View Full Version : iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian
There are many flavors of Libertarian. I just read the blog of a guy who calls himself a Left Libertarian. Go figure. I consider myself a progressive Libertarian, that is, socially liberal but financially and fiscally conservative.
The principles of Libertarianism are too important to be left to ideology and religiosity. I'm starting this thread to develop the iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian. We'll frame it with the extremes and the community can fill in the wee parts in between.
Flat Earth Libertarian: Get rid of all government. No taxes. Privately owned Air Force. Build your own roads and sewer system. Slavery is acceptable as long as there are no sales taxes.
Left Libertarian: The government, while infinitesimally small, provides for our every need, eliminates all risk in life, provides health care and education and jobs and so on, but costs nothing. See also: Utopian Libertarian.
Utopian Libertarian: No taxes or government. But I like to hunt, fish, and camp and don't like pollution, so just enough government to keep the chemical and mining industries from ruining the environment. And I don't like toxic crap in my food, either, so just enough government to keep the food industry from putting too many dangerous chemicals in my food. And no toxic chemicals in my cat's food, for that matter, so just enough government to keep the China's food industry from poisoning my cat. And no dangerous car designs that let the hood pop through the windshield and cut off my head in an accident like they did before laws went into effect, so just enough government to pressure the car industry into making expensive design changes for safety. And I don't like guys driving 100 MPH in the breakdown lane, so just enough government to police the roads. And... (fill in the blank 1,000 things government does that Libertarians can't live a day without)...
World Traveler
02-11-08, 10:41 PM
I'll give it a try. I'm also socially liberal and fiscally/ financially conservative.
I strongly believe in a balanced budget, definitely at the personal level and as much as possible at the government level. I've lived a life that any "Bush/ Reagan conservative" would be proud of, never any government handouts ever, worked my way thru college, grad school, and rest of my life, saved and invested, and expect to pay for my own old age.
And the truth is, I can't stand the "core conservative" philosophy of social Darwinism and every man for himself only.
We don't all start from a level playing field and sometimes it's very appropriate to give our fellow man "a hand-up". All the great religions of the world tell us this. We are our brothers keepers, to quote Christianity. In hunter-gatherer societies, where mankind has spent its entire existence except for last 10,000 years, sharing is THE strong value, not competition. It's how they survive in good times and especially bad times.
I've travelled a lot in third world countries, where government is weak and/ or corrupt. Traveled with non-profit organizations where I was able to meet the average (often very poor) citizen.
Imagine living in a country where there is no unemployment insurance, no social security system, no FHA-guaranteed mortgages, no student loan system, where even primary schools are not free (parents skimp to pay fees), no county hospitals, basic health care is unaffordable so you can't see a doctor when you break your leg (I saw that in Ghana) because there are no laws that say hospitals must treat even the indigent in emergency rooms, very poor infrastructure and roads because laws against corrupt politicians and businesses are not enforced. There the buyer must truly beware because there is so little regulation to thwart the predatory and unscrupulous. Also no Small Business Administration to assist small businesses, interest rates are usurious beyond what we can imagine, and you sink or swim, alone.
In many ways, some of these thirld world countries meet the definition of a "Pure Libertarian" society. And, believe me, they are not places where most people would choose to live.
In many of these societies, family, tribal , and ethnic ties are very strong. And much of the reason is that they are your only social safety net.
My opinion is that we need enough government regulation to keep the system as fair and honest as possible. Also to provide basic infrastructure, free education through high school, basic health care for all citizens, and a "helping hand" to society's less fortunate members.
I feel strongly about giving a "helping hand" from government. A child who is born to a single teenage mother, to drug addicts or alcoholics, to very poor parents who make minimum wage, etc. is going to have a much harder time making it into the professional classes than a child born to educated, professional, or wealthy people. There are alway a few exceptional children who do rise above this environment, but they are rare, that is why they are called exceptional. The journey is arduous, fought with peril (especially in teen years), and few mistakes are allowed.
metalman
02-11-08, 10:56 PM
I'll give it a try. I'm also socially liberal and fiscally/ financially conservative.
I strongly believe in a balanced budget, definitely at the personal level and as much as possible at the government level. I've lived a life that any "Bush/ Reagan conservative" would be proud of, never any government handouts ever, worked my way thru college, grad school, and rest of my life, saved and invested, and expect to pay for my own old age.
And the truth is, I can't stand the "core conservative" philosophy of social Darwinism and every man for himself only.
We don't all start from a level playing field and sometimes it's very appropriate to give our fellow man "a hand-up". All the great religions of the world tell us this. We are our brothers keepers, to quote Christianity. In hunter-gatherer societies, where mankind has spent its entire existence except for last 10,000 years, sharing is THE strong value, not competition. It's how they survive in good times and especially bad times.
I've travelled a lot in third world countries, where government is weak and/ or corrupt. Traveled with non-profit organizations where I was able to meet the average (often very poor) citizen.
Imagine living in a country where there is no unemployment insurance, no social security system, no FHA-guaranteed mortgages, no student loan system, where even primary schools are not free (parents skimp to pay fees), no county hospitals, basic health care is unaffordable so you can't see a doctor when you break your leg (I saw that in Ghana) because there are no laws that say hospitals must treat even the indigent in emergency rooms, very poor infrastructure and roads because laws against corrupt politicians and businesses are not enforced. There the buyer must truly beware because there is so little regulation to thwart the predatory and unscrupulous. Also no Small Business Administration to assist small businesses, interest rates are usurious beyond what we can imagine, and you sink or swim, alone.
In many ways, some of these thirld world countries meet the definition of a "Pure Libertarian" society. And, believe me, they are not places where most people would choose to live.
