Libertarian economics in practice

[Demogorgon]

Article on Iceland from a couple of years ago

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8155

The argument made is that all these reforms have been good for Iceland and it shows how such radical right-liberal policies are beneficial.

Libertarians love to come up with such examples, real world success stories for their theories are not always readily available to say the least. But here we have a ready made one.

Now look at the outcome. Four months ago Iceland's financial system collapsed. Its currency has lost half its value, inflation and unemployment have skyrocketed to levels never seen before in the country, property values have fallen by a third and the country has been hit by months of unrest which has already brought down the Government.

These reckless economic policies pushed by Libertarians (and Geir Haarde was probably the closest thing to a pure Libertarian you will find in office anywhere in the world) bring short term benefits, they allow non-productive agencies such as financial services to temporarily explode and the economy picks up for a bit, but the consequences surely follow. Iceland went for one of the most radical free market set of policies seen in a hundred years and it has taken the biggest hit.

Other countries that have gone down this road of encouraging greed and privilege through reckless privitisations and deregulation have been hurt too, we all know it, but Iceland went furthest of all and has been hit hardest of all. It will take a long time for Iceland to get over this and it won't be topping lists of most prosperous countries again any time soon.

That is what this "economic liberalisation" means in practice. Can we please abandon this insane practice now?

[GPDP]

The worst part about this is that if you bring up the failures of economic liberalism, some tend to retort that the government didn't follow through with the free market discipline to the fullest extent. Which is an odd argument, as they're basically implying that the closer you get to pure, unhindered capitalism, the more the economy turns to ruin, EXCEPT once you actually do manage to get to pure capitalism, at which point everything will somehow turn up and the economy will skyrocket into greatness.

I mean, is this what's supposed to happen?

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1394/tehfreemarketre5.jpg

Kind of reminds me of Spiderman 2, when Doctor Octavius is trying out the fusion reactor, and it starts going haywire, and while everyone is telling him to turn it off, he keeps telling them that it's gonna stabilize. Even after his wife died, he refuses to admit that his calculations were wrong (though this was because of the AI in his tentacles messing with his head, but the point stands). He ends up trying it again, on an even bigger scale, and almost ends up destroying all of Manhattan until finally coming to his senses and realizing his theory was wrong.

[trivas7]

The argument made is that all these reforms have been good for Iceland and it shows how such radical right-liberal policies are beneficial.

Libertarians love to come up with such examples, real world success stories for their theories are not always readily available to say the least. But here we have a ready made one.

You speak as if somewhere/when there have been radical left-liberal policies that have been glorious economic successes. Get real.

[Blackscare]

You speak as if somewhere/when there have been radical left-liberal policies that have been glorious economic successes. Get real.

I think you failed at getting the point

[RGacky3]

As Trivas7 almost always does.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well, to be fair, New Zealand is also having problems.

That's what happens when you raise interest rates up the yin-yang to get foreign investment.

[Kassad]

You speak as if somewhere/when there have been radical left-liberal policies that have been glorious economic successes. Get real.

They have. Arrogant advocates of the bourgeoisie state just seem to enjoy ignoring the fact that the United States and their Western allies were belligerent towards almost every state that attempted revolutionary socialism and social reform. These potential revolutions were a threat to the American power structure, so they were destroyed, and due to their impoverished states and lack of industrial, military and political force, they were thrown into turmoil. The American media likes to call this the "failure of socialism", whereas I call it "the success of American colonialism." Does that ignorant bubble come with Wi-Fi, or did you have to buy them separately?

[Charles Xavier]

Africa is a good example of Libertarianism.

[trivas7]

They have.
Where are these glorious economies you speak of, pray tell? Perhaps you're thinking of Cuba where after 50 years of revolution people are living on rations and government subsidies, or the People's State of North Korea, where over a million people starved to death last year. You are deluded, my friend.

[#FF0000]

Where are these glorious economies you speak of, pray tell? Perhaps you're thinking of Cuba where after 50 years of revolution people are living on rations and government subsidies, or the People's State of North Korea, where over a million people starved to death last year. You are deluded, my friend.

Under Stalin (particularly in the fifties) the soviet economy was growing at a ridiculous rate. Western economists were going crazy because if the rate of growth continued, they would be outperforming the U.S. by 1980. Also, remember that crushing depression the USSR went through in the 20's and 30's? I don't. Because it didn't happen. :mellow:

Also, Cuba is a tiny island. There aren't many natural resources that can be found in abundance on tiny islands. Considering this, they've done pretty well for themselves, I'd say, what with the insane amount of doctors they come out with, the literacy rates...etc.

Also, North Korea has a ridiculous military-first policy. People aren't starving because of the "Socialist" system they have. They're starving because their leader is spending everything on big exploding toys.

Your turn. Chile, Somalia, Iceland.

[Kassad]

Where are these glorious economies you speak of, pray tell? Perhaps you're thinking of Cuba where after 50 years of revolution people are living on rations and government subsidies, or the People's State of North Korea, where over a million people starved to death last year. You are deluded, my friend.

Good reading comprehension. You ignored my entire post and just took out the part that you could work with, despite you cutting out my explanation. Bravo.

[TheCagedLion]

Africa is a good example of Libertarianism.

mises [dot] org/story/2066

Somalia, "I'm loving it"

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Africa is largely feudal, especially in places like Somalia where rival warlords control the country.

