The Libertarian Delusion...

[metis]

It would not be the first time I have unintentionally come across as abrasive or antagonistic.

And I'll readily admit that there's been many a time that I've come across much the same way, and sometimes it's been intentional.

 

[Revoltingest]

Almost 5 years since the fireworks here ended.
Let's have another show!

 

[tytlyf]

Almost 5 years since the fireworks here ended.
Let's have another show!

Let's not, no one is interested in the libertarian ideology. Mostly because libertarians don't vote libertarian.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's not, no one is interested in the libertarian ideology. Mostly because libertarians don't vote libertarian.

You're wrong.
In my many discussions with non-libertarians, they express disinterest
because they want more regulation & social spending than we do.
A society with fewer restrictions is scary.
Whether we vote for Libertarians or not is irrelevant to them.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The Libertarian Delusion | BillMoyers.com

Interesting article. Not likely to change the minds of any true believers, though. But the article seems pretty solid, anyway. Please discuss.

Thanks for sharing. While I found the article informative, I wish it was more cautious in its criticism of the free market.

For example, the article says the free market does not produce the “right” price. I wish this was modified to say the free market does not ALWAYS produce the “right” price. Capitalism generally does produce the “right” price in many, many situations.

And when it doesn’t, as in the case of climate change, I actually think market-based solutions are the best ones. I.e., impose a cost of carbon to capture the externality. Let consumers and producers set new prices taking that into account, and investors put capital into new projects taking this cost into account.

And it does a far better job at setting prices than any other system - especially the trade guilds and mercantilism that it originally replaced, and the systems of communism that came later.

So I agree with Moyers but I wish his criticism of unbridled capitalism included the context that the rise of capitalism has been a positive step forwards. I think we want to supplement capitalism where it fails, and not go back to the days of trade guilds, colonialism and mercantilism, and their attendant inevitable wars. Not to mention communism.

“Look at Venezuela” is a hollow criticism of universal health insurance ... but I think it’s a valid criticism of communism (and of course, authoritarianism). This should be acknowledged when pointing out capitalism’s insufficiencies, in my view.

 

[Sunstone]

Thanks for sharing. While I found the article informative, I wish it was more cautious in its criticism of the free market.

For example, the article says the free market does not produce the “right” price. I wish this was modified to say the free market does not ALWAYS produce the “right” price. Capitalism generally does produce the “right” price in many, many situations.

And when it doesn’t, as in the case of climate change, I actually think market-based solutions are the best ones. I.e., impose a cost of carbon to capture the externality. Let consumers and producers set new prices taking that into account, and investors put capital into new projects taking this cost into account.

And it does a far better job at setting prices than any other system - especially the trade guilds and mercantilism that it originally replaced, and the systems of communism that came later.

So I agree with Moyers but I wish his criticism of unbridled capitalism included the context that the rise of capitalism has been a positive step forwards. I think we want to supplement capitalism where it fails, and not go back to the days of trade guilds, colonialism and mercantilism, and their attendant inevitable wars. Not to mention communism.

“Look at Venezuela” is a hollow criticism of universal health insurance ... but I think it’s a valid criticism of communism (and of course, authoritarianism). This should be acknowledged when pointing out capitalism’s insufficiencies, in my view.

Your criticisms strike me as very reasonable, well thought out, and compelling. Thank you for them!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Almost 5 years since the fireworks here ended.
Let's have another show!

Bang, boom!?

 

[Revoltingest]

Bang, boom!?

More of a fizzle fizzle.

 

[Woberts]

Pinochet was a respectable man, ayup.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pinochet was a respectable man, ayup.

It's a common mistake among anti-libertarians to label him a "libertarian".
He was not. While he did adopt some free market reforms (which did
correlate with an economic boom), he was also authoritarian...something
the antithesis of libertarianism.
Note also that the free market reforms were limited in scope, with government
still deriving a third of its income from state owned "means of production".

If you want examples of libertarianism, there are no "pure" ones.
But the most libertarian countries would include the likes of New Zealand,
Switzerland, & Canuckistan. They (& a few others) are more socially
& economically liberal (in the libertarian sense of the word) than others.
USA ranks much lower, primarily because we've been losing economic
liberty these past couple decades.
Ref....
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-economically-libertarian-country-in-the-world

 

[Sand Dancer]

Libertarianism, and I was one for a few months when I was GOP, is like walking by a person who is hurt and not helping, except it is financially, not physically.

 

[Sand Dancer]

1) Socialism has also caused much destruction & death throughout the world. Looking at National Socialists, The Soviets, Mao, Pol Pot & Kim Jung de jour, socialism is the winner in death count & environmental destruction.
2) The military welfare state is the bi-partisan product of Dems & Pubs, who win elections & re-elections by starting & continuing wars.
3) The controlled economies require great authority & oppression to prevent mankind's natural instincts to engage in commerce.