In many of these societies, family, tribal , and ethnic ties are very strong. And much of the reason is that they are your only social safety net.
My opinion is that we need enough government regulation to keep the system as fair and honest as possible. Also to provide basic infrastructure, free education through high school, basic health care for all citizens, and a "helping hand" to society's less fortunate members.
I feel strongly about giving a "helping hand" from government. A child who is born to a single teenage mother, to drug addicts or alcoholics, to very poor parents who make minimum wage, etc. is going to have a much harder time making it into the professional classes than a child born to educated, professional, or wealthy people. There are alway a few exceptional children who do rise above this environment, but they are rare, that is why they are called exceptional. The journey is arduous, fought with peril (especially in teen years), and few mistakes are allowed.
that about covers my position. capitalism is short term unfair, long term fair. government needs to keep the fight fair, enforce the rules, protect property rights and the commons. public health is part of the commons, although folks need incentives to stop bad health behavior... taxing cigs and alcohol.
grapejelly
02-12-08, 07:11 AM
I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
1. Anarchy isn't the horror despite what we are reflexively trained in government run schools.
2. Government means compulsion and coercion, in Mises words, and I am against both.
3. Private contract means freedom.
4. Abolish government, taxes, everything. Handle defense and police through voluntary mutual protective associations.
5. There is no such thing really as a public good. That is a fiction. Even things like handling theft and murder, and defense of the borders, can easily be done through private contract.
My hero is Hans Hermann Hoppe.
Jim Nickerson
02-12-08, 09:29 AM
I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
1. Anarchy isn't the horror despite what we are reflexively trained in government run schools.
2. Government means compulsion and coercion, in Mises words, and I am against both.
3. Private contract means freedom.
4. Abolish government, taxes, everything. Handle defense and police through voluntary mutual protective associations.
5. There is no such thing really as a public good. That is a fiction. Even things like handling theft and murder, and defense of the borders, can easily be done through private contract.
My hero is Hans Hermann Hoppe.
Unless you are joking, in my opinion, you strike me as a nut.
grapejelly
02-12-08, 09:31 AM
Unless you are joking, in my opinion, you strike me as a nut.
no I am not joking.
yes I am a nut.
I'm at a loss for a pithy cateogory name, but I'd like to suggest we need a name for the Libertarian who was born on 3rd base and is critical of batters who can't hit the curve ball.
I'm at a loss for a pithy cateogory name, but I'd like to suggest we need a name for the Libertarian who was born on 3rd base and is critical of batters who can't hit the curve ball.
Beautiful! "Third Base Libertarian" has a ring to it.
I'm historically a conservative on fiscal matters, libertarian on social matters, and believe big government is the epitome of creeping bureaucracy.
I believe government should be afraid of its people, and things like gun control are ways to keep the revolutionary spirit dead although I personally am NOT a gun nut.
But I am increasingly being driven towards the socialist ethos by what Marx clearly identified as the inevitable downfall of capitalism: the greedy capitalists. The problem, of course, is that socialism itself also ultimately relies on leaders leading everyone toward the common good as opposed to the personal good.
I think the only solution is a highly fanatical closed order religion promoting removal of bad government. Kind of like terrorism of bad leaders...
Put in a nice listing of 'bad government' activities with a point system; upon attaining a certain rating, a 'jihad' is declared kind of thing.
rabot10
02-12-08, 02:54 PM
that about covers my position. capitalism is short term unfair, long term fair. government needs to keep the fight fair, enforce the rules, protect property rights and the commons. public health is part of the commons, although folks need incentives to stop bad health behavior... taxing cigs and alcohol.
What he said
EJ, that first one is what I would consider "anarchy."
I consider myself left libertarian, although I don't know if that's the right word for it. Maybe I should say that I'm more of a liberal who is a staunch civil rights advocate. I prefer common sense - but that is very rare (unfortunately). There are so many issues that occur on a societal and individual level I don't think that anything resembling anarchy is good at all. My liberal leanings are things like very pro-environment, anti-development (for example, they've been trying to put a big airport near mammoth mountain, ca, for over a decade, and this would be the worst thing for the environment), i'm very pro health-care, i believe that there can be some kind of national or at least statewide system, also as a "common sense" approach I believe the state should pay for an abortion for anyone who wants it as an unwanted baby will end up costing society much more than the procedure would cost, on the other hand i believe we should take every illegal immigrant and drop them off at the border of their home country, fine the crap out of any company that hires these people, and build a 100 foot wall between the US and Mexico. I believe in preventing illegal search and seizure, I believe that cops shouldn't have the right to trick you into a confession (5th amendment), free speech, gun ownership with restrictions (especially no guns to anyone with a violent crime history), I BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY and this is the one that is kind of tough, because gangs sometimes are violated of this right but they are doing bad stuff; on the other hand it absolutely galls me to no end that it's illegal to be on a LA city beach after it "closes" - how can you close a beach? It's a freakin beach! It's land. I believe in personal and civil rights.
Regarding money and markets. Such a tough thing. I believe in fair markets - but what, really, is "fair"? How do you achieve a fair market? Do we need a central bank? Should we have a bigger SEC, or no SEC at all? I definitely am against corporate welfare and earmarks and subsidies, but on the other hand certain subsidies are truly beneficial to society (like biotech research and agritech grants, to name 2).
This is why I end up feeling like i'm left-libertarian or a liberal-civil rightist. Leave me alone but make sure society functions well.
EJ, that first one is what I would consider "anarchy."