[#FF0000]

Africa is largely feudal, especially in places like Somalia where rival warlords control the country.

Anarchist-Capitalists think Somalia is some ancap paradise, or was before those darn UN peacekeepers came in demanding that people be taught how to read.

[GPDP]

Anarchist-Capitalists think Somalia is some ancap paradise, or was before those darn UN peacekeepers came in demanding that people be taught how to read.

I've heard critics of ancaps denounce their ideology as neo-feudalism. It looks like such denunciations are not without merit.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Anarchist-Capitalists think Somalia is some ancap paradise, or was before those darn UN peacekeepers came in demanding that people be taught how to read.

Really?

Wow, I stand corrected.

[MMIKEYJ]

Africa is a good example of Libertarianism.
I think the founding fathers of the United States are better examples.

[GPDP]

I think the founding fathers of the United States are better examples.

Sure, if you ignore their slave-owning practices.

[MMIKEYJ]

Sure, if you ignore their slave-owning practices.
Not all founding fathers had slaves.. Hell, getting rid of slavery is one of the reasons we had for independence. But, I admit it looks hypocritical for half the colonies to be pro-slavery in a free country...

at least they wrote the slave trade out of existence after 20 years in the constitution... Im sure they all knew eventually it was going to come to a head.

[Demogorgon]

Hell, getting rid of slavery is one of the reasons we had for independence.
Not exactly. One of the reasons for independence was fear that Britain would extend its domestic ban on slavery to the colonies, which it did long before America banned slavery incidentally.

At any rate, it is a complete anachronism to try and place twentieth century ideologies on Eighteenth century politicians. Those were different times then and the policies they followed were in a different context (though it is worth noting that they were a lot keener on Government intervention than the British authorities were).

[JimmyJazz]

mises.org/story/2066

Oh man, that is pretty lol.

I would have expected a site like strike-the-root.com to possibly uphold Somalia, but mises.org? Chrissake.

[Self-Owner]

The worst part about this is that if you bring up the failures of economic liberalism, some tend to retort that the government didn't follow through with the free market discipline to the fullest extent. Which is an odd argument, as they're basically implying that the closer you get to pure, unhindered capitalism, the more the economy turns to ruin, EXCEPT once you actually do manage to get to pure capitalism, at which point everything will somehow turn up and the economy will skyrocket into greatness.

Witty as your cartoon is, the view that you try to ridicule has a lot more sense to it than you think. My point is that the level of capitalism that needs to be reached before things stop getting ruined is easy to identify: free banking. I take the current crisis to refute soft-economic liberalism - the kind of thing that Friedman believed in, namely a free market in everything except money which the government is supposed to keep inflating at precisely the rate of growth of the economy (lol yeah, right). But hard-libertarianism, the kind of thing that Mises went in for, with a free market in money, seems to me to be absolutely vindicated by events at the moment.

I mean, it's not hard to see that if you 'deregulate' banking in the sense that you remove limits on the activities private financial firms can perform while at the same time cushioning them from all risk, you'll end up with a gigantic fucking disaster. Of course, I fully expect people on here to be unable to distinguish between genuinely free markets from the corporatist, state capitalist cluster-fuck that we currently have, but at least I tried.

P.S. I am not unaware of the irony of being in this situation, which is in some ways analagous to the situation that Marxist economics faced at one time ("communism didn't fail because it was a foolish economic system, it failed because it wasn't communist enough - if only the whole world had been communist/the west had not tried its best to undermine communism/we had not had the wrong people in charge/etc/, everything would have been great"), but before any smartasses want to point this out, there are some pretty significant disanalogies. For a start, markets - where they are genuinely free - perform a whole fuckload better at reasonably important stuff like alleviating poverty than any of the alternatives. This gives me hope that markets are the way forward, or at least on the right track. Secondly, there is no especially plausible reason why Marxism would work had it just gone that little bit further, unlike the pretty good theoretical case we have for why state banking fucks things up and kickstarts the boom-bust cycle. The 'rest of the world' objection certainly doesn't work, given the hilarious dependence of Soviet planners on Western prices (did you know that prices in the USSR were determined by Sears Roebuck catalogues? I kid you not (http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/12/on-cheating-darwin.html).)

[WhitemageofDOOM]

free banking.

Oh fuck no, no country in the world is dumb enough to go back to that giant clusterfuck. and such ridiculous notions as company money.


For a start, markets - where they are genuinely free - perform a whole fuckload better at reasonably important stuff like alleviating poverty than any of the alternatives.Bang up job they've done so far.
.....Also Dude, monopolies. Corporate money. Child labor. Slavery. And paying people less than they can live on. Oh and no public education.


This gives me hope that markets are the way forward, or at least on the right track.This is why mutlicelled animals and corporations run there own little internal markets right?
Well i don't think socialism is workable in the current world, libertarian policies have been proven far worse. Go look at what the world was like back in 1920s-1930s(incidently when marx wrote des kapital.) when we had MUCH freer markets, and note all of the quality of life improvements of the modern world were born out of the new deal. Not market forces.

[Dejavu]

Anarchist-Capitalists think Somalia is some ancap paradise, or was before those darn UN peacekeepers came in demanding that people be taught how to read.

Not exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI&feature=PlayList&p=0629B97DDFA9C7DB&index=22

This is more or less a defined ancap view of Somalia.


