Yes, head on over, Smartass has pretty much conceded defeat. (unoffically of course) 
bwoahoaha (by request)
picmr
Surreal, nothing. The workers of the first world are already being told that their benefits are being taken away, their wages reduced, and their companies downsized because they can’t compete with slave labour in Nigeria.
The Doubter’s Companion is not Biercian in intent, although it can often seem that way to people who read it skimmingly or not at all; but even if it was, how wouldn’t it be helpful if it pertains to the debate?
For the Nth time, I do not believe that the rich do not contribute to the pie, nor did I ever express such a point of view.
Correct, which is why I have never adopted such a position. Certain people on this board have a genius for interpreting my position on the basis of some medium of communication other than the English language, to put it delicately. I commend my actual postings to your readership.
On the other hand, perhaps it will help to continue:
“Competition is, of course, a very good thing. We cannot live in a complex society without it. On the other hand, if the principal relationship between citizens is based on competition, what has society and, for that matter, civilization been reduced to?” - Saul, ibid.
Smartass wrote:
Baloney! The idea that some unstated causes can be necessary and vital is no more an opinion than is the idea that some unstated causes can be unnecessary and frivolous. And once again you’ve deliberately misstated my position, so I’ll restate it more clearly for you:
My Position
by xenophon41
It is okay (indeed, it is required) for a central government to use taxpayer money to fund programs which the representatives of the taxpayers determine through investigative processes to be necessary and vital.
Smartass, please note that where I’ve enclosed a word in quotation marks in any of my replies to you, it’s because I’m quoting your terms. If the term “common good” confuses you, feel free to stop using it.
Explain to me the magical mechanism by which an end to poverty (!) is somehow provided for by market forces.
My request was that you explain how this would be more effective than our current system. Discuss how this would work between a hypothetical Libertarian USA and the rest of the world.
So if there’s a lot more money to be made in treating AIDS victims than in finding a cure…
How exactly does an isolationist policy provide for a better national defense? What would a Libertarian defense department consist of, and how is this more beneficial to our security?
Okay, just so I stand a chance of getting a real answer from you, here’s a more specific question: Under a Libertarian system, through what processes would industry standards for safety be determined, and how would these processes prove more beneficial to workers’ safety and health than OSHA/MSHA methods of determining safety standards?
Friggin’ obviously.
I looked through the LP site. Their answer to their self-posed question ‘Why not stick with the establishment?’ was, in it’s entirety: “The politicians in Washington and our state capitals have led us away from the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility which are the only sound foundation for a just, humane, and abundant society.
Government at all levels is too large, too expensive, woefully inefficient, arrogant, intrusive, and downright dangerous. Democratic and Republican politicians have created the status quo and do not intend to change it.”
No help there. The policy statements are lengthier, but quite similar in character. If I want unsupported statements of dogma I’ll stick to reading your posts, Smartass.
Since you’ve provided no mechanism through which solutions are collectively evaluated and discussed by the 200 million people (unlike the several hundred legislators), I’m saying they’ve got a smaller chance than do the legislators.
I went back and reread all of your posts to try and make sense of your statement above. I cannot do so in light of the many times you’ve advocated zero government control of industry and trade, zero government involvement in social programs and zero government oversight of safety and health issues.
You’re serious? Or were you so eager to use that as a straight line you glossed over the import of the statement? “Pre-engineered” means “engineered before the fact”; in the case of consumer goods “the fact” would be “sale to a consumer” or “evaluation by the consumer.”
<big sigh> You’re forcing me to throw greeting card wisdom at you: “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish…” etc.
How foolishly easy it is to assume the answer is always charity! How many fishes are you Libertarians going to provide before you get tired of it? Your totally false assumption that social programs are merely governmentally subsidized handouts is getting tired.
Alright, Smartass. I’ll give you the statement again, with all the big words taken out of it. (Read a little slower if you get confused.) But first a question — are you actually going to stick with your analogy of computers and tv’s when discussing societal problems? (Talk about “claptrap”!) I’m not going to get tired of shredding the same argument over and over, you know. I’m not proud at all.
Here’s the paraphrase (oops! Big word! I mean, here’s where I say the same thing in a different way).
When any group of people want to try and make conditions better for themselves or another group of people, the best way to go about it is to start a cycle where they:[list=1][li]define the condition they want to affect[]find out all they can about the place where the condition is found[]discuss what they find out, and try to agree about the things that contribute (add to) the condition[]discuss and agree on certain things that could be done to change the condition[]start doing those things[]check the results[]start the cycle over again to make their efforts better[/list=1][/li](I wish I could stick with the polysyllabic statements; they sure are quicker to write.)
No, Smartass, I’m not in the habit of reading more into statements than they say; apparently, that’s your favorite tactic. Please support your statement that my “line of thinking” allows totalitarianism to happen, or allows people to “feel comfortable” with socialist and fascist governments. When you provide your supporting information, please use my actual “line of thinking” by providing quotes (in context) from my posts that directly support your conclusions regarding my “line of thinking.”
Smartass, I challenged you to:
Here are your responses, one by one, and my rebuttals.
“Almost half”? You mean “slighly over a third, before deductions.” In any case, SingleDad already answered this charge in the thread “The US is already a socialist society.” To paraphrase (say it in a different way): There is a social contract implicit between the citizenry and the government. This contract cannot in any practical way be directly affirmed or negotiated by each individual. The individual is not, however, compelled to remain a citizen, and is free upon reaching majority to either seek a more suitable government under which to exist or to work within the system to change it. By remaining as a citizen, the individual consents to the social contract.
Hardly “at the whim”, Smartass. The President has constitutional limits to the length and degree of involvement he can command of the armed forces overseas. In addition, the political process of checks and balances prevents any oppressive action taken within the constitutional limitations.
How do you go from political control of electoral standards to totalitarianism, which would at least require total control of election results? That may be one small step for you, but it’s one giant leap for me.
Your taking about convicted felons. Do I have to point out that every society since Hamurabi has had criminal law? Does this mean all societies which punish criminals by depriving them of liberty or life are totalitarian?
Again, rule of law. The nice thing about our (non-totalitarian) system is that if you don’t like certain laws, you can work within the system, as many of us do, to get them changed. “Write your congressman.”
One of those crappy, kneejerk laws produced by the “war on drugs.” This is the closest you’ve come to describing totalitarianism. It’s a brilliant example, however, of market forces in action. It makes law enforcement actually profitable if done in a certain way! I’m not convinced that less government oversight of law enforcement would yield fewer abuses of power. And fortunately, RICO can be repealed (see above).
I can represent my individual interests only so far as I can determine what effect my actions will have. I cannot represent the collective interests of the nation, and unlike you I firmly believe those collective interests can best be represented by central governmental efforts.
On a lighter note -
SingleDad wrote:
Watch out, man. You’re being polysyllabic!
…They hate that!
[serious hijack] xenophon, will you marry me? I don’t even care if you’re a woman. Or already married. [/hijack]
Gulp! <dry mouth, sweaty hands>
Thanks for the compliment. (And I’ve seen your picture — wow!) I’m a heterosexual male, as a matter of fact, and I’m in a very satisfying relationship with a SO. --But I’ll marry ya just the same… (she’ll never find out, honest!)
(Ahh, who’m I kidding?)
SingleDad:
Fundamentally, you are correct. Libertarianism places individual freedom above other concerns. However, this conclusion was not reached in a vacuum. History has pretty much shown that increased central control leads to more poverty and general misery; whereas, free market interactions have led to more general prosperity and happiness. You have pointed out that maximizing freedom and minimizing central control does not necessarily obviate the possibility of economic exploitation. In this sense, you are correct: Libertarianism is not perfect.