I consider myself left libertarian, although I don't know if that's the right word for it. Maybe I should say that I'm more of a liberal who is a staunch civil rights advocate. I prefer common sense - but that is very rare (unfortunately). There are so many issues that occur on a societal and individual level I don't think that anything resembling anarchy is good at all. My liberal leanings are things like very pro-environment, anti-development (for example, they've been trying to put a big airport near mammoth mountain, ca, for over a decade, and this would be the worst thing for the environment), i'm very pro health-care, i believe that there can be some kind of national or at least statewide system, also as a "common sense" approach I believe the state should pay for an abortion for anyone who wants it as an unwanted baby will end up costing society much more than the procedure would cost, on the other hand i believe we should take every illegal immigrant and drop them off at the border of their home country, fine the crap out of any company that hires these people, and build a 100 foot wall between the US and Mexico. I believe in preventing illegal search and seizure, I believe that cops shouldn't have the right to trick you into a confession (5th amendment), free speech, gun ownership with restrictions (especially no guns to anyone with a violent crime history), I BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY and this is the one that is kind of tough, because gangs sometimes are violated of this right but they are doing bad stuff; on the other hand it absolutely galls me to no end that it's illegal to be on a LA city beach after it "closes" - how can you close a beach? It's a freakin beach! It's land. I believe in personal and civil rights.
Regarding money and markets. Such a tough thing. I believe in fair markets - but what, really, is "fair"? How do you achieve a fair market? Do we need a central bank? Should we have a bigger SEC, or no SEC at all? I definitely am against corporate welfare and earmarks and subsidies, but on the other hand certain subsidies are truly beneficial to society (like biotech research and agritech grants, to name 2).
This is why I end up feeling like i'm left-libertarian or a liberal-civil rightist. Leave me alone but make sure society functions well.
Simple enough for me: I want gov't out of my personal life but all over my public life. If next to no government is anyone's ideal, here's your libertarian dream world: the Citarum river in Indonesia. You're welcomed to move there. Me: I'll stay and suffer a bit of government, that you.
http://i25.tinypic.com/23su3h1.jpg
http://i26.tinypic.com/5x7mvb.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/3305gzt.jpg
At least the river's not on fire, Ann. We had our own experiment in hands-off government and environmental pollution here. Didn't turn out so well, really.
jimmygu3
02-13-08, 11:00 AM
...i believe we should take every illegal immigrant and drop them off at the border of their home country, fine the crap out of any company that hires these people, and build a 100 foot wall between the US and Mexico.
DemonD,
The second step of your plan would be the only one really necessary: fine the crap out of any company or individual that hires illegal workers. If there's no opportunity for work, the illegals will go home and won't come back without a work visa. The 100 ft wall is like putting a fence around your dinner table to keep the dog away, but feeding him when he gets through. If there's no possibility of reward on the other side, there's no need for an extensive (and expensive) barrier.
The reason none of this has happened is because the don't-ask-don't tell, blame-Mexicans-for-our-problems status quo provides cheap labor that keeps costs & inflation down, and corporate profits up. We need a certain number of these people in our workforce. The idea of guest workers and a path to citizenship makes a lot of sense to me.
Jimmy
I understand the sentiment, but in reality the illegal immigrants benefit the status quo in the US.
For every instance of someone 'illegal' sucking up school or hospital resources, there are dozens of jobs which I don't want to do - and evidently most other Americans as well.
Another reason? Government policies.
the People's Republic of San Francisco just passed a law last year forcing all companies with 20 or more employees to pay $1.17/hour (20-99) or $1.76/hour (100+) in health care.
Unsurprisingly, a ton of medium sized businesses have left town.
The remaining large restaurants, etc I'm sure are busy with the shady side now if they weren't before.
Simply stated I'd like a government that offers all the protection of it powers in defense of our natural, yet collectively acknowledged, individual rights and liberties (as enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- although it and our Constitution could use an update!), while also using it vast powers to oversee, check, and penalize any and all corruption, malfeasance, abuse within our public/civic realm by corporate and financial interests, and especially where these private interests interfere in, detract from, and subjugate government from fulfilling protection of the first order.
Ideally a government of the people, for the people and by the people.
Incorporated interests are inherently unnatural, unfair, and greedy, and ever since we've allowed for incorporation charters to be inextinguishable (punishment by abolition, due to acts against the common good), as well the misbegotten right of "personhood" to stand, we now have a government of corporate/financial interests, for corporate/financial interests, and by corporate/financial interests.
And we certainly have the results to show for it.
grapejelly
02-13-08, 02:00 PM
Fining the crap out of people isn't Libertarian.
Libertarian means *not* using government coercion and compulsion.
And it's nonsensical to call for a government to use "its vast powers". That is authoritarianism.
Democracy is not Libertarian. It goes hand in hand with dictatorship and basically being forced to give up your assets in support of things you don't believe in. If you did believe in them, you would support them voluntarily but you don't.
I am rather surprised that even the super smart people here don't understand that the free market really works. People cannot imagine how we ever could get by without government meddling in everyone's business. It reflects an underlying lack of trust in free markets.
jimmygu3
02-13-08, 03:49 PM
that about covers my position. capitalism is short term unfair, long term fair. government needs to keep the fight fair, enforce the rules, protect property rights and the commons. public health is part of the commons, although folks need incentives to stop bad health behavior... taxing cigs and alcohol.
This is a very enlightening thread. Who knew that Metalman has a heart and Grapejelly is a sho-nuf anarchist. Just when you think you know someone....
I don't claim to be a libertarian, but I largely agree with what WorldTraveler and Metalman said, and what I have read EJ saying in various posts. Goverment needs to do the big things, like building infrastructure and providing security and defense. It also needs to set clear rules and regulations for corporations, including putting a monetary price on activities that harm others, pollute the environment, or compromise our national goals or security, and then let the market sort out the best way to work within that framework.