Another good article about Somalia :

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_off_Stateless.pdf

[Dejavu]

Bang up job they've done so far.
.....Also Dude, monopolies. Corporate money. Child labor. Slavery. And paying people less than they can live on. Oh and no public education.Go ahead and name me one monopoly that ever lasted without support from the State?

Public 'education' compared to what?

Corporations only exist as 'legal individuals with rights' because of the state. When a company goes 'Inc,Ltd' it basically signs a contract with the state.

Child Labor is not necessarily a bad thing. In this day and age underage teenagers are some of the best potential software engineers on the planet. I personally paid a 15 year old to fix and pimp out my computer.

What does the free market have to do with slavery? Slavery was a legalized institution by the state.

It simply not rational to pay people wages so low they can't live. Economies run by people consuming things with resources, no resources = little to no consumption = not very profitable for those seeking profit.

[trivas7]

Corporations only exist as 'legal individuals with rights' because of the state. When a company goes 'Inc,Ltd' it basically signs a contract with the state.

Nice post, sir.

What exactly do Ltds contract to do in regards to the state?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Not exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI&feature=PlayList&p=0629B97DDFA9C7DB&index=22

This is more or less a defined ancap view of Somalia.


Another good article about Somalia :

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_off_Stateless.pdf

So now what you support is the defined view of "anarcho-"capitalism? Talk about monopolies.

Anti-state.com supported Somalia as a wonderful "an"cap experiment.

The facts stand: libertarianism and the right do not mix. Left-libertarianism is the only consistent libertarian approach.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Go ahead and name me one monopoly that ever lasted without support from the State?

Public 'education' compared to what?

Corporations only exist as 'legal individuals with rights' because of the state. When a company goes 'Inc,Ltd' it basically signs a contract with the state.

What does the free market have to do with slavery? Slavery was a legalized institution by the state.

It simply not rational to pay people wages so low they can't live. Economies run by people consuming things with resources, no resources = little to no consumption = not very profitable for those seeking profit.

The state and the landlord are the exact same thing: a sovereign who claims ultimately authority over a geographical area.

As such, ALL capitalists, including yourself, are statists. If you do not oppose all hierarchies, you are a statist.


What does the free market have to do with slavery? Slavery was a legalized institution by the state. What obtuse nonsense is this? If the state ALLOWS something to happen, you're going to blame it? One of the leading "anarcho-"capitalist theorists, Hoppes, even admitted that slavery would occur and be perfectly legal under "anarcho-"capitalism.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Go ahead and name me one monopoly that ever lasted without support from the State?

None to my knowledge, but it's still a possibility if we were to rip out all the safeties on the economy. And it's not a possibility we should want as capitalists.


Public 'education' compared to what?

Not having an educated work force.


Corporations only exist as 'legal individuals with rights' because of the state. When a company goes 'Inc,Ltd' it basically signs a contract with the state.

You don't quite understand what corporate money means do you? Hint, it's money that can only be spent at the company store.


Child Labor is not necessarily a bad thing. In this day and age underage teenagers are some of the best potential software engineers on the planet. I personally paid a 15 year old to fix and pimp out my computer.

I'm thinking "six year olds in coal mines." here, not "15 year old pimps your computer to make a few bucks."


What does the free market have to do with slavery? Slavery was a legalized institution by the state.

All property is a legalized institution by the state. slavery was a very profitable venture until the state realized it was a horrible abomination. Would the market have realized that? There was no great push by business men to ban slavery.


It simply not rational to pay people wages so low they can't live. Economies run by people consuming things with resources, no resources = little to no consumption = not very profitable for those seeking profit.

In a fuck the world sense it's perfectly rational. Lots of people are willing to play screw you in the prisoners dilemma, even if that means the system might collapse if everyone does it.

[trivas7]

The state and the landlord are the exact same thing: a sovereign who claims ultimately authority over a geographical area.
Nonsense. By that logic states proliferate from rental property to rental property.

[Demogorgon]

Aye, it is pretty ridiculous to say that slavery could only exist because of the state. It was only the direct action of the state-an initiation of force against property owners in Libertarian parlance-that ended it. Indeed low levels of slavery continue to this day even in the west, mostly related to the sex industry. It only survives where they state does not find out about it. The second the state gets involved it goes out the window.

Really, the notion that slavery would be anything other than big business under anarcho-capitalism is absurd. Anyone with enough strength to bring to bear could easily capture a few people that wouldn't be missed, or even exploit some people into contracting themselves into slavery (that happened a lot in the past) and watch it grow from there. Moreover a huge industry would likely spring up around it. Bounty hunters to capture escaped slaves. Agencies to facilitate the easy buying, selling and registration of slaves in case they escape. Firms specialising in "disciplining" slaves and so on. It isn't hard to imagine the slave owners starting to dominate the economy through being able to undercut firms that do silly things like pay their workers and establish a quasi state to further bolster themselves. And there is absolutely nothing under anarcho-capitalism's proposed system to stop it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Nonsense. By that logic states proliferate from rental property to rental property.


Which is undeniably true. The state is, above all else, the largest landlord procreating itself through the same means as a home owner. Rothbard had to invent his own religion just to escape this fact (if the light from a lighthouse falls on water, it's suddenly private property)

You are a statist in denial.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Are you a statist ?
Are you a statist ?
Are you a statist in disguise?
Are you a statist in disguise?