To me, there is a fundamental hypocrisy in all these threads: If we cannot show that libertarianism will always achieve perfect results, then the liberals roll their eyes and call us silly. However, this is not applied to the liberal standpoints. We continually point out the shortcomings of liberal systems, but since we cannot show that it leads to disaster, the liberals roll their eyes and call us hysterical.
In a social democracy, constitutional republic, socialist utopia, or whatever else, there will be people who struggle to survive. There will be people who suffer while others live comfortably. In fact, all conceivable social ills will exist to some extent or other.
This is also true of a libertarian society. We believe that these social ills would be lessened in a more libertarian context. And no, we cannot prove it. We can show that increased central government generally leads to increased misery and inefficiency. We can show that our logic is based on the commonly observed fact that markets make more efficient use of resources, and that most people believe that freedom is preferable to slavery. But proof? No, you cannot prove a value-based philosophical system; nor can you disprove it.
I have no problem with you dishing it out, if you can also take it. However, if I were to respond in kind, you would pull out your master list of logical fallacies and dissect every statement. So, when you are sarcastic it is to make a point, and for entertainment value. When I am sarcastic, it is because of my inablity to reason and my desire to spread propaganda.
I am not even slightly convinced of my moral superiority. I am convinced that libertarianism produces more moral results than liberalism.
What would be the point, if you’re going to abandon the topic in the middle? As far as I can tell, we were having a fair and reasonable debate, and you were preparing to present your reasoned arguments, when you decided to abandon the thread and come over to this one and launch unsolicited attacks. Why would I try to reason with someone like that?
Besides, as MGibson pointed out, at some point we have to agree on some “values”. Since you never demonstrate or admit to any, how could we possibly reach any sort of conclusion? Logic alone leads nowhere.
matt_mcl:
Does this have some remote connection to the point I was making?
Competition is the market’s way of increasing efficiency. A libertarian government does not try to dictate the interpersonal relationships between citizens. These relationships are defined by the individuals. I would say that if the principle relationship between citizens was based on any kind of economics, then we have reached a sad place, and I doubt any government would be able to help.
xenophon41:
You’re being deliberately obtuse. It is the selection of which causes are necessary and vital that is based on opinion.
I know that this is your position. However, this description in and of itself does not define your political stance. How much is it okay for government to spend on these programs? What is the limit of this power?
Libertarians agree with the necessity of a central government. However, we think that its power must be extremely limited, so that it doesn’t grow to the point of becoming oppressive.
It does not confuse me; apparently, it confuses you, though. My point is that there is no single correct answer to what is the “common good”. You appear to think that there is and that the correct process of reasoning will be able to determine it.
There is no end to poverty, that I know of, in any governmental system. However, in general, totalitarian governments lead to a great deal of it, as do socialist and fascist systems. On the other hand, governments that allow more freedom tend to have less poverty. Liberal schemes tend to increase the ranks of the poor while draining the resources of everyone else. I don’t claim that libertarianism solves every problem, but at least it doesn’t make them worse.
You expect a lot from someone who is currently working 50-70 hours a week. Sorry, time does not allow. Maybe Lib, or waterj2 or Gilligan will jump in with some information.
Without competition, yes. However, if you’re making a fortune treating it, I can get all your customers by selling a cure. Also, libertarians believe that the profit motive leads to efficient markets. We do not believe that every decision in life should be guided solely by a desire for profit.
For example, had my wife and I not given birth to our daughter, we would have a lot more money. We considered our desire to keep our money in comparison to our desire to have a child and found the desire to have a child to be more important to us.
Well, for one thing, if we weren’t continuously meddling in the affairs of other countries, they probably wouldn’t be so antagonistic towards us. Do you think that terrorists target the U.S. because they don’t like the colors on our flag?
The purpose would be to protect us from attack or invasion, with little concern for our ability to attack or invade. Thus, a legitimate defense against nuclear missiles would be preferable to an arsenal of nuclear missiles. If you want more details, you need to ask someone who makes this kind of thing their business. I’ll say again: I am not a politician; I don’t have a platform.
You are thinking from a central-control paradigm. If the central government determines these things, then a set of specific processes are defined. If control is de-centralized, there is not one set of “correct” processes for solving problems. It varies with industry and specific situations. At no point does a central authority “determine” what the answers should be. It is like asking me through what process American families decide what they will have for dinner.
The LP site presents the platform. The Harry Browne site presents one candidates ideas for policy. Since libertarianism does not prescribe a solution to every problem, your questions may be unanswerable. You can see examples of libertarian thinking on various problems at these sites:
free-market.net
Reason Magazine Online
You might find the Reason site most helpful, as they often discuss current issues from a libertarian standpoint.
I have provided the mechanism, but you refuse to see it. Take the example of televisions. Every year they get better because different people are pursuing different approaches to make improvements. Market success is the evaluation. Which do you think would lead to better TV’s, free competition among rivals or a committee-based determination of what it the best way to make a TV?
Many of these discussions have begun as a discussion of libertarian philosophy and ideals and then moved into politics. I agree with libertarian ideals, but don’t see any likelihood of creating a perfect libertarian society any time soon. Also, as I think I mentioned, libertarianism is not about eliminating government at all levels. As far as the U.S. is concerned, what I advocate is getting the federal government out of these things. I am not advocating anything with regard to local or state governments in general, and I doubt my opinions about what should happen in Tuscaloosa, Alabama are particularly relevant here. In general, though, I would say that decisions should be moved as far down the hierarchy as possible.
In that case, “pre-disastered” means “designed to be disastrous before the fact”; in the case of federal programs, “the fact” would be “implementation by the federal bureaucracy” or “evaluation by the liberal media”.
Yes, you are allowed to speak in grand, sweeping generalizations; whereas, I must maintain pure literal simple-mindedness. Libertarians do not say the answer is charity. We do not say the answer is not charity. We say that the answers are more likely to be found by means of non-government decision-making processes. My point was that you threw out a high-minded solution process as if it were obviously the only correct approach to problem-solving.
“Oversimplification” I will accept. “totally false assumption”? You’re going to have to back that up.
Yes. Both are extremely complex solutions to difficult-to-define problems. The only real difference is the perceived seriousness of the problems.
I am not intimidated by big words. I am annoyed by people who use them to hide empty ideas.
On what basis do you conclude that your way is the best way? I have provided examples where market solutions solved complex problems using much simpler–and less intrusive–processes. I have also noted examples where these kinds of processes lead to worse problems.
Saying that this is the best way is not establishing it as fact.
[QUOTE]
[list=1][li]define the condition they want to affect[/li][li]find out all they can about the place where the condition is found[/li][li]discuss what they find out, and try to agree about the things that contribute (add to) the condition[/li][li]discuss and agree on certain things that could be done to change the condition[/li][li]start doing those things[/li][li]check the results[/li][li]start the cycle over again to make their efforts better[/list=1][/li][/QUOTE]
First-glance implicit assumptions:
[ul][li]All the people want to achieve the same thing[/li][li]There is one best way to achieve what is desired[/li][li]A process of discussion and compromise can achieve an effective solution[/li][li]Agreement can be reached on evaluation of results[/li][li]Results can be easily quantified[/li][li]Trying one solution at a time is more efficient than trying multiple solutions at the same time[/ul][/li]
I did.
You’re just thinking of federal income tax. Enlarge your thinking.
What do you think I am doing?
Apparently, you did not read the rest of the thread. Let’s look at it like this: By this reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable for the government to take all our money; you know, socialism, totalitarianism? If you think this argument is acceptable, then explain to me how you do not support totalitarianism. The only difference is that, in this scenario, I can leave? That’s quite a difference, don’t you think?
Do you know what those limits are? Do you honestly think they have been adhered to?
Only if the Constitutional limits are enforced. If you are such a believer in the Constitution, you should be a supporter of the Libertarian party. Remember the platform you read? Remember the central notion of reigning the federal government back in to its Constitutional limits?