Many libertarians I know personally have an unwavering faith in free markets. Regulation, taxes, and government is always bad, deregulation and privatization is always good. I consider myself more of a realist than these people. Pure, unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies and corruption. Strong, smart government is needed to keep the game fair and foster competition.
Another thing I hear libertarians doing (I think this comes from the talk radio guys) is lumping homeless people and welfare moms in with the working poor, claiming that they're all leeches on the government teat. Fact is, millions of people in the US work their butts off making very little money, and if government programs like food stamps make their life a little easier, I think that's wonderful. It costs very little in the grand scheme of things.
I believe that nobody should get a handout for doing nothing. If you're a single mom with 4 kids, you shouldn't get a welfare check unless you are working full time like the rest of us. We should provide child care services to help make this possible. We'll even help you find a job. If you're collecting an unemployment check, you need to spend 8 hours a day looking for work, or taking classes that provide you with the skills to get a job. My libertarian friends would say that these ideas are liberal, proposing even more government programs, but I see it more as a 'tough love' approach that helps those who are trying to help themselves.
I believe in sound monetary policy and a balanced budget. This means taxing enough to cover spending, and progressive taxes are necessary. As Warren Buffett said, he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, because of capped payroll taxes, low capital gains tax rates, and tax shelters available only to the wealthy. A national sales tax or flat tax would be horribly regressive and would likely be riddled with loopholes (I know, the current system is, too). No matter how you play the shell game of the tax code, the same number of dollars need to come in. With a flat tax or sales tax more would come from the poor and less from the rich and I think that's wrong.
I think Social Security is a good program. The retirement age should be adjusted upward to ensure it is solvent in the future. For me, SS is a very small, low risk part of my retirement plan. If I screw everything up, it's a safety net to help me afford basic sustenance in my golden years. Because of that, I am more comfortable taking risks in my investments and in my career. I think this benefits our society and economy as a whole.
I think the government has no business telling you what you can and can't do in your personal life, provided that you are not harming others. I believe strongly in protecting the rights of minorities, and any discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, etc., can not be tolerated.
The idea of life with no government is a grim one, and I hope few share GJ's views. I was recently in a bicycling accident and some passersby called government-run 911 for me. The ambulance was there in 2 minutes and the paramedics immediately began giving me urgent care. If this had been in GJ's Mad Max world, I suppose I would have called around to all the private ambulance companies, negotiated a price and paid them on the spot with junk silver or something before they would have helped. Oh, and nobody robbed me blind or kidnapped or sold me into slavery because we have a strong government police force and judicial system...
OK, enough.
Jimmy
Jimmy,
So what do you call the million or so families levered into homes they should never even have tried to afford?
And who are now going to be paying for the next 30 years with every last skinny nickel they make - right into the teeth of a house price depreciation storm?
True, there weren't any trans-Atlantic rides in crowded leaky ships, but these people have officially been cemented into a lower class life.
In fact, if the behavior manifesting in the urban 'low income' housing projects also manifests in the nearby suburban mortgage slave areas, life could be worse in a number of respects: a slave at least represented a capital asset. Sure, there were lots of abuses, but ultimately the slave was needed for production.
In the modern version, the slaves have to find their own food and shelter...and work.
World Traveler
02-13-08, 06:20 PM
Jimmygu3,
A good position paper. Sounds like the kind of country that would be a great place to live!
WT
grapejelly
02-13-08, 08:01 PM
This is a very enlightening thread. Who knew that Metalman has a heart and Grapejelly is a sho-nuf anarchist. Just when you think you know someone....
I don't claim to be a libertarian, but I largely agree with what WorldTraveler and Metalman said, and what I have read EJ saying in various posts. Goverment needs to do the big things, like building infrastructure and providing security and defense. It also needs to set clear rules and regulations for corporations, including putting a monetary price on activities that harm others, pollute the environment, or compromise our national goals or security, and then let the market sort out the best way to work within that framework.
Many libertarians I know personally have an unwavering faith in free markets. Regulation, taxes, and government is always bad, deregulation and privatization is always good. I consider myself more of a realist than these people. Pure, unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies and corruption. Strong, smart government is needed to keep the game fair and foster competition.
Capitalism can't possibly lead to monopolies. Competition will always take place unless government favors one group over another.
Corruption -- that is a government problem. It is how people use the power of government to coerce and compel people, force them to do things they don't want to do.
Another thing I hear libertarians doing (I think this comes from the talk radio guys) is lumping homeless people and welfare moms in with the working poor, claiming that they're all leeches on the government teat. Fact is, millions of people in the US work their butts off making very little money, and if government programs like food stamps make their life a little easier, I think that's wonderful. It costs very little in the grand scheme of things.
The "talk radio guys" -- none of them I've ever heard is a Libertarian. They are neocons, often, but Libertarians? No.
If people work their butts off in the US and are poor, it is quite likely due to what the government has done to our money. The money that is ours is stolen from us and then used to fight wars in Iraq, and threaten every country in the world with US hegemony.
Let that money stay where it belongs, in each of our pockets, and there would be plenty for even the poorest person here.
I believe that nobody should get a handout for doing nothing. If you're a single mom with 4 kids, you shouldn't get a welfare check unless you are working full time like the rest of us.
If you are working full time, you will hopefully be earning a paycheck from an employer.
We should provide child care services to help make this possible. We'll even help you find a job. If you're collecting an unemployment check, you need to spend 8 hours a day looking for work, or taking classes that provide you with the skills to get a job. My libertarian friends would say that these ideas are liberal, proposing even more government programs, but I see it more as a 'tough love' approach that helps those who are trying to help themselves.