[Dejavu]

Nice post, sir.

What exactly do Ltds contract to do in regards to the state?

Thank you. I meant to actually point out LLC. :laugh:

[Dejavu]

So now what you support is the defined view of "anarcho-"capitalism? Talk about monopolies.

I don't get what you're trying to say. Perhaps you can clarify? Good to see again Gene.:laugh:


Anti-state.com supported Somalia as a wonderful "an"cap experiment.

So what? That's as.com, a site I don't even go to. How is that relevant to the arguments I support in the links? You're sort of drifting OT Gene.


The facts stand: libertarianism and the right do not mix. Left-libertarianism is the only consistent libertarian approach.


Oh boy, you threw up a bunch of terminology here. I can't respond to this unless I know what you mean by 'libertarianism' 'right' 'Left-libertarianism.'

[Dejavu]

The state and the landlord are the exact same thing: a sovereign who claims ultimately authority over a geographical area.

I don't get this, never did. Why are only owners of land then statist? Why not all owners?

How is a relationship between a landlord and tenet exactly coercive?

Several differences

-A contract with a landlord is voluntary and personal
-Other people don't 'vote' for your landlord
-A landlord does not lay claim to your property ( money) without returning something of value that you want ( utility management, a roof, etc)
-The landlord does not throw you in a cage to be raped by a cell-mate if you don't pay up.
-A landlord does not claim the right to legislate morality
-A landlord does not claim the right to exact capital punishment on you.

Going by your logic anyone who owns anything ( I don't know why land - rock and dirt- is special in this case) does not have the right to set 'rules' for an item of his he is lending out for someone to borrow.

If you asked me to borrow my car do I not have the right to set specific rules for my car usage? Is that 'statist' of me?



What obtuse nonsense is this? If the state ALLOWS something to happen, you're going to blame it? One of the leading "anarcho-"capitalist theorists, Hoppes, even admitted that slavery would occur and be perfectly legal under "anarcho-"capitalism.






No, a state institutionalizes and legalizes it. Its not personal to any particular individual, 'the law is binding to all.' I'm personally not a fan of Hoppe as I find some of his assertions as contradictory. ( For instance, Hoppe claims to be anti-state but then he supports state immigration laws)

So you're addressing an 'argument' made by Hoppe, what does that have to do with my argument? Did I even reference Hoppe?

[Dejavu]

None to my knowledge, but it's still a possibility if we were to rip out all the safeties on the economy. And it's not a possibility we should want as capitalists.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. If you claim that monopolies are bad and undesirable then why do unambiguously support a monopoly ( the state) to institute 'safeties' in the economy to actually prevent monopolization? Don't you see how the argument self-detonating if you say a coercive monopoly is necessary to prevent the emergence of coercive monopolies?

Its like saying a violent neighbor is necessary to prevent domestic violence in his neighborhood.




Not having an educated work force.

What is an 'educated workforce?' Since we have public education today does that mean the workforce is educated? Are you saying the only possible way to achieve an 'educated workforce' is by having an entity call the state monopolize all schools?

How exactly again are you against monopolies?

Did you know some of the most intelligent workers ( technicians, software developers, engineers) mostly receive their education from private institutions like DeVry, ITT, etc?




You don't quite understand what corporate money means do you? Hint, it's money that can only be spent at the company store.

No please explain this to me in more detail. :rolleyes:




I'm thinking "six year olds in coal mines." here, not "15 year old pimps your computer to make a few bucks."

Compared to what? Are you going to compare the working conditions of children in factories in the Industrial Revolution to NOW ( or some utopian worker's paradise) or actually to what preceded the industrial revolution? ( I.e. agricultural revolution) Its wise to compare prior conditions to the conditions the preceded to gauge whether it was an improvement or not.




All property is a legalized institution by the state. slavery was a very profitable venture until the state realized it was a horrible abomination. Would the market have realized that? There was no great push by business men to ban slavery.

Actually, in the liberalization of economies ( i.e. laissez fair direction) in W.Europe slavery was phased out without a bloody war like in the U.S. In pure economic rationale, slavery was an inferior method of production than that of free trade and paid employment.

The state wasn't on any moral crusade to end slavery if you have any idea of what actually happened in antibellum America.

One of America's most ambitious entrepreneurs and free market thinkers was Lysander Spooner. The man happened to also be an Abolitionist. Again, it was the emergence of commercial business and industry titans that rendered slavery largely obsolete. There is a dirty secret you should know, capitalism killed slavery.




In a fuck the world sense it's perfectly rational. Lots of people are willing to play screw you in the prisoners dilemma, even if that means the system might collapse if everyone does it.

Unfortunately a prisoners dilemma doesn't address defect/cooperation in a society in which individuals live for an extended period of time. Most people live in an environment where they will repeatedly interact with some of the same people for an extended period of time.

I can defect on you once and I guess I can get away with it if I never have to deal with you again. But if you and I lived in the same area , necessarily interacted with eachother on more than one occasion, screwing you damage my reputation with you and the community.

In many experiments regarding the prisoners dilemma its consistantly been shown a 'tit for tat' attitude is most prevelant among humans. With humans living in a same community for extended period of time, cooperation is prefered but defection is always warrented as retaliatory until restitution is made.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. If you claim that monopolies are bad and undesirable then why do unambiguously support a monopoly ( the state) to institute 'safeties' in the economy to actually prevent monopolization?