Gee, let’s see. All those not members of the two ruling parties are deliberately excluded and marginalized, while the political views of the ruling parties grow closer and closer together. Do you just ignore changes in a totalitarian direction unless and until totalitarianism is reached?
No, I am talking about the fact that convicted felons can pay their debt to society, be considered ready to rejoin society, but do not have their rights restored. Libertarian thinking is that, if somebody cannot be trusted to exercise their rights peacefully, they should not be released. If they are released, they should be reinstated to full citizenship. (And no, I’m not talking about parole; I’m talking about things like permanently losing your right to keep and bear arms)
The fact that changes are feasible does not negate the fact that the current rule of law is increasingly totalitarian.
Libertarianism is not about profit. It is about protection of individual rights. Libertarianism would not allow this, and our Constitution specifically prohibits it.
Libertarians believe that oversight of law enforcement is an appropriate use of government. But that oversight must focus on the protection of individual rights, not the violation of them.
And you are in a better position to evaluate the effects than the government is.
No argument here.
Let me try to be perfectly clear: Totalitarian government is based on the notion that government knows better than individuals, that the wanton violation of individual rights is justified by some notion of the “common good”. Totalitarian government justify oppressive policies by a references to what is “good for society”. While not as extreme, the difference between your arguments and those of a tyrant is only one of degree. I have not claimed that you, like Hitler, want to exterminate all of Europe’s non-Aryan population. I have claimed that you, like Hitler, think that appeals to the needs of society and the effectiveness of central authority justify increasing oppression of law-abiding citizens.
When protection of the rights of individuals is the primary goal of government, totalitarianism will not result. When solving problems at the expense of individual rights is the goal of government, the result is steady motion in the direction of totalitarianism.
-VM
Smartass, our posts seem to be getting longer and longer as we must continually quote back through our exchanges in order to address specific statements. Much as I would like to respond to each and every comment, it’s becoming increasingly time consuming to do so. Like you, I have a full-time job.
As an attempt at restoring brevity to my posts, I’m going to paraphrase myself where necessary, and only quote you where you’ve made statements that represent the basis of your argument, or where you’ve said something so egregiously misleading or insulting that I must respond.
Firstly, after I asserted that, if left purely to individual contributions, funding for various vital and necessary “causes” (your term) would not be forthcoming, due to general lack of interest or knowledge, you began a fairly pointless exchange about whether any unstated “causes” out of any group of “causes” could have superlatives applied to them. Then, after accusing me of being “deliberately obtuse,” you said: "It is the selection of which causes are necessary and vital that is based on opinion." -Absolutely right. You finally seem to be returning to the original bone of contention between us: which of two methods of selection and action proposed in this thread is most effective. [list=a][li](xeno): Popularly mandated debate through a legislative process whereby issues are put forth for debate by elected representatives and may be tabled or sent to committee. Issues are typically selected based on economic or emotional impact among constituencies; political expediency and partisan infighting sometimes prevent issues from being pursued, and frequently catapult other issues into high profile committee discussion.(Smartass): Discussion in public fora, prompted by media attention or special interests, whereby issues are put forth by interested parties and may be pursued or ignored by individuals, social groups and corporations as they choose. Issues are typically selected based on economic or emotional impact among specific groups of people; moral judgmentalism, ideological dogma and poor visibility sometimes prevent issues from being pursued, and high visibility or profitibality can funnel large amounts of money into pursuit of other issues.[/list=a][/li]In both cases, issues may never be brought up for assessment at all, or may linger indefinitely with no consensus as to the merit of the issue. However, in the case of A, the elected officials are answerable to all of their constituents, are able to obtain some perspective on interrelationships between various issues, and are consitutionally empowered to “lay and collect” taxes to provide for the general welfare of the nation. In the case of B, whatever can make someone enough money or pull at enough heartstrings will get the attention.
In an earlier post you asserted that: "…if there are a lot of people (which, apparently there are) who would like to see poverty ended, the market will allow various potential solutions to come forward and compete for your dollars." When I asked you to support this mystifying statement you sidestepped by saying that no “governmental system” can provide an end to poverty, but you didn’t explain how “the market” could do so. You then made the unsupported assertions that "…governments that allow more freedom tend to have less poverty…" and "Liberal schemes tend to increase the ranks of the poor while draining the resources of everyone else." Please define your terms (“liberal” and “freedom”) and cite some documentation that supports either one of those statements.
You’ve expressed contempt for OSHA. When I asked you how industry standards for safety would be determined if OSHA were dismantled, you said: "It is like asking me through what process American families decide what they will have for dinner." -No, it’s like asking you through what process industry standards for safety would be determined.
I described an almost universally preferred process for problem solving to you in response to one of your more pathetic analogies. In response, you implied strongly that a better solution to solving hunger would be to give hungry people food. When I derided you for suggesting that charity was always the solution, you responded: "Libertarians do not say the answer is charity. We do not say the answer is not charity. We say that the answers are more likely to be found by means of non-government decision-making processes. My point was that you threw out a high-minded solution process as if it were obviously the only correct approach to problem-solving." -By “high-minded” I assume you mean “maximally effective.” Look, man, whether the problem-solving takes place through the government or by private action, simple reactive efforts aimed at the symptoms of a problem will never be as effective as a systematized approach to deal with the causes for the problem. And just because I advocate scientific investigation of social problems doesn’t mean I’m against treating hunger directly, whether it’s convenient for you to pretend so or not.
When I laughed at your assumption that social programs were merely governmentally subsidized handouts, you said: "‘Oversimplification’ I will accept. ‘totally false assumption’? You’re going to have to back that up." No, Smartass, you’re the one posting sweeping condemnations of social programs, you back your pronouncements up.
You made the claim in your last post that: "I have provided examples where market solutions solved complex problems using much simpler–and less intrusive–processes. I have also noted examples where these kinds of processes lead to worse problems." -Where? Please provide links or directions to these examples, as I don’t remember seeing them.
By some truly impressive feat of denial, you’re still clinging to your “buying a tv or computer” analogy to “understanding social problems”: "Yes. Both are extremely complex solutions to difficult-to-define problems. The only real difference is the perceived seriousness of the problems." -This is an obviously false statement! No matter how many times you say this, it will NEVER BE TRUE. There are no “difficult-to-define problems” being solved by tv’s and computers. They are fully designed, attractively packaged consumer products intended to perform just well enough to compete in their respective markets. If I purchase a computer, I’m satisfying my need for data processing, communication, graphic design, gaming, whatever, and in NO WAY do I need to understand how the damn thing works in order to use it. Other people have done that for me. What you are proposing to replace government social programs is for each individual to decide what they want to do about it. Which leads us back to the Big Libertarian Fish Handout.
You summed up your argument to me by saying: "When protection of the rights of individuals is the primary goal of government, totalitarianism will not result. When solving problems at the expense of individual rights is the goal of government, the result is steady motion in the direction of totalitarianism." -Well, there’s no way for me to prove to you that “solving problems at the expense of individual rights” is not the goal of our government, so I don’t think I can argue that point. But by your logic, any government that abridges the rights of any of its citizens, through legislation, constitutional amendments, regulatory restrictions or any other means is moving “in the direction of totalitarianism.” This would necessarily include any conceivable Libertarian USA.
Smartass, I’m willing to debate you on any points you wish, and I’ll even admit it when my argument has been refuted or I’ve said something in error. But it seems that every time I call you on a fallacious argument or unsupported statement, you respond by ducking the question and then making even more fallacious arguments and unsupported statements.