Just remove welfare completely. Remove warfare completely. Let us keep our money. There will be plenty of money for people to be comfortable and work and raise a family.
Again, I think you are confused between today's big government "conservatives" and a libertarian, freedom-loving force-hating point of view.
I believe in sound monetary policy and a balanced budget. This means taxing enough to cover spending, and progressive taxes are necessary.
No they aren't. Progressive taxes are grossly unfair. All taxes are theft.
As Warren Buffett said, he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, because of capped payroll taxes, low capital gains tax rates, and tax shelters available only to the wealthy.
It's easy for Warren Buffett to believe this. Taxes in the US are plenty high.
A national sales tax or flat tax would be horribly regressive and would likely be riddled with loopholes (I know, the current system is, too). No matter how you play the shell game of the tax code, the same number of dollars need to come in. With a flat tax or sales tax more would come from the poor and less from the rich and I think that's wrong.
There shouldn't be any taxes. Let voluntary associations take care of things. Enough "public goods" and enough taxation.
I think Social Security is a good program. The retirement age should be adjusted upward to ensure it is solvent in the future. For me, SS is a very small, low risk part of my retirement plan. If I screw everything up, it's a safety net to help me afford basic sustenance in my golden years. Because of that, I am more comfortable taking risks in my investments and in my career. I think this benefits our society and economy as a whole.
Nothing but a huge tax with unlimited promises for the future made by people who are caretakers of the Leviathan. There couldn't be a worse form of taxes than a fake lie like "social security".
I think the government has no business telling you what you can and can't do in your personal life, provided that you are not harming others. I believe strongly in protecting the rights of minorities, and any discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, etc., can not be tolerated.
You are contradicting yourself. If the government can't tell me what to do, then how can it tell me I have to hire or associate with or rent to certain people or or other? That seems mighty intolerant.
The idea of life with no government is a grim one, and I hope few share GJ's views. I was recently in a bicycling accident and some passersby called government-run 911 for me. The ambulance was there in 2 minutes and the paramedics immediately began giving me urgent care. If this had been in GJ's Mad Max world, I suppose I would have called around to all the private ambulance companies, negotiated a price and paid them on the spot with junk silver or something before they would have helped. Oh, and nobody robbed me blind or kidnapped or sold me into slavery because we have a strong government police force and judicial system...
OK, enough.
Jimmy
That's ridiculous. People are very friendly and helpful becuase that is their nature. In a Libertarian world there would be numerous ways of getting help including private charity if you couldn't afford care. The strong government police force has *already* turned you into a slave, Jimmy. You are paying almost half your income against your will. At least, I'll speak for myself, I am paying this against my will. Isn't that the very definition of a slave?
jimmygu3
02-13-08, 10:30 PM
GJ, rather than go back and forth, I suggest we agree to disagree about our philosophical differences.
One comment to both GJ and C1ue: I know I threw out the slavery reference first, but I think we should all shy away from equating 400 years of Africans treated as sub-humans, whipped, raped and killed at the whim of white men, with people who are stuck with crappy mortgages or taxes they don't like. Debtors can turn their keys over to the bank and/or declare bankruptcy. They can vote for lawmakers with tax policies they favor. My mother-in-law is not Hitler and debt and taxes are not slavery.
Jimmy
I understand the sentiment, but in reality the illegal immigrants benefit the status quo in the US.
For every instance of someone 'illegal' sucking up school or hospital resources, there are dozens of jobs which I don't want to do - and evidently most other Americans as well.
Another reason? Government policies.
the People's Republic of San Francisco just passed a law last year forcing all companies with 20 or more employees to pay $1.17/hour (20-99) or $1.76/hour (100+) in health care.
Unsurprisingly, a ton of medium sized businesses have left town.
The remaining large restaurants, etc I'm sure are busy with the shady side now if they weren't before.
The status quo sucks and has been sucking for many middle and lower middle class people who over the past 30 years have had downward mobility.
As far as the resource drain versus additional productivity, I reference you to this:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html
Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.
Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
Do a google search on "illegal immigrant costs."
For every instance of someone 'illegal' sucking up school or hospital resources, there are dozens of jobs which I don't want to do - and evidently most other Americans as well.
Now, my friend, you either know how to push my buttons, or you are unwittingly a believer in immigrant propaganda. Here's how to prove you are wrong:
Step 1: Get cable or Satellite TV
Step 2: Watch "Dirty Jobs" (a TV show that has documented well over 100 jobs that are dirty, nasty, disgusting, dangerous, hard labor, all done by americans, many white americans, many much more difficult than orange or strawberry picking)
Step 3: Realize that Americans will fill any job, no matter how menial or nasty, but only for the the right pay.
The right pay is key. Pay someone 20 bucks an hour with some benefits, I bet you could fill up orange groves with american citizens. But why pay 20/hour when you can pay someone 5 bucks an hour with no health care (why give them health care when they can go to the ER, give no SSN, and never pay and stick the state with the bill).
Your insinuation is frankly disturbing to me - that you believe the nonsense that comes out of the lefty immigrant mongrels and the rightist "free market" bastard republicans who hire them as gardeners. Americans have and continue to do every job there is, period. What they demand however is a fair wage. And the bottom line is that illegal immigration serves the agri industry in the same way that indonesia, taiwan, china, and the philippenes serves the garment, tech, car, furniture etc. industries, that is it insources cheap labor to keep costs down from paying fair wages to american citizens.
Regarding San Francisco, on that I will agree with you. That is not the first law that they have passed that has had negative ramifications. This is not the same as bringing penalties to companies who hire illegals. Hell, SF being so liberal I wouldn't be surprised if they give every illegal an ounce of weed for coming there.
