The Libertarian Viewpoint

[Jackytar]

Seyorni nailed it:

Can you or Seyorni provide us with any examples of this? If it has been tried repeatedly, and failed, you must be able to provide me several examples of this. In fact, can you provide me an example of any economy under any government system at any time in history where the bulk of the money did not end up in the hands of the few?

And, yes, there are libertarians who oppose public roads, or, more precisely, they make the argument that even roads would exist and be better maintained under private control. But these are always presented as philosophical positions, in my experience, not actual impassioned political goals. This argument seems like an appeal to ridicule to me.

Libertarians are not opposed to collectivism. In fact, it is a central tenet to libertarian thought. They are opposed to having collectivism imposed on individuals against their will. This is one reason why we prefer local government. So, to use your examples, a collective of the whole with respect to public works like roads and water and sewer is generally not objectionable. We all agree that this is a good idea. Public schools, however, do not enjoy this level of agreement and we are forcing people, a lot of people, by penalty of law to participate in a collective that they object to. Worse than that, we are increasingly making this a national collective instead of a local one. And the whole thing, not surprisingly to Libertarians, is FUBARed.

Jackytar

 

[Magic Man]

I agree in theory. On the other hand, we took out one of those predatory loans to buy our house. We had some credit problems and couldn't get a decent loan, and we had no money at all. (Seriously, the seller paid our closing costs and we even financed our down payment.) We worked hard on improving our credit for two years and then refinanced with a much better loan a month before our payments would have shot up. If we hadn't refinanced, though -- or if we hadn't been able to -- we would definitely have lost our house.

I'm not trying to be flip or anything, but what are you saying with this?

I'm just a little confused. You say you agree with what I said, but it sounds like you meant for this to contradict it. Is that true? If so, how do you see this differing from what I said?

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, mball, but if we are going to follow the money trail it doesn't end at the investment banks. We have to ask why investors bought the mortgage backed securities.

Jackytar

OK, so?

 

[Jackytar]

OK, so?

Well from the "Libertarian viewpoint" the housing bubble was a false economy or false micro economy which are always created by well-intended regulation that produce unintended consequences. And a few things stand out to support this position. First of all, the banks are required by law to hold investment grade securities. And, also by law, there are only a handful of compainies that can supply these grades. As the derivatives were devised by career physicists and mathematicians, it was next to impossible to evaluate them. But this was not known to investors. Moody's and others did their best and even posted their models on the internet. But the Triple A rating was a guess, at best, and supplied to keep themselves in business because they are, by law, paid by the investment banks. Secondly, in the US there is implicit support and backing for sub-prime lending by the federal government as Joe pointed out.

My question to you is this. What will the next financial crisis be and what regulations can we impose now to prevent it? Libertarians say we don't know what false micro economies will emerge, and neither did they, or anybody else, predict this one. They only say that we should let the ecomony run on sound and well understood economic principles where the value of goods and services are based on real world metrics, not to use the finacial markets like a casino where wealth is created out of thin air. Ron Paul was one of only four senators to oppose The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which allowed for the creation of these derivatives and the shadow financial markets. He didn't foresee the housing bubble. He just knew, on principle, that financial markets should determine value by real world economic activity.

Jackytar

 

[Smoke]

I'm not trying to be flip or anything, but what are you saying with this?

I'm just a little confused. You say you agree with what I said, but it sounds like you meant for this to contradict it. Is that true? If so, how do you see this differing from what I said?

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk.

I'm saying that those loans are predatory, and should probably not be allowed. We managed to make one work for us, but I think a lot more people were harmed than were helped by them. Still, I have mixed feelings because we did make one work.

 

[Valjean]

Libertarianism, like Marxism, is a utopian theory that looks good in theory but doesn't work in the messy, imperfect real world. It's economics created economic roller coasters, Fascism and eventual collapse in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile. Yeltsin in Russia and Deng Xiao Ping dabbled in it, with the predictable stratification, poverty and social unrest. In the US it was Reagan who began implementing Friedman's "voodoo economics" in earnest, which, predictably, led to debacles like the S&L crisis, Enron and today's recession.

Like Mao Dse Tung, Pol Pot or Stalin on the "left," the right wing, neo-liberal, flat world, Friedmanist, Reaganomic, Thatcherist, Chicago school, libertarian, objectivist advocates dismiss the disasterous, real world effects of their philosophy as unfortunate aberrations, but they are not aberrations. They are typical. They're predictable results of public sphere neglect and the supremacy of "market efficiency." You can't stifle collective bargaining, minimum wage regulations, fair trade, environmentalism, social justice, labor rights, &c and get prosperity and freedom. You get a "prosperous" upper crust floating on a vast, impoverished, Dickensian working class.

Recall when the U. of Chicago president Zimmer proposed the Milton Friedman Institute, over 100 faculty wrote a letter of protest -- "...the effects have been negative for much of the world's population" (you can google text).

Recall that in the 50s and 60s a single working man, even on minimum wage, could buy a home andsupport and educate his family. Reagan's neo-liberal policies of deregulation effectively ended that, and set the stage for the elimination of the American middle class ["too influential" per Greenspan] we're seeing today.

 

[Gunfingers]

You can't stifle collective bargaining, minimum wage regulations, fair trade, environmentalism, social justice, labor rights, &c and get prosperity and freedom.