Maybe I do “expect a lot from someone who is currently working 50-70 hours a week” --like I am. I expect you to back up your assertions with logical arguments and documentation. I expect you to provide explanations for broad statements regarding national policy without running away from that responsibility by claiming: “Oh, I’m not a politician; you need to ask other posters here to explain what I say to you.” I expect you to have a minimum level of familiarity with rules of argument, and to avoid equivocation, prejudicial language and false analogies.
The forum is “Great Debates.” If you do not have time to debate properly, perhaps you should take your argument to another forum.
xenophon:
What Shayna said.
Kimstu
Xenophon:
What Shayna and Kimstu said. 
<clutching oscar and wiping tears out of eyes>
You like me! You really like me!
xenophon41:
There are two bones of contention here:
-Seat of decision-making
-Efficacy
Seat of decision-making
You have an opinion about what causes are necessary and vital. As do I. As does everyone else. You may think that feeding the poor is most necessary and vital. I may think that help for disaster victims is most necessary and vital. Somone else may think that aid to farmers is most necessary and vital. I, for one, think aid to farmers is ridiculous. The point is that selection of necessary and vital causes is not objective. It is based on individual morals and values. Taking money out of my hands and deciding how much will be used for which cause is imposing upon me the morals and values of some other decision maker (senator, the majority, whatever). The result is that I am working to finance causes that I do not support, and money that I would rather see go to one cause is given to another. The end result is that the values and beliefs of individuals are suborned to the state.
Additionally, there is the issue of entitlement. It is one thing to say that poor people should be fed. It is another to say that they are entitled to it. And yet another step to say that they are more entitled to the money that I earned than I am. In my life, I have personal concerns that have nothing to do with the good of society per se, along with whatever feelings I have about the good of society. When I make decisions on how to spend my money, it is based on my own personal evaluation of what is most important. Here are some examples of things that are important to me (not an exhausive list) in descending order of importance:
[ul][li]Food for me and my family[/li][li]Shelter for me and my family[/li][li]Lowering of family debt[/li][li]Saving money for emergencies[/li][li]Saving money for my daughter’s eventual college education[/li][li]Preventing poor people from starving[/li][li]Providing education to those who cannot afford it[/ul][/li]Yes, I think my daughter’s education is more important than that of a stranger. Maybe it is selfish of me to think this. The point is that it is me busting my ass to earn money to enable me to affect these issues. And if I had control of all my money, I would address these issues in order of importance. However, now that government has taken an interest in several of these items, my list has been re-sorted against my wishes–government takes its cut first. As a result, I am contributing so much money to feed and educate the less fortunate that I have none left to set aside for my daughter’s education.
I believe that I am more entitled to the fruits of my labor than a stranger is. When I say that a poor person is not entitled to my money, it is not because I don’t want poor people to eat; it is because I think I am more entitled to decide how my money is spent. When a stranger, via the government, has first claim on my wages, this is socialism. Not only does socialism not work on a large scale, but it is, to my way of thinking, immoral.
Efficacy
Much of the rest of our debate is about the effectiveness of government decision-making and problem-solving. You describe this as a choice of “which of two methods of selection and action proposed in this thread is most effective.” I will say from the outset that I do not have the time or the interest to prove to you that markets work better than governments. You already believe this, but it makes you nervous to consider the implications. If markets did not work better than governments, socialist societies would have been far more successful than more libertarian ones, and communist societies more successful than socialist ones.
The primary problems with centrally-planned solutions result from these facts:
[ul][li]Central planning cannot adequately predict the future of technology[/li][li]Central planning cannot adjust rapidly to changes in the environment[/li][li]Central planning cannot consider all the variables involved in any problem[/li][li]Central planning cannot predict or respond to the side-effects of its own policies.[/li][li]Central planners face no competition so there is no obvious way to determine or encourage efficiency[/ul][/li]
The advantages of markets include:
[ul][li]Information is automatically propagated through the system via prices[/li][li]Decision-making takes place at the places where decisions are implemented[/li][li]Changes and adjustments can happen almost immediately in response to poor planning or changes in surrounding situation[/li][li]Technological advances are encouraged by freedom from restriction and rewards for success[/li][li]Efficiency is encouraged by the existence of competition[/ul][/li]
You seem to think that certain problems should not be “left up to the market” because they are too serious or too complex. It is in dealing with complex problems that markets shine the brightest, because the complexity need not be analyzed and understood at every point in the system. In order for the personal computer market to function, it is not necessary for any one person to plan supplies, logistics, and production for every item. Decisions are made at points within the system. When imbalances occur, adjustments are made automatically by the participants.
As an example: Let’s say that government stops welfare. In the aftermath two companies form to deal with the problem of poverty in the U.S. They are both run by idealistic guys, like matt_mcl, who have no particular interest in profit, only taking enough money to pay themselves a modest salary. Company 1 takes donations and distributes them evenly among those who do not have enough money to live on. Company 2 purchases food in bulk and distributes it to its clients, leaving some money available to provide job-training services.
As time goes by, people notice that Company 2 seems to be doing a more valuable work with their money; whereas, Company 1 is just providing supplemental income to people, some of whom could be working and making more money. As a result, more and more people begin contributing to Company 2 while less and less are contributing to Company 1.
What is the result? Money is flowing into the solution that more closely addresses the root cause of the problem and produces better long-term solutions. This occurs without a committee researching the problem or teams of sociologists spending hordes of money on researching the nature of poverty. Instead, people saw a problem, had an idea about how to address it, and tried out their ideas. Open competition made it clear which approach was better.
My conclusion: Competition leads to better results faster, with less waste.
Something I want to note:
This bold part more properly belongs in Item A. When decisions are made by individuals, no issues are “invisible” to decision-makers. The support an issue gets is determined by the number of people who feel strongly enough to act. In your system they vote with votes, one per person. In mine they vote with dollars, meaning they can vote more strongly for more important issues than others, limited by their personal means.
Here is the point: Every family has their own sytem for deciding what they have for dinner. The systems for determining if standards are needed, and what they would be, would depend on the industry and the participants. Remember, libertarians don’t instruct businesses how to keep employees safe–they merely hold them responsible when they fail to. Why would a government bureaucracy know more about handling chlorine than the people who manufacture it?
Also, some jobs are more risky than others. How much risk you are willing to take for how much return is a personal preference. It is up to businesses and employees to work out an acceptable ratio. When government stays out of the loop, unions can work quite well for this.
There is nothing to prevent market participants from being proactive or using systematized approaches. However, they are much better equipped to react to unexpected events. The problem with your statements is that they assume that there exists one best systematized approach for dealing with problems and that government can accomplish this. I would say that the first part of that was arrogant and presumptive and the second part hopelessly naive.
I could back this up, but I doubt that there are enough people who doubt this to make it worth my trouble. Most people are wise enough to try to argue that the handouts are necessary or morally correct, instead of being foolish enough to insist that they are not handouts.
You’re just being obstinate here. Computers solve a multitude of problems for different people. For some, wordprocessing; for some, financial tools; for some, entertainment; for some, communications. And another thing you are ignoring is that there are choices of computers that are better at some functions than others. And the quality of computers improves every year.
It’s the same thing. People can come up with various solution strategies, like I described above. Individuals don’t have to do all this scientific analysis. Others will do that for them. All they have to do is pick where they want to spend their money.
Nope. The level of rights abridgement is pre-defined to be minimal. There is no movement in any direction.
It seems to me that you disagree with me on one or both of two points:
[list=1][li]Markets are better at solving problems than governments[/li][li]The person who makes the money is most entitled to determining how it is spent[/list=1][/li]
If you want to debate the first, you’re going to have to do it on some other basis than your prescribed methods for solving problems. I actually think that sometimes, your approach is best. Other times, I think someone just has an inspiration while eating an ice cream cone. Libertarian systems allow both types of solutions to occur, along with many others. Your approach insists on one solution-finding process. How can you claim that yours is better?