I don't support economic monopolies.


Don't you see how the argument self-detonating if you say a coercive monopoly is necessary to prevent the emergence of coercive monopolies?Force is necessary to prevent force.


What is an 'educated workforce?' Since we have public education today does that mean the workforce is educated? Are you saying the only possible way to achieve an 'educated workforce' is by having an entity call the state monopolize all schools? If education is not freely available to the lower class, then we fundamentally have a problem as the lower class will be unable to receive an education.


Did you know some of the most intelligent workers ( technicians, software developers, engineers) mostly receive their education from private institutions like DeVry, ITT, etc?Really they learned math and spelling from private institutions? Since when?


Compared to what?Modern conditions wherein children are educated and not sent into coal mines to die?


Are you going to compare the working conditions of children in factories in the Industrial Revolution to NOW ( or some utopian worker's paradise) or actually to what preceded the industrial revolution? ( I.e. agricultural revolution) Its wise to compare prior conditions to the conditions the preceded to gauge whether it was an improvement or not.Factory workers in the 1920s had conditions less than a state of nature. Actually it's only recently that the majority of the population in the first world has been brought above the living standards of a state of nature.


slavery was an inferior method of production than that of free trade and paid employment.And yet your argument still places making money above human life and happiness. That is a good thing that it became uneconomic to keep slaves, but your argument still says the important thing was that it became uneconomic not that slavery was a horrible abomination.

That is the entire flaw with libertarian arguments, that poverty and coercive work are good instead of great and terrible evils. That peoples suffering is justified for the sake of money.


Unfortunately a prisoners dilemma doesn't address defect/cooperation in a society in which individuals live for an extended period of time. Most people live in an environment where they will repeatedly interact with some of the same people for an extended period of time.And yet, humans still choose defect. and do so repeatably because they choose defect on people they keep further than arms length away.
Say rich people to those in poverty.



-A contract with a landlord is voluntary and personal

It's as voluntary as goverment, you agree by living on it's property.


-Other people don't 'vote' for your landlord

Modern nations have the rule of law, your landlord is the nation not it's head of state.


-A landlord does not lay claim to your property ( money) without returning something of value that you want ( utility management, a roof, etc)

Police, Millitary, Roads, Public education, dealing with externalities.
You don't realize the benefits of these perhaps, but you would be much worse off without them.


-The landlord does not throw you in a cage to be raped by a cell-mate if you don't pay up.

No he just shoots you, with a gun.


-A landlord does not claim the right to legislate morality

He makes the rules for living on his land, so does the goverment.


-A landlord does not claim the right to exact capital punishment on you.

Of course he does. By claiming property you are saying "I will kill anyone who tries to use this." All property is based upon force.
I'm a social democrat, so a capitilist, but i have to accept the truth of things, property cannot exist unless you are willing to use force to defend it.


I don't know why land - rock and dirt- is special in this case

Several geo-libertarians would say because rock and dirt are not created by human labor, and therefore can not truly be owned.
I'm not a geo-libetarian though, but the point is there are people with similar beliefs who think owning land is untendable from libertarianism.

[Dejavu]

I don't support economic monopolies.

The state, by definition, is a monopoly on force on a geographic region. And by proxy, it is a monopoly on the economy. It can unilaterally divert resources. The fact that the state allows private enterprise to exist within that geographic region does not negate this fact because it can always rescind its grant of 'private' enterprise at any time.

If you have the power to unilaterally allocate resources like the state, then it is an economic power. Allocation of (scarce) resources = economics.


Force is necessary to prevent force.

You are automatically implying that government force would be used for good ( i.e. betterment of society.) Provide justification for why you think government force would be used for good?


If education is not freely available to the lower class, then we fundamentally have a problem as the lower class will be unable to receive an education.

How is public education exactly free? Are you implying that the lower class has no obligation to pay for public schooling?
Since we've had public education for over 100 yrs , why does the lower class still exist and why in some cases is there an increase in lower class membership?


Really they learned math and spelling from private institutions? Since when?

Again, you did not really explain to me earlier how only a coercive monopoly on education can provide these skills as suggested by your posts.
Also, if your assertion is correct, all children that received a private education should not be able to have math and spelling skills after completing a private school. Can you provide evidence to support your claim?

You do understand private primary schools exist, right?


Modern conditions wherein children are educated and not sent into coal mines to die?

Straw man.

When discussing the period of the Industrial Revolution, that is not a valid comparison. You must compare working conditions in the Industrializing West with the conditions that preceded it or that were present elsewhere in the world at the time. Clearly the harsh conditions of factory life was still preferable to what preceded it. This would be a general improvement, no?



Factory workers in the 1920s had conditions less than a state of nature. Actually it's only recently that the majority of the population in the first world has been brought above the living standards of a state of nature.

What do you mean by the state of nature? If you're talking about the Hobbesian SoN then that never existed in all of recorded human history.

Hobbes on the state of nature:
"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man."-T.Hobbes.

:rolleyes:


And yet your argument still places making money above human life and happiness.

That is not what my argument says at all.


That is a good thing that it became uneconomic to keep slaves, but your argument still says the important thing was that it became uneconomic not that slavery was a horrible abomination.