It's weird, i've got all these words in my mouth, but i didn't put them there. Could someone else have put words in my mouth? Is that possible?

 

[Jackytar]

It's weird, i've got all these words in my mouth, but i didn't put them there. Could someone else have put words in my mouth? Is that possible?

I think somebody projectile vomited on you, and some of it got in your mouth.

Seyorni - care to provide supporting argument for any one of those claims you made? Argentina, Reagan, environmentalism, collective bargaining, the middle class... I don't care. You pick and we'll debate.

Jackytar

 

[Smoke]

Can you or Seyorni provide us with any examples of this? If it has been tried repeatedly, and failed, you must be able to provide me several examples of this.

Of course we could, but examples are so many that it hardly seems worth the trouble to point out the obvious, just to get involved in yet another verbal rassling match with yet another ideologue.

And, yes, there are libertarians who oppose public roads, or, more precisely, they make the argument that even roads would exist and be better maintained under private control. But these are always presented as philosophical positions, in my experience, not actual impassioned political goals. This argument seems like an appeal to ridicule to me.

I didn't ridicule them; I merely reported what they said. If it seems ridiculous, that's hardly my fault.

 

[Jackytar]

Of course we could, but examples are so many that it hardly seems worth the trouble to point out the obvious, just to get involved in yet another verbal rassling match with yet another ideologue.

Okay. You entered the discussion, you made some statements you can't back up, preferring to resort to condescending remarks. Is that it?

I didn't ridicule them; I merely reported what they said. If it seems ridiculous, that's hardly my fault.

"Appeal to ridicule" is an informal fallacy. Privately owned city streets seem ridiculous to me as well.

Jackytar

 

[Magic Man]

I'm saying that those loans are predatory, and should probably not be allowed. We managed to make one work for us, but I think a lot more people were harmed than were helped by them. Still, I have mixed feelings because we did make one work.

OK, thanks. Frankly, I'm not really sure how you made it work. Many of the ones I've heard about couldn't be refinanced to be affordable for the people. I'm sure there are some people like you who have been able to make them work for them, but the really bad loans I can't see people getting out of.

Anyway, the thing is that kind of loan wasn't allowed in the recent past due to regulations. Those regulations were removed thanks to pressure from groups like Goldman Sachs, and those companies were freed up to do pretty much whatever they wanted. So, I'm with you that there's a feeling like the people need to be responsible for their own loans, like you were, but there were regulations in place before for a reason, too.

 

[Magic Man]

Well from the "Libertarian viewpoint" the housing bubble was a false economy or false micro economy which are always created by well-intended regulation that produce unintended consequences.

Actually, the problems started when the regulations were lifted.

 

[Jackytar]

Actually, the problems started when the regulations were lifted.

Which regulations are you thinking of?

Jackytar

 

[YmirGF]

You mean like individual liberty and spontaneous order?

Do you or the others have any reasoned argument to present? All I see are vague notions of social justice and condescending remarks.

Jackytar

Well, Jackytar, I have not seen anything worthy of a serious response as of yet or seen anything written here to make me believe my comments were inaccurate. Frankly, it would seem that posts directly support those comments.

Again, IF Libertarians ever come up with any good ideas, do let me know. Forgive me in advance if I choose not be hold my breath. Trust me, I am trying quite desperately to not be too condescending either. If I decided to critique Libertarian views, I rather expect your hair would burst into flames with unseemly rapidity.

 

[Smoke]

Okay. You entered the discussion, you made some statements you can't back up, preferring to resort to condescending remarks. Is that it?

Not can't, but won't. I've had this discussion too many times before, and I know the futility of flinging facts at ideologues. The information is readily available. Educate yourself.

 

[Gunfingers]

Can you walk me through my ideology, since evidently i don't know what it is? A good chunk of this thread has been people expounding how stupid libertarian beliefs are and two libertarians saying "that's not what we believe".

 

[Jackytar]

Not can't, but won't. I've had this discussion too many times before, and I know the futility of flinging facts at ideologues. The information is readily available. Educate yourself.

How is it that I'm an ideologue and you're not? What are you? The keeper of the truth?

I adopted Libertarian views by having my ultra-liberal beliefs challenged in open and civil debate with others who hold Libertarian views, by "educating myself" with liberal, conservative and libertarian readings, and by observing how it all applies in real world (not Utopian) situations. I'm willing to have my views challenged by you or anybody else. And I'm willing to change my views when presented with reasoned argument (I support universal health care, for example). What have I ever said on this forum to lead you to believe that I cling to fixed, irrational ideologies?

How about you link me to the thread(s) where you challanged Libertarain views and I'll give them a read.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

Can you walk me through my ideology, since evidently i don't know what it is? A good chunk of this thread has been people expounding how stupid libertarian beliefs are and two libertarians saying "that's not what we believe".

This trend has been repeated here several times. Folks railing against corporate greed, cronyism, environmental plundering, criminal behavior etc and calling it libertarianism. Now I'm told to educate myself.

Jackytar

 

[YmirGF]

Now I'm told to educate myself.

It truly is a frightening concept, isn't it?

 

[Jackytar]

Trust me, I am trying quite desperately to not be too condescending either.

You need to try a little harder.

Jackytar