If you want to debate the second, then we are arguing over the fact that you don’t trust people to contribute to causes that they care about, or that you think that the causes you care about are more important than the causes that others care about. I am interested in knowing how you justify usurping others’ decisions in either case.
-VM
Thank you! That was a very well constructed post, with complete points made and delivered in a logical sequence with supporting arguments. I’m a bit humbled by the contrast between the measured, reasonable tone of this post and the increasingly strident tones of [both] of our posts immediately prior to yours.
I’ll do my best to respond appropriately to you, but I’ll have to wait about 12 hours to do so. Again, thanks for your well delivered (but frequently wrong, of course! ) latest response.
I don’t read Xenophon as making either of these binary choices.
Depending on the nature of the goods under discussion, the case for markets varies.
In the occupational health and safety example, if:
- there is ignorance of risk factors, including difficulties in assigning probabilities or ennumerating outcomes;
- there is good evidence of percepual bias in decision makers (Kahnaman and Tversky);
- choices are large and irreversible
- there is a power imbalance between contracting parties;
- Adverse selection and moral hazard exist in insurance markets
Then markets will perform very poorly. Sure this must be weighed up against the likely performance of government, but to prefer either one over the other blindly is just assumption.
picmr
xenophon41:
Take your time. I’d rather we both make the points we mean to than argue in cicrles because we’re in a hurry.
picmr:
I always find your posts to be interesting (and noncommittal), but, due to your phrasing, I often have trouble deciphering what exactly you’re trying to say.
In the case of the second point, I don’t see any way that this is not a binary choice. As it turns out, this is the one that I feel most strongly about, and I don’t personally have any inclination to compromise on it. Many people in this thread are willing to choose against the person whose money is being spent because they believe so strongly in the first point.
I assume your list refers primarily to the first point. I think your position is that, in some cases, a government action may be more efficacious than private actions. I think it depends on what your ultimate goals are. If nothing else, by handing it over to government, you’re acknowledging a desire to control outcomes, which of course implies an assumption that one person can better evaluate the desirability of outcomes for another.
I’ll try and see if I understand your points correctly, although I’m not sure that they are exactly relevant to the discussion per se.
I don’t know that anyone can ever have complete knowledge of risk factors, or that probabilies are necessarily the best way to make a decision. Also, risk factors in and of themselves aren’t decision makers. They must be considered with relation to potential rewards. Given the perception of these things, individual decisions must also be filtered through a person’s attitude toward risk.
I am working for a start-up company. IIRC, about 90% of start-ups fail. Statistically speaking, I have made a bad choice. Of course, the potential rewards are much larger than if I were joining the ranks of IBM. How much risk exists is difficult to quantify, and I have an opinion about it. Neither of my parents would ever consider taking this kind of risk, even if they had the exact same perception of risk and reward that I do. They are more risk-averse than I am.
Governmental standards force everyone to act as if they were equally risk-averse.
I think that there is an implicit assumption here that companies would deliberately mislead employees about the risks they are facing. In a libertarian context, this would be fraudulent and would result in stiff penalties–stiff enough that it would not be in a company’s best interests to do this.
There is perceptual bias in all decision makers, as I mentioned above. Maybe because I don’t recognize your reference, I am missing your point.
This means risk is higher. I don’t see where it justifies usurping the decision-making from the person taking the risk.
This is always true also, to some extent. It is the reason that unions came into existence. I am unconvinced that creating a greater power imbalance in the other direction is an improvement.
I have no idea what point you’re making here.
In the short-term, possibly. In a number of cases, government can outperform markets for a short time. I would argue, though, that in the long-run, government performance trends downward while market performance trends upward, for reasons I have been discussing. While this is not something I can prove inductively, it is not assumption: It is based on experience and observation.
-VM
xenophon41 and picmr:
It is Friday night here. There is a good chance that I won’t see this message board again before some time Monday. So, definitely, take your time. Mainly, I don’t want you to think when I respond slowly that I am ignoring you.
-VM
Smartass wrote:
Interstate commerce.
Interstate commerce.
Federal taxes.
Federal taxes and Interstate commerce.
Sorry to have made my points opaque again Smartass.
I was trying to get at the second point: that people know best how to spend their money. It is one reason why markets might fail to do a good job. Of course, as you point out, saying that markets fail does not mean that governments will do a better job, merely that there is a question about the possible usefulness of policy.
I guess I was responding to your earlier analogy of “what to have for dinner”. For a number of reasons, workplace safety is not like deciding what to have for dinner.
I am taking “an individual knows what best for themself and will choose accordingly” to be a strong - but rebuttable -presumption.
In the case of choosing whether to have noodles or rice with dinner, clearly the individual knows best: they have worthwhile experience of the goods, are confident about the properties of the goods, and can apply their preferences accordingly. And anyway, if it goes badly, it’s no big deal.
In the case of occ health & s, it is not so clear cut.
First, much information pertinent to the choice (how much of a wage premium to demand, how careful to be on the job) is not available.
Secondly, there is strong evidence that people are poor at assessing probabilities (they overweight their own experience). They downgrade the possibility of serious accident because it hasn’t happenned to them.
Thirdly, there is strong evidence that due to cognitive dissonance reduction, small probabilities of catastrophic events tend to be ignored or undervalued.
Fourthly, in an employment relationship, workers have few choices: they can leave, but in general safety “tweaks” are not their choice - they can like it or lump it.
Employers, who tend to have better information (larger sample size, greater incentives) about workplace risks do not have strong incentives to inform workers, nor to incur costs if workers in their ignorance fail to require them.
Lastly, since insurance dominates health and industrial safety markets, firms do not face the full (marginal) costs of their safety practices. This means that markets will not tend via competition towards employing efficient safety practices (becuase firms don’t have an incentive to employ them [moral hazard]) and that some insurable risks will remain uncovered [adverse selection].
All this means to me that the presumption that a person’s choice may be assumed to be in their best interests is drastically weakened. Given that consequences of this are serious (losing a leg v. having a disappointing meal) the prima facie case for government intervention is there. Notice that I have not even considered effects on other people (externalities).
picmr
Smartass
Fair enough.
Selection of which causes are necessary and vital can never be a completely objective process, nor should we try and make it so (and I have not suggested this). However, it is not only based on “individual morals and values,” it can also be based on societal values and mores (which indeed are more likely to prevail when a group consensus is sought), as well as on dispassionate and objective assessments of economic impact (Profit/Loss) or scientific relevance. This part of our argument, as I see it, is not about whether value judgements for social causes can be made objectively, it is about whether the subjective value judgements made are more representative of the common interest (i.e. “common good”) when made by legislatures and regulatory agencies whose job it is to do so, or when made through the socioeconomic processes of a free market.
If we state the goal as “Selection of Social Programs which Serve the Common Interest”, then here are my arguments in support of Legislature as opposed to free market.
Advantages of selection through legislative body:[ul][li]Elected representatives receive frequent and direct input from their constituents regarding social concerns.[]Market determinations are based on profitability; consequently all market forces tend to be reactive to sociological phenomena. Selection of social causes by business is motivated in some cases by community standing but mainly by market tie-ins or tax advantage.[]The legislature has the opportunity and responsibility to deal with issues about which most citizens have little knowledge or few opinions, can create special agencies to administer programs and have oversight of these agencies.[]Legislatures are empowered to call experts and commission studies of complicated social issues.[]Individuals, no matter how good they are, how cognizant of need or sympathetic to the conditions of others, are motivated in the spending of their money by self interest over collective need.[/ul][/li]
I can only argue the morality of taxation with you within the context of the social contract I’ve mentioned before. Taking money out of your hands to fund the government imposes no one’s values or morals on you. You may not agree with all of the ways in which the government spends the money (I certainly don’t), but the use of tax money to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” is neither prima facie immoral nor contrary to constitutional limitations.