My argument was in response to how free markets , on a purely economic rationale, look at slavery, its inefficient. I never said anything about morality because the moral value of slavery should not hinge its economic efficiency or inefficiency. Of course slavery would be wrong even if it was the the most economic productive system on the planet.

Anyway, it was the state that legalized and institutionalized slavery, not the market.


That is the entire flaw with libertarian arguments, that poverty and coercive work are good instead of great and terrible evils. That peoples suffering is justified for the sake of money.

If I were to follow the logic in your argument then I would have to ask:
So when the government rakes in a cut of your income with the threat of force ( i.e. coercion) how is that not a terrible evil? How does a voting ritual justify this evil?


And yet, humans still choose defect. and do so repeatably because they choose defect on people they keep further than arms length away.
Say rich people to those in poverty.

What do you mean by defect in this context? What does it mean for a rich person to defect on a poor person?


It's as voluntary as goverment, you agree by living on it's property.

This is a circular argument because you never explained how the government legitimately acquired property.


Modern nations have the rule of law, your landlord is the nation not it's head of state.

Rule of Law based on what? Voting rituals? Lawyers and judges who have conflicting interpretations of this so-called 'rule of law?' I can give you 10 different scholars with 10 different intepretations of the 'rule of law.' ( nine are on the supreme court). This implies that there is some kind of 'objective law' which is complete nonsense and mysticism. You have laws that are necessarily subjectively interpreted and the only way the state can circumvent this problem is by instituting more rituals and declaring the official interpretation based on arbitrary voting and declarations by judges ( i.e. other men) which can even be overturned later on. Its in constant flux and turmoil. The interpretation can change minute to minute , day to day. Thomas Hobbes' description of 'state of nature' and chaos is actually very much like the way the the
'rule of law' works.

Think about this for a second:

Did George W. Bush violate the 'rule of law' by going to war in Iraq? It really depends on who you ask. :rolleyes:



Police, Millitary, Roads, Public education, dealing with externalities.
You don't realize the benefits of these perhaps, but you would be much worse off without them.

So you're telling me that these things all have objective value? :rolleyes:And that there is no way other possible way these things can be provided for?


A criminal organization like a mafia can also provide these things but at what cost? What is the cost of having the government provide these things?


No he just shoots you, with a gun.

How do you know? Are you telling me thats what my landlord would do to me? :crying:
Does this also mean that the enforcers in the state would never shoot you with a gun?


He makes the rules for living on his land, so does the goverment.

Circular. Again, how did the government come to legitimately owning any property?



Of course he does. By claiming property you are saying "I will kill anyone who tries to use this." All property is based upon force.
I'm a social democrat, so a capitilist, but i have to accept the truth of things, property cannot exist unless you are willing to use force to defend it.

Propety is a social convention. Its the acknowlegement of property rights from individuals to individuals. This grew naturally out of economizing scarce resources. Force is an element of property rights but only defensively just like a person has the right to force in self defense of their bodies. Because it really comes down to the question of how did one come to acquire their property? The claim that 'I will shoot anyone who uses my property' is hardly the case as there is little evidence to support this claim. In fact the only institution that claims property rights that explicitly uses force to the point of killing is almost always the state. Given this understanding, it is not difficult to see why wars emerge.


Several geo-libertarians would say because rock and dirt are not created by human labor, and therefore can not truly be owned.
I'm not a geo-libetarian though, but the point is there are people with similar beliefs who think owning land is untendable from libertarianism.

I would agree , rock and dirt are not created by human labor but what is build on the rock and dirt certainly is. The value of land is not derived from the actual rock and dirt but rather from the economic capital that is build on top of the rock and dirt. There is an abundence of rock and dirt in rural areas that can be bought cheaply but that wouldn't be case in Tokyo. Because in Tokyo there is an abudence of economic activitly lending value to the land itself.

Its not the rock and dirt people want, its what built on it and this is what can be legitimately owned. If these geo-libertarians so desire rock and dirt ( land), there is a bountiful amount that can be acquired for virtually nothing such as in deserts and tundras. However, there is almost no piece of rock or dirt that is not claimed by some state.

But your motivation seems to be purely anti-capitalistic and has nothing to do with practical problems regarding land distribution. Empirically speaking there is plenty of land for individuals on earth so its not an issue of if one person acquires a piece of land there is not going to be enough for everyone else. In the U.S. for example, only a small percentage of total land is owned by private individuals. The rest of it is 'owned' by the state ( i.e. other individuals that just 'claimed' it without justifying their ownership). In the end , these seems like a 'land fetish' which is really just an excuse to redistribute wealth that is created by people using the land.

[RedKnight]

The state, by definition, is a monopoly on force on a geographic region. And by proxy, it is a monopoly on the economy. It can unilaterally divert resources. The fact that the state allows private enterprise to exist within that geographic region does not negate this fact because it can always rescind its grant of 'private' enterprise at any time.

If you have the power to unilaterally allocate resources like the state, then it is an economic power. Allocation of (scarce) resources = economics.



You are automatically implying that government force would be used for good ( i.e. betterment of society.) Provide justification for why you think government force would be used for good?



How is public education exactly free? Are you implying that the lower class has no obligation to pay for public schooling?
Since we've had public education for over 100 yrs , why does the lower class still exist and why in some cases is there an increase in lower class membership?