Finally, your first line says "in reality the illegal immigrants benefit the status quo in the US." I disagree. It benefits the rich to the detriment of the middle and lower middle classes, and has been a contributing factor to decreased standards of living for the past 20 years or so. I would not say that it is the only factor, nor would i say that it is even a major factor, but it certainly is a significant factor.
Jimmy: regarding fining companies as the only deterrent. I think that should be a major deterrent, but you won't be able to stop it completely. A multifaceted strategy is needed, one being a secure border. The path to citizenship - horrible idea. Reagan did that in the 1980s. Amnesty for everyone. 20 years later we've got a whole new crop of illegals, because the illegals who became legal suddenly became americans who wanted, guess what? A fair wage. Always remember the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you keep giving incentives for illegals to come and stay here, more will come.
Maybe you guys will change your mind if some Juan Rodriguez steals your social security number and starts using it. Don't think it can happen?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22562690/
jimmygu3
02-14-08, 09:23 AM
Jimmy: regarding fining companies as the only deterrent. I think that should be a major deterrent, but you won't be able to stop it completely. A multifaceted strategy is needed, one being a secure border.
A secure border is a good idea, a 100 foot tall wall is not. Why would anyone spend 3 days walking through the desert to get to a place where there are no jobs available? If they would do that, wouldn't they also find a way over, under, around or through a massively expensive wall?
The path to citizenship - horrible idea. Reagan did that in the 1980s. Amnesty for everyone. 20 years later we've got a whole new crop of illegals, because the illegals who became legal suddenly became americans who wanted, guess what? A fair wage. Always remember the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you keep giving incentives for illegals to come and stay here, more will come.
Again, ENFORCING THE LAW would prevent future illegal immigrants from being lured here. Reagan gave amnesty but didn't punish companies that hired illegals. And I don't think a fair wage for immigrants is an 'unintended consequence'.
Capitalism can't possibly lead to monopolies. Competition will always take place unless government favors one group over another.
Do you really think this is so? Why is it impossible for someone in a specific business with reasonable barriers to entry - decide to buy out all of his competition then jack up rates? What would stop him?
For that matter, you're apparently also advocating removal of patent protection. I do believe the present patent system is screwy, but Bill Gates and Co wouldn't be what they are without patent protection.
Then there are those businesses which fundamentally aggregate control - because higher market share = higher pricing: advertising, movie production, television, etc etc.
Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
It is true there are costs associated with illegals being present in the US, but I think where you and I diverge is that I believe it is impossible to keep all the illegals out.
For every cost, there is a benefit: for example Medicaid: In LA there are programs where for $9/hour, someone can come by a senior's home 3 days a week for 4 hours to provide basic non-medical services.
No one would ever do this except that doing so for a certain amount of time entitles the worker to Social Security benefits (upon retirement). So there is a cost there, but someone is also enjoying a benefit.
As for prison and court systems - well - if they're already criminals, I'm not sure how making existence in the US more illegal would help reduce costs. The Great Wall of Mexico idea, for example, would 'only' cost $2B, but what would be the cost of the increased police/INS/border patrol?
I'm not so sure we'd end up saving anything.
As for the orange groves - the immigrants there were getting paid around $4/hour without benefits in 2002 (last time I inquired).
$20/hour with benefits would increase labor costs around 5x.
According to this study:
http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2159.html
For a $1.10/lb farmer price received for blueberries, labor represents only $0.08/lb assuming a $6/hour rate.
Net on this $1.10 is only $0.31 and doesn't include production costs.
An increase of labor from $6 net to $24 net would mean costs jump to $0.32, but more importantly would eat up 75% of pre-production net.
If the cost were passed through straight, the farmer price received would only increase $1.34, a mere 21.8% jump.
But the economics of the situation means a probable 40% jump in actual prices; my own experience with the wholesale/distributor/retailer chain is that no one ever eats the costs from down the line.
So, 40% greater fruit costs would replace the 'illegal' pickers with $20/hr legals.
But, picking is seasonal. Secondly, what about the farms that continue to use illegals? The economics is that the $0.24 difference can be directly pocketed by the farmer or used to gain better market positioning.
Again, there are reasons besides pure cost for why illegals are used.
clue: what if you take all those cost increases, but then the associated hit to health care and other social services would go down. I'm trying to remember if you live in the SW united states; if you do, you are likely familiar with illegals filling county hospitals and clinics to the brim. And I'm sure competition at some level would keep food prices down, as well as increased use of technology. The cotton business didn't die off after the civil war, rather a combination of technology and new business practice has kept it going.
I'm not sure what your point is with the care providers doing non-medical in home service is.
All I know is that I've filled out an I-9 for every single job I've ever had.
And as for the courts and legal system, the punishment is simple, you put their picture, dna, and prints in the system, take them to their home country, and throw them on the ground like a rabblerouser who got too drunk at a bar.
I agree I don't think we can keep illegals out, but I believe in very strong deterrents every step of the way. As liberal as I see myself, I'm about as right-wing nutso on this as anyone else out there, i say round them up, put them on a bus, kick them in the ass and tell them don't let the door hit them on the ass on their way out, and while we're at it, we should also change the constitution so these bastards who plop a kid down on american soil, the kid does not get automatic US citizenship.
I think one of the best things the federal goverment can do is to either support or at the very least stay out of the way of cities and states who wish to enforce immigration laws. As it stands now the way I see it the politicians have been bought up by the agribusinesses and other industries that utilize illegal immigrant labor and there is a de facto support of illegal immigration as an unofficial "legal" way to outsource labor by insourcing illegals.
and clue, what do you say to all the construction jobs that have gone to illegals vs. american citizens? they still get paid fairly well (although they do get the shaft and get no pay sometimes). Many companies have utilized immigrant labor to undercut pricing, in fact some contracting companies have complained to municipalities about this, of course it all falls on deaf ears.
grapejelly
02-15-08, 06:31 AM
if you look at any monopoly, you will see that eventually it collapses because of two issues.
