Libertarians Are The Problem

[Shermana]

I prefer that my invisible hands.....
- Prevent monopolies
- Standardize contract law
- Regulate environmental qulity
- Ensure truth in advertising....& electioneering
- A few other thingies

Unfortunately, invisible hands require great training and restraint for such a Utopian vision, to the point that it's no longer invisible, and with a great deal of chains. The fact is, without chains and handcuffs, that hand will get rather frisky and there's little that can stop it from having its way with the nation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unfortunately, invisible hands require great training and restraint for such a Utopian vision, to the point that it's no longer invisible, and with a great deal of chains. The fact is, without chains and handcuffs, that hand will get rather frisky and there's little that can stop it from having its way with the nation.

Fortunately, I don't believe in utopia.
We just do the best we can, & live with the results.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Unfortunately, invisible hands require great training and restraint for such a Utopian vision, to the point that it's no longer invisible, and with a great deal of chains. The fact is, without chains and handcuffs, that hand will get rather frisky and there's little that can stop it from having its way with the nation.

No, it just requires citizen participation. That is your mechanism, whether in the market, or in the appropriate courts and legal channels.

How did I end up defending Libertarianism? Bleh. It's a relatively sound ideology - sounder than virtually anything else in American politics save a few things even more marginalized, but the problem is it still rests on a naive belief in the efficacy and practicability of political ideologies.

 

[gnomon]

What makes you think the Invisible hand would be that efficient? Big Businesses have already proven that they're willing to commit practically every injustice possible when given the chance. Cartels would have nothing to fear. The mafia would grow exponentially. There would simply be nothing to stop an even worse form of economic oppression and resource control short of a Divine Act.

Revoltingest puts it nicely here:
The "Invisible hand" is not a benevolent do-gooder, it wants to squeeze every bit it can out of whatever and whoever it can and find ways to avoid responsibility and consequences for its actions . That's why the people have to have a bigger hand to ***** slap it before they get ***** slapped. The problem is regulating the regulations, and regulating those regulations of the regulations so that they're not rigged in a way which cripple the average producer for the interest of the big boys who want their "Small town" competition crippled.

I have no problem with rational regulations. Environmental regulations, fair competition, equal rights, etc.

But when government entities, be they local, state or federal, impose taxes on certain businesses not imposed on others, fall into lobbying efforts, impose irrational licensing regulations, etc. the invisible hand ceases to exist.

The government should not have a hand out with promises in exchange for money. The government should not be subsidizing businesses in a false effort of propping up the local economy (sports arenas), transferring private property from one individual to a corporation (Kelo v. City of New London) or imposing irrational licensing regulations.

Even the ridiculousness of online only companies, such as Amazon, being able to avoid sales taxes which puts physical outlets at an unfair competitive advantage, not to mention the issue of predatory pricing ignored by the government driving out competitors, is more evidence of a non-invisible hand.

There is a fine line to be met but removal of the so called invisible hand to a centralized, controlled economy will not remove the mafia (it would actually increase it), the cartel would be centralized in the federal government and productivity would be even less.

 

[Willamena]

Democrats pretend to like black folk.
Republicans pretend to like free markets.
Libertarians really do like both, but almost no one likes us back.

If it's any consolation, I do.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it's any consolation, I do.

It is a wonderful consolation!

 

[work in progress]

"Wrong" doesn't even apply. Neither are we "right".
It's just that we prefer a system with more liberty.

Except that this is not a religion discussion here. The merits of government policy and economic theory have real impacts in this world that can be measured. We've had 30 years to determine whether the free trade and globalization advocates were right or wrong; likewise with the advocates of deregulation, or that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth. There are numbers available to cross-reference the merits of all of these great Neoliberal schemes, and there are income statistics available for the last 30 years to tell us whether:"a rising tide will raise all boats." So, did it?

I guess that's why you aren't one of us.
I don't think that "invisible hand" has been work'n too well lately.
It's been b**ch slap'n us around quite a bit.

I'll need a clarification on this one.

BTW, I don't favor eliminating all gov programs & safeguards (a common myth about us).
Some are needed, & could serve us better than they do.

Then, you are not a natural rights libertarian, who just want the government to protect property rights. Worth noting that the more government services you are in favour of keeping, and the more regulatory rules and enforcement you accept, the further away you move from libertarianism.

 

[Shermana]

I have no problem with rational regulations. Environmental regulations, fair competition, equal rights, etc.

But when government entities, be they local, state or federal, impose taxes on certain businesses not imposed on others, fall into lobbying efforts, impose irrational licensing regulations, etc. the invisible hand ceases to exist.