Again, you did not really explain to me earlier how only a coercive monopoly on education can provide these skills as suggested by your posts.
Also, if your assertion is correct, all children that received a private education should not be able to have math and spelling skills after completing a private school. Can you provide evidence to support your claim?

You do understand private primary schools exist, right?



Straw man.

When discussing the period of the Industrial Revolution, that is not a valid comparison. You must compare working conditions in the Industrializing West with the conditions that preceded it or that were present elsewhere in the world at the time. Clearly the harsh conditions of factory life was still preferable to what preceded it. This would be a general improvement, no?




What do you mean by the state of nature? If you're talking about the Hobbesian SoN then that never existed in all of recorded human history.

Hobbes on the state of nature:
"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man."-T.Hobbes.

:rolleyes:



That is not what my argument says at all.



My argument was in response to how free markets , on a purely economic rationale, look at slavery, its inefficient. I never said anything about morality because the moral value of slavery should not hinge its economic efficiency or inefficiency. Of course slavery would be wrong even if it was the the most economic productive system on the planet.

Anyway, it was the state that legalized and institutionalized slavery, not the market.



If I were to follow the logic in your argument then I would have to ask:
So when the government rakes in a cut of your income with the threat of force ( i.e. coercion) how is that not a terrible evil? How does a voting ritual justify this evil?



What do you mean by defect in this context? What does it mean for a rich person to defect on a poor person?



This is a circular argument because you never explained how the government legitimately acquired property.



Rule of Law based on what? Voting rituals? Lawyers and judges who have conflicting interpretations of this so-called 'rule of law?' I can give you 10 different scholars with 10 different intepretations of the 'rule of law.' ( nine are on the supreme court). This implies that there is some kind of 'objective law' which is complete nonsense and mysticism. You have laws that are necessarily subjectively interpreted and the only way the state can circumvent this problem is by instituting more rituals and declaring the official interpretation based on arbitrary voting and declarations by judges ( i.e. other men) which can even be overturned later on. Its in constant flux and turmoil. The interpretation can change minute to minute , day to day. Thomas Hobbes' description of 'state of nature' and chaos is actually very much like the way the the
'rule of law' works.

Think about this for a second:

Did George W. Bush violate the 'rule of law' by going to war in Iraq? It really depends on who you ask. :rolleyes:




So you're telling me that these things all have objective value? :rolleyes:And that there is no way other possible way these things can be provided for?


A criminal organization like a mafia can also provide these things but at what cost? What is the cost of having the government provide these things?



How do you know? Are you telling me thats what my landlord would do to me? :crying:
Does this also mean that the enforcers in the state would never shoot you with a gun?



Circular. Again, how did the government come to legitimately owning any property?



Propety is a social convention. Its the acknowlegement of property rights from individuals to individuals. This grew naturally out of economizing scarce resources. Force is an element of property rights but only defensively just like a person has the right to force in self defense of their bodies. Because it really comes down to the question of how did one come to acquire their property? The claim that 'I will shoot anyone who uses my property' is hardly the case as there is little evidence to support this claim. In fact the only institution that claims property rights that explicitly uses force to the point of killing is almost always the state. Given this understanding, it is not difficult to see why wars emerge.



I would agree , rock and dirt are not created by human labor but what is build on the rock and dirt certainly is. The value of land is not derived from the actual rock and dirt but rather from the economic capital that is build on top of the rock and dirt. There is an abundence of rock and dirt in rural areas that can be bought cheaply but that wouldn't be case in Tokyo. Because in Tokyo there is an abudence of economic activitly lending value to the land itself.

Its not the rock and dirt people want, its what built on it and this is what can be legitimately owned. If these geo-libertarians so desire rock and dirt ( land), there is a bountiful amount that can be acquired for virtually nothing such as in deserts and tundras. However, there is almost no piece of rock or dirt that is not claimed by some state.

But your motivation seems to be purely anti-capitalistic and has nothing to do with practical problems regarding land distribution. Empirically speaking there is plenty of land for individuals on earth so its not an issue of if one person acquires a piece of land there is not going to be enough for everyone else. In the U.S. for example, only a small percentage of total land is owned by private individuals. The rest of it is 'owned' by the state ( i.e. other individuals that just 'claimed' it without justifying their ownership). In the end , these seems like a 'land fetish' which is really just an excuse to redistribute wealth that is created by people using the land.
Force in a representitive government can be used for good, because the power is accountable to the people it represents. Public education is paid for by all classes, mostly through property taxes. There are still social classes because there is still a hierarchy, under capitalism. After all not all of us can be wealthy, not even well educated people. All of us marxists aknowledge that capitalism is better than feudalism. It's just that we believe that socialism is better than capitalism, and that communism will be the best of all. It's called historical materialism. Slavery was inefficient, only after the industrial revolution. Before that chattel slavery, and/or serfdom, was very cost efficient. Again, society has stages. It's the government that prints, and mints, the currency. Therefore the government has the rightful power to control it's distribution as well. The state only uses force on those who threaten it's security. The law abiding have nothing to fear from the democratic state, only the criminal. The geolibertarians only propose a single tax on land value, not property. I am a libertarian marxist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism, and this is my response to your inquiries. Of course, under the communist stage of societal evolution, there will be not state, or social classes of people. This just pertains to the transitionary worker's state.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

The state, by definition, is a monopoly on force on a geographic region.

Correct.