1) Socialism has also caused much destruction & death throughout the world. Looking at National Socialists, The Soviets, Mao, Pol Pot & Kim Jung de jour, socialism is the winner in death count & environmental destruction.
2) The military welfare state is the bi-partisan product of Dems & Pubs, who win elections & re-elections by starting & continuing wars.
3) The controlled economies require great authority & oppression to prevent mankind's natural instincts to engage in commerce.

Socialism needs democracy. Those countries did not have democracy. They were dictatorships. That is hardly indicative of socialism itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Libertarianism, and I was one for a few months when I was GOP, is like walking by a person who is hurt and not helping, except it is financially, not physically.

To help others is a personal choice.
This fire breathing libertarian once saw a person who was cold.
I gave'm my coat.
This isn't virtue signalling....just a relevant
counter-example to the stereotype.

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism needs democracy. Those countries did not have democracy. They were dictatorships. That is hardly indicative of socialism itself.

Socialism as a system tends towards authoritarianism because a great
level of political control is needed to plan the economy & to prevent
economic free association. With great power & control, governments
tend to be imperious & abusive. History shows this correlation.

While authoritarianism isn't part of the definition of
socialism or communism, it is an emergent property.

 

[osgart]

Socialism as a system tends towards authoritarianism because a great
level of political control is needed to plan the economy & to prevent
economic free association. With great power & control, governments
tend to be imperious & abusive. History shows this correlation.

While authoritarianism isn't part of the definition of
socialism or communism, it is an emergent property.

Ok, but shouldn't there be healthcare for our citizens? What about a social safety net for the disabled and elderly?

Perhaps your claim is that humans cannot govern themselves. However how does a free market resolve the issue of climate change?

Economics is a value system that reflects the moral values of its participants. People are going to maximize profit in a totally free market. Issues be damned, they are going to do for themselves and secure their empires. They are going to pay the lowest wages for the most work. They are going to rationalize out any issues that interfere with their profit margin.

Economy may need some control factors I would think. Perhaps government could incentivize things that promote issues of importance. Perhaps they could levy against things that run contrary to solving issues.

Economies need rules. Even free market economies need rules. We simply cannot be free to do whatever damage we so desire to do. Rules have to be imposed.

Where do you strike a balance?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, but shouldn't there be healthcare for our citizens? What about a social safety net for the disabled and elderly?

Those things, not being the means of production, aren't part of socialism.
I argue that capitalism is the best means to finance them.

Perhaps your claim is that humans cannot govern themselves.

I've never claimed that.

However how does a free market resolve the issue of climate change?

Regulation is not always bad....it can be useful.

Economics is a value system that reflects the moral values of its participants. People are going to maximize profit in a totally free market. Issues be damned, they are going to do for themselves and secure their empires. They are going to pay the lowest wages for the most work. They are going to rationalize out any issues that interfere with their profit margin.

We've had government imposed fixed wages in Ameristan before.
Allowing the market to set them has worked better.

Economy may need some control factors I would think. Perhaps government could incentivize things that promote issues of importance. Perhaps they could levy against things that run contrary to solving issues.

Economies need rules. Even free market economies need rules. We simply cannot be free to do whatever damage we so desire to do. Rules have to be imposed.

Where do you strike a balance?

We already have rules, eg, prevention of monopolies.
The trick is to regulate in ways which serve our needs well.
It means examining the benefits vs the costs.

 

[metis]

Ok, but shouldn't there be healthcare for our citizens? What about a social safety net for the disabled and elderly?

Exactly, and the hypocrisy of some is that as long as they've got theirs they don't give a rat's rump about others. It's nothing to do with being "libertarian"-- it's much more to do with selfishness and a basic lack of empathy for the "other", and we've seen this being played out myriads of times before.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly, and the hypocrisy of some is that as long as they've got theirs they don't give a rat's rump about others. It's nothing to do with being "libertarian"-- it's much more to do with selfishness and a basic lack of empathy for the "other", and we've seen this being played out myriads of times before.

Ya know.....the poster asked a question me, & you leap in
to comment without even bothering to read the answer.
Such is the problem when you put me on <ignore>, but
still try to engage, albeit indirectly.
Man up....don't fear reading the posts you're addressing.

 

[Sand Dancer]

To help others is a personal choice.
This fire breathing libertarian once saw a person who was cold.
I gave'm my coat.
This isn't virtue signalling....just a relevant
counter-example to the stereotype.

That's great. I just wish that that type of thing could help the whole country in a stable and global manner. Some people would personally ignore the cold person if he or she were deemed "not as worthy of help" as someone else.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Socialism as a system tends towards authoritarianism because a great
level of political control is needed to plan the economy & to prevent
economic free association. With great power & control, governments
tend to be imperious & abusive. History shows this correlation.

While authoritarianism isn't part of the definition of
socialism or communism, it is an emergent property.

The free market is hardly free. When profit is the motive, people get left behind and/or suffer. Capitalism always needs government oversight, so it doesn't cause a large wealth gap like we have in the US.