The government should not have a hand out with promises in exchange for money. The government should not be subsidizing businesses in a false effort of propping up the local economy (sports arenas), transferring private property from one individual to a corporation (Kelo v. City of New London) or imposing irrational licensing regulations.

Even the ridiculousness of online only companies, such as Amazon, being able to avoid sales taxes which puts physical outlets at an unfair competitive advantage, not to mention the issue of predatory pricing ignored by the government driving out competitors, is more evidence of a non-invisible hand.

There is a fine line to be met but removal of the so called invisible hand to a centralized, controlled economy will not remove the mafia (it would actually increase it), the cartel would be centralized in the federal government and productivity would be even less.

I believe its possible for that government cartel to be run in a way that ultimately makes it as transparent and deflatable as possible. I believe a Central economic planning board, in the hands of the most economically knowledgeable could work in a way that best achieves the most level playing field so that more capital is fairly distributed in a way which is deemed best by the voters. Democracy should be used to vote policies that make industry and private business regulated and run in a way that best fits the most and best and not a select (often incompetent) few. However, these policies will inevitably require some kind of central planning.

 

[Shermana]

No, it just requires citizen participation. That is your mechanism, whether in the market, or in the appropriate courts and legal channels.

How did I end up defending Libertarianism? Bleh. It's a relatively sound ideology - sounder than virtually anything else in American politics save a few things even more marginalized, but the problem is it still rests on a naive belief in the efficacy and practicability of political ideologies.

But what is citizen participation exactly? In a truly "Libertarian" society, there is no regulation. Private watchdogs may form, but look at Penn and Teller, so-called "Libertarians", they spout Monsanto propaganda, using Monsanto scientists. Any kind of "Citizen participation" either means voting for a policy that limits or stops, confiscates, or redistributes something. Who is to implement those policies? Who is to investigate the meat plant/hazardous waste facility if the private watchdog is paid off?

A "political ideology" is what "citizen participation" is all about. How do they participate?

 

[Shermana]

Also, how do you figure that decriminalizing drugs is going to make cartels/mafia/etc. grow?

In this instance, because Drugs can be such a localized economy in any environment, it is the artificial controls, which are unconstitutional that say that the effects of natural plants should be outlawed, that causes the mafias to grow. The local economy is easily produced on a small community scale unlike other industries. Small collectives can easily mass produce fine quality plants. Synthetic drugs however, even what is called "Cocaine" on the market which goes through a sickening process of "Refining" of the Coca Plant, would be perfectly regulated. Speed and artificial amphetamines, even Adderall and Ridalin, should be prohibited and eradicated if they are proven to cause damages that are not being disclosed or are well researched. A local based economy of natural plants production from poppies to cannabis to Coca to Peyote would put a huge dent on big Pharma's market and the Mafia's. Big Pharm is the true cartel. The Mafia would be forced to find a new source of contraband or to go legit and compete at fair market price.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that this is not a religion discussion here. The merits of government policy and economic theory have real impacts in this world that can be measured. We've had 30 years to determine whether the free trade and globalization advocates were right or wrong; likewise with the advocates of deregulation, or that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth. There are numbers available to cross-reference the merits of all of these great Neoliberal schemes, and there are income statistics available for the last 30 years to tell us whether:"a rising tide will raise all boats." So, did it?

The argument you present is still faith based. Economists are much like priests, ie, they believe what they believe about the larger world without being able to test it.
I note also that your argument is vague, overly general, & without specific evidence. We each prefer systems based upon our values, rather than rigorous analysis.
Having read Paul Krugman's columns, I find him laughably short on reason & evidence, yet long on personal speculation proffered as fact. Nobel Prizes are easy these
days, eh?

I'll need a clarification on this one.

The hand of gov't is directly responsible for the economic failure which we now see. I've expounded upon it in detail before. Suffice to say that the bursting housing
bubble was a direct result of gov't regulation of lending (requiring risky loans), subsidizing home ownership, gov imposed high transfer costs in real estate,
institutionalized inflation, excessive gov spending, & the damping effect of increasing regulation of all things. Create a fever to speculate, allow borrowing
with little/no down payment, make it expensive to sell, mix in an economic downturn, & then people become trapped in their homes, ie, unable to move to
where the jobs are because they're so quickly under water.

Then, you are not a natural rights libertarian, who just want the government to protect property rights. Worth noting that the more government services you are in favour of keeping, and the more regulatory rules and enforcement you accept, the further away you move from libertarianism.