Markets work better than governments at what markets do. If you can’t explain how markets would work better at solving social problems than does government, then that is a matter of faith to you, and cannot be debated.
Ah! I see something that could be helpful here. You apparently have imperical evidence that libertarian societies are more successful than socialist ones. Please name the historical example(s) of a libertarian society that you must’ve been thinking of when you wrote this.
While I wait for that example, I’ll address your analysis of the disadvantages of “centrally planned solutions”:
[quote]
The primary problems with centrally-planned solutions result from these facts:[ul][li]Central planning cannot adequately predict the future of technology[]Central planning cannot adjust rapidly to changes in the environment[]Central planning cannot consider all the variables involved in any problem[]Central planning cannot predict or respond to the side-effects of its own policies.[]Central planners face no competition so there is no obvious way to determine or encourage efficiency[/ul][/li][/quote]
I’ll examine these statements one by one.
Central planning cannot adequately predict the future of technology Why not? You haven’t defined “adequate” but let’s say that in this context (dealing with social issues), “adequate” would mean “able to estimate the future effects of technologies on society.” If that is the case, then I believe Congress has greater opportunity to gauge these effects and equal access to futurist projections.
Central planning cannot adjust rapidly to changes in the environment I thought we were comparing legislated social solutions to market-driven social solutions. If Congress is slow to react to environmental issues, at least they have the means, opportunity and popular mandate to do something about it. Industry, on the other hand, does nothing to react to environmental changes that is not either driven by profit motive or legislation
Central planning cannot consider all the variables involved in any problem Given. This statement is equally applicable when the phrase “Central planning” is replaced by any nominative clause (except perhaps for “God” if you believe in and omniscient deity).
Central planning cannot predict or respond to the side-effects of its own policies Another unsupported statement presented as fact. I have no idea why you think Congress has no means by which they can determine the effects of social programs and make adjustments.
Central planners face no competition so there is no obvious way to determine or encourage efficiency I’m sure you’ve noticed these “elections” we have in November. That’s where the fierce competion between political rivals comes to a head when one candidate is elected over other candidates based either on their own platform or a poor track record on the part of the other candidate(s). As far as determination of efficiency of government, the GAO and the countless media “watchdog” groups do a fairly good job of determining and ecouraging this.
[quote]
The advantages of markets include:[ul][li]Information is automatically propagated through the system via prices[]Decision-making takes place at the places where decisions are implemented[]Changes and adjustments can happen almost immediately in response to poor planning or changes in surrounding situation[]Technological advances are encouraged by freedom from restriction and rewards for success[]Efficiency is encouraged by the existence of competition[/ul][/li][/quote]
One by one again.
Information is automatically propagated through the system via prices This information concerns the market value of a product, service or concept. What is the market value of a methadone clinic?
Decision-making takes place at the places where decisions are implemented I think you mean to say that decisions are made about problems where the symptoms are shown. If so, then you can see that this immediately prevents any national or global perspective on the problem.
Changes and adjustments can happen almost immediately in response to poor planning or changes in surrounding situation You seem to be speaking about market adjustments. How does this drive selection and solution of social causes?
Technological advances are encouraged by freedom from restriction and rewards for success When you say “restriction” are you talking about regulatory agencies? In what way is are technological advances discouraged by economic, environmental or safety and health regulations? If you would like to cite some studies to show this, I’d be delighted to provide evidence to the contrary. As a matter of fact, technological advances are often prompted by issues of safety and health.
Efficiency is encouraged by the existence of competition I have no quarrel with this statement.
No, I think certain problems should not be left up to the market because market solutions are always concerned with profit and loss, never with right and wrong.
In what way is this different from governmentally funded programs? Do you actually think OSHA has some poor schlep who’s responsible for all logistical concerns within the agency? Or that Dell (for instance) doesn’t have a Chief Financial Officer or company controller?
The weakness of your hypothetical situation is that these two companies would actually be formed. Sure, people like matt_mcl exist, but what are the market forces involved that cause these companies to be created? In order for me to believe your hypothetical, you will have to show me that.
Really? Are you sure Company 2 is doing more valuable work? After all, instead of giving the funds directly to the recipients, who I’m sure you’ll agree know best how to use them, Company 2 takes the **totalitarian approach of deciding where and how to use the money! Whereas Company 1 has enough respect for the recipients to allow them to make their decisions individually based on their own needs. I would think such Libertarian ideals would produce better results. Or are recipients of this hypothetical generosity somehow not connected to the same market the donors to the two companies are connected to? Or, if connected then they don’t have the same independent capacity as the more “productive” members of society?
The bolded section of your statement is not a necessary assumption to your hypothetical situation. If as you say Company 2 witholds some donated money to fund job-training services, how do they gauge the effectiveness of those programs? You say “people notice.” How do they notice? Do they each make individual surveys to track beneficiaries of these programs and determine which company has fewer recidivists in it’s recipients? Does a third company step in to do the research, and if so, who purchases their research? And if Companies 1 and 2 are really engaged in “open competition” for the generosity of their donating partners, why did they rely purely on the results of their programs to compete in the market? Are they stupid? Didn’t they advertise, play up their successes, ridicule the competition’s failures? Did they aggressively pursue their competition’s doners through clever marketing strategies and smear campaigns? Remember BETA vs. VHS? Macintosh vs. Microsoft? The most effective solution doesn’t always win in the marketplace.
Your first and third sentences don’t tell the whole truth. If decisions about social causes are made by individuals under a system of no government involvement, some issues may be invisible to decision-makrers simply due to the fact that discussion and investigation of problems has not occured in any organized way. For the same reason, other issues may be judged “unimportant” by the majority because their full impact hasn’t been assessed by individuals. In “my system” (I guess you mean the present political system in the US), people vote for representatives (both state and federal), for senators, for the Governor of their state, for the President, and for a host of other major and minor government positions. They vote in referenda, they participate in protests and demonstrations, they share their opinions with elected officials in a great many ways.
And how would a libertarian system determine when businesses have failed to keep their employees safe? You’ve freed them from any regulations or inspections! Are we then to wait until businesses have enough amputations, chemical burns, back injuries or fatalities to warrant interference by your reluctanct Libertarian government before safe practices can be assessed? If that sounds familiar to you, it’s because that’s how it worked before OSHA!
And by the way, OSHA’s not exactly a bureaucracy, it’s more of a technocracy (please see Boris B.'s excellent explanation of this in GQ: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=24399 in that the methods of safely handling almost all chemicals found in workplaces in the US are exhaustively researched and evaluated. Including chlorine.
Except where unions aren’t present due to union busting by your (now) unregulated businesses.
My statements were in response to your assertion that a simplistic approach to problem solving was better at solving poverty (“give a hungry man some food”). I was neither arrogant about this nor presumptive in assessing what is essentially the scientific method as the best systematized approach for investigating sociological phenomena (not for “dealing with problems” as you put it). Here’s the “polysyllabic” statement I made that you call hopelessly naive:
I’ve never claimed that market participants can’t or won’t take systematized approaches to their problems. I have, on the other hand, argued energetically against the magical thinking of Libertarians that “market participants” will have the incentive and the means to tackle the types of social problems that governments do.
Let’s discuss the wisdom of the argument I actually made, rather than the one you seem to think (or wish) that I made. My one statement was that your assumption that social programs are merely handouts was simplistic and foolish. I never claimed anything about these programs, other than that many are vital and necessary, and that I prefer a government that undertakes these programs. I’ve spent my time countering the foolishly insistent statements you’ve been making.
