my response a few posts above? While other posters have pointed out that a company trying to make a profit is in only tenuously analogous to a large economy, I’ve tried to explain why a larger society’s economy is actually more conducive to freer organisation.
I would agree that libertarianism is very hard to pin down, as another poster mentions that’s a complaint you can levy at many similar governing concepts but it’s obviously very true for libertarianism. I mean, libertarianism depending on who you’re talking to that calls themselves a libertarian can mean anything from just a vague, “I think people should be able to do what they want free from government interference, but we obviously need some government and some social protections” to “I think society should basically have a government that runs a military and a police force for keeping some level of order and protection from the outside, but everything else should be privatized and people should be allowed to fail up to and including starving to death on the streets.”
The reason I mostly consider libertarianism utopian is the same reason I consider communism utopian. Both philosophies ignore the reality of human societies, I do believe in a robust set of free market economic principles and especially think when it comes to individuals and companies the government should never “pick winners and losers” except for in highly specific cases of national interest. (Ex would be things relating to national defense, for example not letting Boeing be taken over by a foreign company because there are concerns about all of our planes being built overseas.) But you can still believe that and believe that the unregulated free market trends toward scenarios that are not advantageous to consumers and society, and you need regulation to keep the playing field as level as possible and to punish fraud, deception, and other forms of criminality that only hurt society.
I’m not even sure that is a fair charge, most conservatives I know don’t believe the free market is always preferable. In fact, most normal conservatives are fine with regulation of public utility monopolies and the break up of monopolies in sectors where we haven’t deemed a “natural monopoly to exist.” The early history of industrialization in fact suggests that free markets can devolve into unfree ones, where powerful cartels or monopolistic forces seize too much power and can hold undue pricing power in the marketplace to the extreme detriment of the consumer.
I view free enterprise, free markets, capital investment as the locomotive pulling the train of a robust economy, getting ever faster and stronger. But I also think the track is shaky, and must be ever maintained or it veers off quite naturally into bad things, and government regulators are sort of like the track maintenance crew to make sure we don’t end up with powerful business interests colluding, forming cartels, monopolies or doing other things like operate unsafe workplaces or use disparity in information access to sell consumers dangerous products.
I know you’re not really insulting nearwildheaven here, but don’t do this.
Again: this is not the forum for complaints about moderation.
Remember all those Teapartyists who talked about how government spending had to be reined in because if we were a household we’d be broke? Remember how we told those people we were stupid because a national economy shared very little with a household? Well, the same is true of national economies and for-profit corporations: they’re not comparable.
I also think that this is not a valid test of libertarianism but for a different reason than most. Like others have mentioned, in the larger world, in order to maximize profits without government interference, corporations would collude into monopolies and trusts. If anything, the Sears example was promoting an artifical competition that would not exist in a “real” libertarian society.
I didn’t say that. I don’t care what ones personal politics are, as long as they can defend them in an honest way.
I would make an educated guess that I have read quite a bit more history about the “gilded age” than you have. I would be more than happy to discuss US history prior to World War 1 with you if you take the time to actually form a cogent argument with more than one or two sentances.
Putting aside the fact that no libertarian is seeking to emulate all the policies that were in place during the so called “gilded age”, it is true we had a comparatively limited government, no income tax and no federal reserve system. In that aspect, we should adopt those policies for a prosperous future.
If you want to adopt policies that help the poor and working class, why not first allow them to keep all of the money they earn? Today the average family pays half their income in combined taxes (State, Federal, etc).
Let me ask you a simple question. If you were a middle class man in 1900 where on earth would you rather live than in the United States? It is fine to look back a century from our material comfort of 2013 and think how awful, comparatively, people had it in 1900, but given the technology and much smaller worldwide population at the time, was there any better place to live on the planet?
The answer is clearly no. The period of American history from 1865 through World War 1 was an era of economic growth and rising living standards never before seen in the history of the world.
What you are failling for is the classic Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which, for those who don’t know any Latin, essential is the scenario whereby one observes an event that happens after an earlier event and erroneously assumes that the later event was caused by the earler event.
So most of us live better in 2013 in many ways and we have a larger government than in our earlier history. Therefore you assume that our increased standard of living is caused by a larger government. That is fallacious reasoning.
Even with the progress we have enjoyed in recent decades, there were some very substantial advantages enjoyed by a family in say, 1905 compared with today.
From a recent article written by Paul Rosenbeg,
**When writing historical things, I try to include perspective from people who actually lived through the events. And for money issues in the US, I’m able to do that back to about 1905.
So, do you think life was nasty, brutish, and short in 1905? That there were poor and starving people falling dead on every street corner?
Hardly.
The Wright brothers were flying for 30 minutes at a crack; Einstein was upgrading the laws of physics; telephones and electric lights were being installed all across America; Henry Ford was getting the final pieces in place for his moving assembly line and Model T; radio was being developed; art was flourishing; and the world was more or less at peace.
Sure, we have far more tech and better medicine now, but mostly because the people of earlier times (like the 1905 era) gifted it to us.
People in 1905 lived in heated homes, refrigerated their food, had access to professional physicians, traveled the world (mostly on trains and ships), read daily newspapers (there were many more of them in those days), watched movies, and ate just about the same foods we eat.
So, was it really that bad a time?
No, it wasn’t. In fact, it was better in important ways.
The Facts Don’t Lie
Consider this:
The working person of 1905 kept his or her money. They ended up saving somewhere between a quarter and a half of everything they made – after living expenses.
It’s hard to be completely precise when reconstructing the budgets of average people in 1905 (records are hard to find), but we do have enough for a good, close guess.