I see the phrase "natural rights" as meaningless. We choose rights to have, rather than having them "naturally" given to us by the material world or deity.
So rights will always be in flux, & constantly argued about which to include or exclude from the list of sacred rights. I simply say that government should
be steered in the direction of a constitutional democracy dedicated to preserving the country & civil (including economic) liberties. There are many views
on how best to achieve that. It's complicated....no simplistic doctrinaire approach appeals to me. But I favor more libertarian influence in politics.

 

[SageTree]

I'd be okay with a Left Libertarian in office.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd be okay with a Left Libertarian in office.

A frubal for apprubal.....er, approval......

 

[SageTree]

A frubal for apprubal.....er, approval......

Thanks man.

It's a nice idea in theory anyways.

Ideally a socialist state would rise out of a decentralized, local gov't and the people who make up it's constituency.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks man.
It's a nice idea in theory anyways.
Ideally a socialist state would rise out of a decentralized, local gov't and the people who make up it's constituency.

That's where I see socialism succeeding....on a local level, where difficulties are addressed quickly & effectively.

 

[work in progress]

The argument you present is still faith based. Economists are much like priests, ie, they believe what they believe about the larger world without being able to test it.
I note also that your argument is vague, overly general, & without specific evidence. We each prefer systems based upon our values, rather than rigorous analysis.
Having read Paul Krugman's columns, I find him laughably short on reason & evidence, yet long on personal speculation proffered as fact. Nobel Prizes are easy these
days, eh?

Have you ever noticed me quote Paul Krugman ever? I may have long ago, in another thread perhaps...but there is nothing here about Krugman or liberal Keynsian economic theory. I gave you a challenge to respond to the failure of Friedmanomics, and you respond by criticizing liberal economics, without even asking if I am a liberal.

Krugman may be right about a lot of his criticisms of conservative economics, but in a nutshell - the reason I don't reference him is because he is about 80 years out of date when it comes to presenting solutions to the problems. Krugman thinks we can keep our economy growing through government stimulus spending. What Krugman is tone deaf to, is the same thing that the Friedmanites fail to take notice of - all human economic activity depends on having available resources provided by the natural economy. In an age when we are drilling down deeper to get at the last oil, and phosphate, copper, rare earth elements and even iron and coal are within decades of running out, it is time to scrap the entire model and create an economic system that can provide for a population, while not degrading the natural economy even further.

The founders of modern economic theory - Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, were aware of our dependence on the natural economy, and a lot of conservatives today would be shocked to discover that he (Smith) saw economic growth as a temporary solution to the economic problems of his time, not a permanent situation. At that time, long before the development of petroleum, energy was more expensive, there was no factory farming, so the ability to draw from nature's bank account was much more limited than today.

For the last 150 years, we have been living with the illusion that economic growth can be endless, and nature is just part of the resource base of human activity, all because we have been able to extract cheap energy out of the ground to make out exponential increasing use of natural resources possible. Well today we are hitting a time of reckoning! And the present arguments between disciples of Friedman and Keynes will soon become equally irrelevant as real economists will have to abandon the capitalist model entirely and come up with something that works without continuous growth in a new world of increasing scarcity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Nope.
I can assure you that we're sincere.
We really do believe all the stuff we go on about.


Democrats pretend to like black folk.
Republicans pretend to like free markets.
Libertarians really do like both, but almost no one likes us back.

I thought it was the Democrats who didn't want slavery abolished?

That's why I personally don't like using the terms Republicans and Democrats to describe Conservatives and Liberals, because a Democrat can be Conservative and a Republican can be Liberal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought it was the Democrats who didn't want slavery abolished?
That's why I personally don't like using the terms Republicans and Democrats to describe Conservatives and Liberals, because a Democrat can be Conservative and a Republican can be Liberal.

You got dat right!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If I had more faith in larger companies and corporate leaders (and a deal of the small ones), as well as individuals, to be responsible with relaxed regulations then it wouldn't be bad if some Libertarians did come into power. Actually it would probably would be healthy for this country as a whole, as Libertarians often carry the social economic agendas of the not-so-far left social conservatives, as well as a stand on deregulation that, by default, can make things on the agenda of even the most-leftist of Liberals happen. Because of that they might be able to show Republicans and Democrats how get along with people on the other side.
But since individuals have to be responsible to make the government and corporations responsible, I don't think Libertarianism can work effectively in our society, not when so many people are primarily concerned with what "I" get out of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Questions:
- What are the "not-so-far left social conservatives"?
- Does anyone else keep reading the OP title as "Librarians Are The Problem"?