If I’m being “obstinate” it’s because you keep clinging to an analogy that is so unsuitable it cheapens the rest of this already ludicrous debate. It’s entirely freaking irrelevant what “multitude of problems” are being solved by computers. Here is your analogy, presented as a response to my remark that the ordinary citizen did not have time to research social problems in order to figure out solutions:
So what you were doing was comparing researching solutions to social ills to shopping for a computer or tv. If you’re seriously going to claim that understanding what to do about declining literacy rates among children of middle income families or rising rates of homelessness in the inner cities is as easy as finding the best buy in flat screen monitors, then I won’t waste any more of my time with you.
I can’t believe it! You just told me “The difference is, in a libertarian society we define any abridgement of rights to be minimal, therefore we can’t move toward totalitarianism.” George Orwell would be so proud!
[quote]
It seems to me that you disagree with me on one or both of two points:[list=1][li]Markets are better at solving problems than governments[]The person who makes the money is most entitled to determining how it is spent[/list=1]*[/li][/quote]
Not quite.[list=1][li]I don’t disagree that markets are better at solving some problems. I just think markets don’t, won’t and can’t solve most social problems.There are certain things everyone must spend their money on. Food (whatever food they want), clothing (any style), shelter (many choices) and taxes (you’re free to choose another country — I wouldn’t recommend any truly socialist country if you hate paying taxes). Whatever’s left over, do what you will with it. It’s a free country.[/li]
Collective efforts at problem solving have never precluded inspiration. And I’m not advocating a single problem solving paradigm, just a consistent general group process by which investigation and experimentation occur.
On the contrary. (Have you just been skimming my responses or did you read any of them?) It’s the fact that I do trust people to contribute to causes that they care about, and only those causes that leads me to doubt the effectiveness of a libertarian society in dealing with major social problems. I’ve never once in this entire thread stated that I think the causes I’m passionate about are necessarily more important than causes others care about, nor have I advocated usurping others’ decisions. My position, as stated to you clearly a few posts ago bears repeating, since you’re ignoring it in order to counter straw man arguments I never made:
Just for future reference.
I would not have made it this far without a bit of government handouts. I was in my last semester of college when we had to go on foodstamps.
My college was paid for by scholarships and grants, except for the last year, that was paid for with government guaranteed student loans. I worked work study and my husband worked at minimum wage jobs. During the last semester there was nothing left to do but go on food stamps.
I graduated magna cum laude and moved to near a large city and soon my husband and I joined the ranks of the middle class. Our incomes and tax bills have increased fairly steadily with just a few setback since.
One more illness, one less government handout and we would not have made it. We also used credit cards to fund our college life using them for such luxuries as basic clothing, interview suits, medications, doctor bills, and before food stamps, groceries.
We are still paying off the debts, but it was worth it. We lived quite conservativly. We did not go out to eat, we only bought new clothes when we had worn out old ones. For years, i did all my laundry by hand in the tub.
There were many reasons that we could not rely on extended family or religious organizations. All we had was each other and the government.
tracer:
I don’t think that it’s really necessary to go into how the interstate commerce clause has been twisted to allow all manner of abuses of the Constitution. Such logic could be used to interpret the entire document away to nothing.
Also, if the ability to tax and promote the “general welfare” is seen as justification for any governmental act, then there really is no need even read any more of the document. After all, if this statement is that powerful, then the Bill of Rights can just be taken to be suggestions.
picmr and xenophon41:
Okay, we seem to keep getting tied up in issues where I think our disagreement is smaller than it seems. I blame myself for not adequately expressing libertarian positions. On the other hand, I don’t claim to be an expert on libertarian positions.
I’m going to try to do a little discussion, and then I’ll address some individual points. First off, to reiterate, libertarians are not anarchists; however, it would not be inaccurate to say that libertarians are mistrustful of government. Therefore, we advocate minimizing government. However, we do recognize a need for government intrusion in certain cases. Unlike some of the debates I’ve gotten into in other threads, I think most of our discussion is about cases where government intervention of some type is probably warranted. In these cases, libertarians do not stomp off in a huff; rather, libertarian thought turns to how best libertarian principles can be applied to the issue. Just to review, some key libertarian principles:
-The purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals. These rights stem from Locke’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
-Market-based solutions are more effective, and less intrusive, than centrally-planned ones.
I don’t think anyone, at least in this thread, disagrees with these general notions. It is in the cases where the rights of individuals become blurred, or where inequalities between buyer and seller exist, that questions arise. In the first case, the easy answer is that the rights of individuals should prevail. Unfortunately, this does little to clarify issues like air pollution. In the second case, the knee-jerk libertarian reaction is to say that the market will naturally handle these situations over time. This is an oversimplification. A more accurate representation of current libertarian thinking would be more like this: In those cases where the market may not act automatically, government should still focus on market-based solutions.
Let’s think for a moment about the issue of environmental pollution. If you are polluting my property, it is clear that you are violating my rights. However, if you are polluting a river that happens to pass through both are properties, it is not so clear. The problem is that, unless it happens to be frozen, it is hard to establish ownership of a river. Similarly, unless we construct huge atmospheric barriers, it is difficult to establish ownership of air. These items are often referred to as “open-access commons”, in that they are commonly shared and used by everyone.
If you are polluting the air, then a strict interpretation would be that you are violating the rights of everyone who breathes that air, and thus you must be stopped. Unfortuanately, the implications of this conclusion would bring society to a halt, with automobiles becoming illegal and most manufacturing halted. While we would like to reduce air pollution to zero, a realistic goal is to reduce it as much as possible without bringing progress to a halt. The good news is that, as time passes, technology for reducing air pollution gets better and better. Theoretically, then, we should be able to, over time, improve quality of life while simultaneously reducing damage to the environment.
Clearly, this is an area where government intervention is necessary. The difference between central-planning solutions and libertarian solution is one of approach. Both libertarians and central planners recognize that some amount of pollution is unavoidable and seek to lower pollution to an “acceptable” level. Central planners perceive a problem and set out to determine the correct solution(s), then force all participants to implement the solution(s). Libertarians, on the other hand, define the acceptable level and leave it to market participants to achieve that level. The cutting-edge libertarian thinking wrt protecting the environment is by creating a market of tradeable permits for pollution. Needless to say, this latter solution requires much less government bureaucracy and obviates the need for reams of regulation. If you’re interested in the details, check out this article from Reason Magazine, 1996:
For a general discussion of when federal government should act, and how it should do so, check out this from the same issue:
As you can see, libertarians aren’t quite so extreme as we sometimes seem. This year’s May issue has a cover story about the 30th anniversary of Earth Day (Earth Day, Then and Now).
The same general approach is true of occupational safety. Most libertarians would not say that government has no interest in this area. On the other hand, libertarians are against voluminous regulations and micro-management of American business practices. Outside of philosophical issues, there are practical reasons to be agains continuously expanding government regulation. Here is another article from Reason, with some libertarian bitching:
I couldn’t, in a quick search, find a good article focused on specific libertarian proposals. However, the libertarian approach would be, instead of parental, market-based. If government action is needed, a libertarian government would focus on establishing solutions that could be implemented by the market, rather than by massive regulatory agencies.
I’m going through all this because I find myself in a surprising position of arguing against all government action, when that is not actually my position. A better description of my position is that government action should be minimized, but when unavoidable, libertarian ideals should be incorporated into the resulting action.
I am hoping that, if you will take a look at the links I’ve provided, we can get away from arguing about extremist dogma, and maybe figure out those areas where we actually disagree and focus on them. I think that in the future it would be better for me to provide links to articles by more “academic” libertarian thinkers than to try to talk policy when it is not my area of expertise or interest. My support for libertarianism is more philosophical.
After all this, I’m not sure that it’s necessary to go point-by-point through your previous posts, but there are a few things worth noting.
picmr:
I don’t think we are in major disagreement. As I said above, yes, there are cases where government involvement is unavoidable, and it is not surpising, given your specialty, that you are able to key in on important factors. A few quibbles:
This is true. However, I think it’s safe to say that, with each passing year, more people have access to more information. So, I think this issue is becoming less significant over time.