Here’s how finance worked for a working family man of 1905:
Annual income: $700.00
Annual expenses: ($350.00)
Annual savings: $350.00
If you’re thinking that I’m taking liberties with these numbers, let me assure you that I’m not – I’m being conservative. For example:
The income figure should probably be higher. I’ve found figures of well over $800 for construction workers.
As for expenses, I rounded up from a New York Times article, dated 29 September, 1907. It specified $325 per year.
Added to that is the fact that many people grew their own food during that time, which would skew the figures further.
As noted initially, I compared these numbers with stories I heard from relatives who lived through the time. My uncle Dave, for example, used to tell me how he got a job paying $390 per year sweeping floors as an unskilled immigrant (who spoke almost no English) in 1903.
The next time you drive through an old part of town and see the grand old houses, remember that people were able to build and buy them because their paychecks weren’t stripped bare. There were no income taxes in 1905, no sales taxes, no state taxes, and not much in the way of property taxes.
There was also no such thing as a military-industrial complex in those days, and – miracle of miracles – the rest of the world survived!
And Now…
Today, the situation is much, much different. The average working family pays about half their income in combined taxes: income taxes (to the state and the Feds), payroll taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, utility bill taxes, sales tax, local taxes, and on and on.
So, figuring an average income of just over $50,000 (the 2011 figure). And combined taxes of about $25,000, the average American family is left to pay bills like these:
Mortgage 11,000
Car payments 6,000
Gas, repairs, etc. 2,500
Property taxes 2,500
Food 3,000
Total $25,000
That leaves people zeroed-out. And again, I’m being conservative, and I haven’t included a number of smaller expenses.
And if you think I’m going overboard, look at this graph of the savings rate from between 1947 (as far back as I could find) and 2009. This graph covers more than families, but it paints a clear enough picture:
Great Grandpa Did It, So Why Not Us?
Your great grandfathers faced very few of the taxes that we face. (The government survived on tariffs.) There was no social security either, and – believe it or not – the streets were never full of starving old people. Families were able to take care of their own – it’s not that hard when you’re saving half of your income!
We have forgotten that it was once possible for an average person to accumulate money. The truth is that productive people should be comfortable. Well-off, as they used to say.**
http://www.freemansperspective.com/money-issues-in-the-us/
Now, I will grant you one thing. The organized labor movement DID accomplish some important things. Libertarians support the right of any group of people to go on strike and put pressure on their employers for better working conditions, higher wages, etc.
So, yes, workers putting pressure on employers did have an effect of improving work conditions and standardizing a 40 hour work week.
Yet none of this requires a large government. This is an act of workers refusing to work, and negotiating with their employers for better terms of their contracts. Mass quits, the organization of a competing firm by disgruntled former employees, and boycotts of bad businesses are all more effective than government regulations which outlaw certain types of voluntary contracts, which violates the rights of employers AND workers.
So don’t fall prey to the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Furthermore, don’t fall for the propaganda that paints the so called “gilded age” as a simplistic characature, rather imagine where else you would prefer to live in the world than in the United States in 1900?
There were certainly problems and we shouldn’t be afraid to criticize certain policies of the era and work to improve upon them. If we had an honest currency, or decentralized money, no income tax and a minimal government, we could create the type of prosperity that was being generated in the Guilded Age, which would improve the well being of ALL citizens.
I urge you to respond, but NOT with one or two sentances. Why don’t you type out two or three paragraphs critiquing what I wrote here?
I still don’t think you understand. As you’ve been informed already, the simplistic definition of libertarianism is that it is wrong to initiate physical force against another.
As far as economics is concerned, libertarian principles should be applied to society at a macro level. Therefore we can compare free market economic systems within different nations or societies and that would be a fair comparison.
We cannot say that individual organization would see superior outcomes if they were “hands off” or tried to institute something resembling a free market within their specific organization.
The CEO of Sears had only one obligation to conform to libertarian principles. That is that he not initiate physical force against anyone else. Therefore if his employees had the right to quit at any time and were not forced to be there and if the voluntarily signed a contract agreeing to the terms of their employment, he could organize and run his business in any way he sees fit.
It is also important to know that libertarians see nothing wrong with a “command” and control style of running a small organization provided all members are there voluntarily. The reason libertarians oppose a centrally planned economic is, first, it must be imposed by force on a society where some members would prefer to be left alone. And second, because in a macro sense, even the wisest leaders cannot have enough information to effectively plan an economy. The combined knowledge gleaned from millions of free individuals acting in their own self interest reveals information to entrepreneurs and investers that no computer and no central planners can ever hope to emulate.
However, on a small scale like a family or a business, the decision maker for that organization does NOT have a knowledge problem. He can make “orders” and institute demands on his workers to work in a specific fashion. He can know all the variables and make intelligent decisions that work out best for his business.
That is not to say he won’t make mistakes. But on a small scale, central planning can actually be superior to letting everyone do their own thing. That is provided everyone is free to leave and enter into the organization through voluntary agreement and contract.
Does that clear things up?
For example, it would be equally fallacious to look at two families and one of them is completely “hands off”, doesn’t set any rules or boundries for their children because he is a libertarian. Another family sets strict rules and has certain obligations they expect of their children. Without question the family that sets strict rules and “plans” the lives of their young children will yield the best outcome for their kids as they grow up.
The children of parents who set no rules for their children and leave them alone will deprive their children of learning valuable lessons about life and how to behave as productive adults.
None of this would in any way be a refutation on libertarianism. Many smaller organizations that are voluntary are better if they are centrally planned.
Does this make sense?