The fact that the state allows private enterprise to exist within that geographic region does not negate this fact because it can always rescind its grant of 'private' enterprise at any time.But does it? So long as it does so it's monopoly remains of force.


You are automatically implying that government force would be used for good ( i.e. betterment of society.) Provide justification for why you think government force would be used for good? It can be. It isn't always, in the same way market forces can be used for good, but aren't always used for good. In both cases people must work to make sure that these powerful forces are used for good.


How is public education exactly free?It's not "free" in the sense that it costs nothing. It's free in the sense that you don't need to shell out money specifically for your kids to have an education.


Are you implying that the lower class has no obligation to pay for public schooling?Not as such, but a right to have there children be given an opportunity for a better life. An opportunity you seek rescinded.
You oppose social mobility, which isn't a very pro market thing.


Since we've had public education for over 100 yrs , why does the lower class still exist and why in some cases is there an increase in lower class membership?Why does the lower class exist? The same reason it has always existed, societies need for very expendable people. There are only so many slots at the top, and only so many slots in the middle.


You do understand private primary schools exist, right?Yes, but they require the parents to have sufficient excess resources to dedicate there children to schooling. If your nearly broke that's not in your economic best interest.


What do you mean by the state of nature? If you're talking about the Hobbesian SoN then that never existed in all of recorded human history. Small tribes of hunter/gatherers. A hobbesian state of nature never existed, but an actual human natural state did in fact exist. It's nto as bad as hobbes would have you believe.


Of course slavery would be wrong even if it was the the most economic productive system on the planet.This fundamentally is my problem with an unrestrained free market(a restrained one has proven quite useful however.), it doesn't matter to the market if immoral actions are profitable. Only the accumulation of profit matters.


Anyway, it was the state that legalized and institutionalized slavery, not the market.Both were complacent(it was after all very profitable for those who sold slaves.) and responsible, the market nor government is unclean from that sin. That doesn't mean we should throw out the idea of the goverment, or throw out the idea of the market either.


If I were to follow the logic in your argument then I would have to ask: So when the government rakes in a cut of your income with the threat of force ( i.e. coercion) how is that not a terrible evil? How does a voting ritual justify this evil?Because you've agreed to give them that income as part of your social contract, so it was never yours in the first place.


What do you mean by defect in this context? What does it mean for a rich person to defect on a poor person?To damage his life&happiness.


This is a circular argument because you never explained how the government legitimately acquired property.What is legitimately aquired property? Property bought? Where did the previous owners get it? In the end, all property stems from taking something at gun point. All property is theft.


Rule of Law based on what?It means fundamentally that the ultimate arbiter of society is societies laws instead of a ruler invested with absolute power.


Did George W. Bush violate the 'rule of law' by going to war in Iraq? It really depends on who you ask.Didn't congress agree to it? If so the laws of the land state that was legitimate action. Immoral i'd definitly argue, but not against the law.(in that instancse.)


So you're telling me that these things all have objective value?Does money have objective value? They certainly have economic value.


And that there is no way other possible way these things can be provided for?There are other ways, that isn't the question. The question is are there better ways?


A criminal organization like a mafia can also provide these things but at what cost? What is the cost of having the government provide these things?The cost of a mafia providing these things? Gang warfare, as competing police/mafia(the difference, not much.) fighting over customers would get rather bloody don't you think?
And a massive reduction of many convinces of government, such as not having every bloody road be a toll road. Or having multiple police/mobs all demanding protection money.


How do you know? Are you telling me thats what my landlord would do to me?Well your landlord would probably call the cops if you stopped paying rent and have you evicted. So he resorts to force(the police) to enforce his claim on your home.


Does this also mean that the enforcers in the state would never shoot you with a gun?If i broke the law? I'm sure they would.


Circular. Again, how did the government come to legitimately owning any property?There is no legitimate property.


Propety is a social convention. Its the acknowlegement of property rights from individuals to individuals.exactly in the abscence of goverment and it's social contract property does not exist.


Force is an element of property rights but only defensively just like a person has the right to force in self defense of their bodies. The claim that 'I will shoot anyone who uses my property' is hardly the case as there is little evidence to support this claim.So say we live an an anarcho-capitilist land, i want your stuff. someone walks onto your land and take it, you wouldn't attempt to use a gun to protect it? If you do you are the intiator of force.
Also you can't compare self defense and property, property is replacable. Lives are not.


The value of land is not derived from the actual rock and dirt but rather from the economic capital that is build on top of the rock and dirt.Not entirely, there is the natural resources on the land. And as you noted further down closeness to other economic factors. It's not just human labor that adds value to land. Though you are correct in that the fact human labor is the primary creator of value in cities.


However, there is almost no piece of rock or dirt that is not claimed by some state.You think this would be any different in anarcho-capitilist land? Pfft, every piece would be claimed by someone. Even if they don't use it, solely to generate profit if someone later wanted to use it.


But your motivation seems to be purely anti-capitalistic and has nothing to do with practical problems regarding land distribution.I am a capitalist, specifically a social democrat.(you know, nany statist.) I have issues with libertarians/anarcho-capitalists, not with capitalism itself. Because of practical issues, such as "how do we overcome poverty", "Wouldn't this kill social mobility dead?", "what if businesses do <Insert immoral thing here> and it's profitable?" and "You know, this would really bring us further from a hypothetical perfect free market, not closer.".