I don’t disagree. However, I would also be against forcing people to make better assessments. Freedom is not just the freedom to make good decisions. It includes the freedom to make bad ones as well.
No argument here. If you’ll think about how this fact pervades life decisions for everyone, you’ll probably realize while I would be against trying to fix it governmentally.
I think this may sometimes be true. If we’re talking about worker safety, I don’t have anything to add to what I said above. If talking about the worker-employer relationship in general, I would point out that less government intervention generally leads to more prosperity, which leads to higher employment, more competition amone employers for workers, and more choice for workers.
Once again, libertarians would see knowingly misleading workers about their safety as fraud and as a violation of their rights. Do not think that libertarians would be against punishing this sort of behavior.
Yes and no. Unregulated insurance markets will tend to punish those who do engage in high-risk behavior (by taking away their coverage). Once again, I would not say that libertarians would totally remove government interest in worker safety, but would say that, in those cases where intervention is necessary, traditional regulation is the wrong approach.
I only note that the key to libertarian thinking is not that the individual has perfect knowledge of how his best interests may be achieved, only of what they are.
In some cases, yes. Once again, in those cases, a libertarian government would not bury its head in the sand, but its approach to intervention would be more…er, libertarian.
Thank god–I wouldn’t be able to give much of an answer anyway. picmr, if you don’t already read it, I highly recommend Reason magazine. I get the impression that your thinking links up very closely with much current libertarian thinking in terms of government policy (as opposed to philosophy). Many of the contributors to this magazine are, like you, economists and the level of discussion can be quite high.
xenophon41:
First, I think our discussion about decision-making is getting too theoretical to be of much use. We’re forcing each other to argue from extremes: I’m forcing you to argue as if government should always be involved and you’re forcing me to argue as if government should never be involved, thus misrepresenting both of our positions. The key to my position is that
-government involvement should be minimal.
-government involvement should only be considered to handle violations of individual rights or issues of supremem importance to society.
-when government involvement is unavoidable, its actions should focus on encouraging market-based solutions rather than top-down solutions.
And if they attempt to address all social concerns, before too long there is no area of life that government is not involved in to some extent. Government involvement should be minimal.
This is simply not true. I think you are confusing market activity with corporate decision making. Corporations are generally judged by their stockholders based on profitability (along with their own personal values). Market transactions are predominantly transactions between individuals and are based on the values, needs, and desires of the participants. For some participants, profitability is the key goal, for others, quality of life is key. When you decide which grocery store to go to, your decision is only partially based on price. You also are interested in selection, perceived food quality, convenience, etc. Markets, in and of themselves, do not care about profitability, and are not successful because of it. Competition is the key. If you are a corporation, you compete for shareholders through profitability, while competing for customers through price, quality, image, etc. of the goods you offer. If you were, say, the Red Cross, you compete for dollars based on the quality of services you provide with the dollars you are given.
You say this as if it were a bad thing. The point I was making is that people tend to attend to their own needs before they worry about the needs of others. Market economies lead to generally higher levels of prosperity. People who are prosperous have more money after attending to their needs to devote to other goals. Top-down solutions tend to drain resources while reducing, rather than increasing, general prosperity.
That is true. And if the government were sticking to constituional limitations then my objections would probably be small. I don’t think you can use the phrase, “provide for…general Welfare…” to condone creation of a welfare state, which is generally contrary to the “general welfare”. Likewise, providing for common defense does not justify sending American soldiers to kill people in foreign lands that we are not at war with. That would be providing for common offense.
I don’t think most libertarians see a complete end to government involvement in poverty in the near future, even though we believe that, ultimately, it would lead to better outcomes for everyone. At the very least, however, we do believe that this sort of provision of welfare falls under those powers reserved to the states.
I did explain. By allowing multiple solutions to be implemented simulaneously and to compete for dollars, better solutions are found more quickly and cheaply, in a general environment of continuous improvement.
More extremist rhetoric. The fact that no purely libertarian society exists is not a failure of libertarianism per se, and it is disingenuous to imply that it is. It is also disingenuous to deny that societies that are more libertarian than socialistic are more successful. Thus the success of the U.S., which, while not libertarian, was founded on the same notions of individual rights, and is probably the most libertarian society in the world.
Because nobody can predict future effects of technology. Unfortunately, top-down solutions require an ability to make these predictions; market-based solutions do not.
I was using “environment” in the general sense, not the Green sense.
Once again, market participants set their own goals, which may or may not be profits.
As I thought I mentioned, the shortcoming here is that government solutions need this ability in order to be efficients. Market-based solutions do not require anyone to be able to evaluate, or even be aware of, all variables.
Okay, they can make adjustment, but when government is regulatory in nature, the adjustments serve only to increase complexity and make compliance more unattainable.
The problem is that they have nothing to compare to. Market-based competition allows you to view solutions and their results at the same time. Thus, the GAO can find general inefficiency, and candidates can propose ideas, but that’s not the same as having competitors vying at the same time for dollars based on performance.
Don’t know–depends on how much market participants value the item. You make it sound like market valuation is some sort of inherent perversion of the notion of value. I would say that, in most cases, it is a clarification of value. A thing is worth what you are willing to sacrifice in order to obtain it, or what you require in order to forego it.
Actually, I meant it the way I phrased it. But I think I’ve addressed your general point already.
Once again, I think we disagree more on means. Government intervention in the form of regulation stifles business.
Please see the links above. I can offer more, but I don’t think that we disagree as strongly as it seems.
Market decisions are made by market participants. Market participants are people. Your statement equates to, “…people are always concerned with profit and loss, never with right and wrong.” If this is true, no government can help us.
The market forces are Matt’s desire to do good, and the public’s desire to see poor people fed. Markets respond to the wants and needs of the participants. If people want TV’s, markets will provide them. If the want programs to help poor people, markets will provide them.
You’re nitpicking my example needlessly. The point is that people will give their money to those companies or individuals who they perceive to be using the money in the best way. These two companies are strictly hypotheticals.
Depends on how you define “effective”. Obviously, VHS and Microsoft more closely offered what the more of the public wanted for prices they were willing to pay.
In case you haven’t noticed, that’s still basically the way it works now. The only difference is that now you can get in trouble for violating this or that of thousands of regulations, even if you have actually harmed no one.
Please do not confuse “unregulated” with “lawless”.
In which case, you should have no objection to experimenting with libertarian solutions which have been investigated and induced.
You’re playing word games. Understanding what to do is comparable with designing and producing flat screen monitors. Deciding which solution you approve of and want to contribute your money to is comparable to picking out a flat-screen monitor. At least, keep the correct comparisons together when expressing your disgust.
More word games. When government is designed and created such that it’s sole purpose is the protection of individual rights, it cannot move toward totalitarianism without violating its mandate. In much the same way, the USA cannot move toward socialism and government-as-parent policies without violating the Constitution.
It’s not about you personally. What you are describing is imposing the will of the majority onto the minority.
Once again, I don’t think we’re as far off here as it seems. Indeed, in some cases, there is no way around government intervention. However, this phrasing makes me very uncomfortable, as we have already agreed that determination of “necessary and vital” is a matter of opinion based on personal values. A more libertarian phrasing would go ahead and define necessary and vital with relation to the protection of individual rights, hopefully preventing the possibility of some fool deciding that buying cheese and burying it in the ground was necessary and vital.
lee:
Just to be clear: Most libertarians would not object to the fact that you were able to get assistance when you needed it. Generally, speaking, we approve of it. What we object to is government-mandated entitlements that say that one person’s need takes priority over the need of the person who actually earned the money.
And, if it helps, my wife and I are still massively in debt from my decision to go back to school for a Master’s.
-VM