One, is that the monopoly producer becomes inefficient. Their costs rise. Second, technology moves along and makes the monopoly product less important.
Eventually, consumers find substitutes.
Monopoly does not exist for very long in the real world. It is a construct that is created by people who want greater government coercion and control.
In reality, monopolies, where they exist, are either beneficial as long as they last (Microsoft), or are created from government favoritism (railroads, utilities, etc.) in the first place.
As far as immigration control, I am against any requirement to get government permission to work. A Libertarian is for freedom and liberty. Requiring an I-9 or other government permission to work is as anti freedom and liberty as you can get.
The real issue with illegal immigration is that public welfare benefits are offered to people who are illegally in a country. Take away the public welfare benefits and you have no more problem.
I am against all forms of welfare, including that given to individuals and that given to companies such as banks and defense contractors. I think a Libertarian who is pro-freedom and pro-liberty, by definition, is against this stuff.
There used to be a fine network of private charities in this country. Starting with the family unit itself, people were taking care of other people through private voluntary contract.
Government expansion into every part of our lives meant the dismantling of this great system. It's time to reverse this drain of private solutions and get government out of our lives.
When people fall on hard times, let them work with a network of private charitable hospitals and shelters and so forth. If we eliminate taxes (theft) then people will gladly donate a percentage of their income and their time to worthy charities. We would end the dependence upon Big Government and everyone especially the poor would be BETTER off.
jimmygu3
02-15-08, 10:59 AM
As it stands now the way I see it the politicians have been bought up by the agribusinesses and other industries that utilize illegal immigrant labor and there is a de facto support of illegal immigration as an unofficial "legal" way to outsource labor by insourcing illegals.
That's my big complaint about this whole debate. It has been a unofficial "legal" situation for years- "don't-ask-don't-tell". The blame for this falls not just on the desparate individuals looking for work and a better life for their families. The companies who hire them, the political and judicial system that turns a blind eye, and every one of us who enjoys low priced food and manual-labor-intensive services without questioning the source of this labor, all share culpability for the current dysfunctional situation.
And as for the courts and legal system, the punishment is simple, you put their picture, dna, and prints in the system, take them to their home country, and throw them on the ground like a rabblerouser who got too drunk at a bar.
...i say round them up, put them on a bus, kick them in the ass and tell them don't let the door hit them on the ass on their way out, and while we're at it, we should also change the constitution so these bastards who plop a kid down on american soil, the kid does not get automatic US citizenship.
Your angry tone toward the workers and not the companies who hire them illustrates my previous point.
It would be relatively easy to give 30 days notice to all illegal immigrants and their employers. After that time, companies found in violation would be fined $10,000 per offense and the illegal worker deported, fingerprinted, etc. and denied future possibility of legal immigration. All those returning home during the grace period would be allowed to go through legal channels to properly immigrate as conditions permit. If you don't have a green card, you can't work. If you hire someone, you need to make a copy of their driver's license and/or green card to keep on file to show INS inspectors. None of this 'well, they gave me a social security number' crap.
What's so difficult about that? Well, it will hurt US agribusiness, restaurants, construction and other unskilled labor industries hard. My hunch is that when people realize that the loss of illegal workers hits them in the pocketbook, they will be more amenable to guest worker programs or increased legal immigration.
And I'm sure competition at some level would keep food prices down, as well as increased use of technology. The cotton business didn't die off after the civil war, rather a combination of technology and new business practice has kept it going.
Competition would keep prices down. My grocery store already gets most of their berries from south of the border, they would simply get ALL their berries from there. Hmmm, Chilean workers making $.24 an hour or Americans making $25- wonder who's going to outcompete the other?
Consider a fruit business that has 5 executives, 10 middle managers/supervisors, 25 skilled American workers and 50 illegal unskilled laborers. Replacing the 50 illegals with Americans making 5 times as much would put them out of business, outcompeted by foreign farms. Perhaps the executives and some of the managers and workers could go into the importation business, but many farms would go under, and many American jobs would be lost. This would put downward pressure on wages, and the groves that did survive could hire the formerly mid-tier skilled workers as orange pickers at Wal-Mart-style wages.
But before this was allowed to play out, agribusiness would demand their cheap latino workforce back as guest workers, gladly paying them minimum wage, and keeping the Americans in their mid-tier jobs.
I'm trying to remember if you live in the SW united states; if you do, you are likely familiar with illegals filling county hospitals and clinics to the brim.
I've lived in Texas for 5 years, and in CA for 20 wrapped around my ex-CA activities.
I've had first hand experience with these illegals; frankly I think those who come to the US to work in the fields are hard working, honest, and well meaning individuals. They bust their butts to send money home and are too 'old country' proud to take handouts from anyone.
On the other hand, there are plenty of those who are illegal and legal who consume lots of resources:
The Section 8 folk: My mother has had a house in a not so nice part of town where a family of Hmong - refugees from the Vietnam war - have been living subsidized for 15 years. I also know of a number of Jewish families in San Francisco who have brought relatives from overseas as 'political refugees', then rent out houses on Section 8 to neighbors relatives in exchange for said neighbors doing the same.
Chinese are no different: how many naturalized foreigners have brought in their parents - paid a bit of social security - then starting collecting benefits as these parents are already of retirement age.
Then there are the 2nd generation: the first generation Hmong were self-contained, industrially primitive folk. Their kids, on the other hand, often turned out into wild animals. Something about their parents not understanding anything of modern American society and their kids - being able to speak English - getting control of family finances at the age of 14 or even younger.
Just pointing out that it is probably a fallacy to label all illegals in the same bucket.
And I'm sure competition at some level would keep food prices down, as well as increased use of technology.
Why would technology keep food prices down? Or are you a believer in the vat food? In this era of rising petroleum prices and declining food surpluses, labor is the last major component. Technology is not - not until fusion reactors can make more power than they consume.
The cotton business didn't die off after the civil war, rather a combination of technology and new business practice has kept it going.
Yes, but you're missing the point: the Civil War was as much about labor systems as politics: the North used machines and factories, the South used slaves. The mechanical reaper spelled the end of the South - no longer was farming as dependent on human labor during the harvest as had been the case for thousands of years. So unsurprisingly all those newly unemployed harvest workers could be deployed by the Union as soldiers while the South could hardly arm their workers. It is somewhat poetic as the cotton gin is the machine which caused the rise of slave labor as a profitable institution.
I'm not sure what your point is with the care providers doing non-medical in home service is.
They're doing a job which literally no one else would do. Admittedly, they do a poor job in this context, but they are providing a service - one which I would (am) charging 2.5x for.
As liberal as I see myself, I'm about as right-wing nutso on this as anyone else out there, i say round them up, put them on a bus, kick them in the ass and tell them don't let the door hit them on the ass on their way out, and while we're at it, we should also change the constitution so these bastards who plop a kid down on american soil, the kid does not get automatic US citizenship.
What happened to "send me your poor, your huddled masses"?
Anyhow, what I'm merely pointing out is that increased enforcement has monetary and societal costs as well. It is not clear to me that this cost is less than the cost presently being paid out via medical, welfare, and other form of illegal immigrant service-use.
and clue, what do you say to all the construction jobs that have gone to illegals vs. american citizens?
I'd say that all in all, it was a wash. The American citizens wanted to be the mortgage bankers, loan officers and real estate agents.
Sure, the illegals were paid less. They also didn't get unemployment, nor health insurance, nor disability, and definitely no job security.
The few I know who were doing construction all left those jobs and are now driving trucks, repairing home appliances, etc.
True illegals don't want government assistance - it highlights their presence to the authorities. Gold-diggers, on the other hand, are different.
I've lived in Texas for 5 years, and in CA for 20 wrapped around my ex-CA activities.
I've had first hand experience with these illegals; frankly I think those who come to the US to work in the fields are hard working, honest, and well meaning individuals. They bust their butts to send money home and are too 'old country' proud to take handouts from anyone.
Hard-working - for the most part yes.
Well-meaning - if by well meaning you mean looking out for themselves and their family to the damnation of their community, city, state, country, and society, then sure.
Honest - absolutely not. Illegals use either fake or stolen SSN's all the time. They made up a lot of the people who used liar loans. They could have emigrated legally (yes, we still do have legal immigration channels, even if the rules can be bent like your Jews in San Fran example). Illegals are the biggest consumer without paying in for medical care. This is not to mention the very large and very real gangs and criminal networks that illegals from various central american countries have up and running. Have you ever hung out with illegals? Worked with them on a daily basis? Have you ever been with groups of mexicans that know virtually no English?
I have. I feel you completely mis-judge their sense of entitlement. Most people on this planet have huge senses of entitlement, and mexican illegals have just as much if not more as the average poor american.
The Section 8 folk: My mother has had a house in a not so nice part of town where a family of Hmong - refugees from the Vietnam war - have been living subsidized for 15 years.
And how many vietnamese are just getting off the boat now yearly here in the US?
Just pointing out that it is probably a fallacy to label all illegals in the same bucket.
Did I do that?
Why would technology keep food prices down?...
...The mechanical reaper
Technology tends to improve production of the jobs that are laborious. We have wheat harvesters. There are a few companies out there exploring mechanical harvesters for fruit trees. I see no reason why robots and machines wouldn't be able to eventually replace a lot of the farm labor in the future - since historically they have done that. But if it's cheaper to use labor, then there wouldn't be an incentive to progress technologically, would there?
Regarding caretakers:
They're doing a job which literally no one else would do. Admittedly, they do a poor job in this context, but they are providing a service - one which I would (am) charging 2.5x for.
My ex-girlfriend, 100% American born and raised, did just this job (quit after 6 months due to the stress of the client). In my job, I meet plenty of people who have caretakers. Sometimes, the caretakers are in their 70's - they are friends of the patient, and they help them out with daily stuff and get paid for it. Yes, indeed, many caretakers are illegals, or at least immigrants; many times i see philippino caretakers. But to say no one else would do that is a false statement.
What happened to "send me your poor, your huddled masses"? Last time I checked, ellis island wasn't processing immigrants. Nice slogan for a statue though. As a libertarian, I believe that citizens of my country come first, that we can't help anyone if we can't help ourselves. Not to be isolationist, mind you, just to protect our own back yards.
I'd say that all in all, it was a wash. The American citizens wanted to be the mortgage bankers, loan officers and real estate agents.
On this we can agree: Americans definitely have a huge sense of individual entitlement. :)
Sure, the illegals were paid less. They also didn't get unemployment, nor health insurance, nor disability, and definitely no job security.
Yes, no, no, no, yes.
Yes- illegals were paid less.
No - many have gotten unemployment
No - many do get health insurance, oftentimes from worker's comp, or else they just go to a hospital and get health care for free
No - There's a reason many lawyers "se habla español."
Yes - true, no job security.
Let me reiterate something: I have worked, on a day to day basis, with many immigrants (legal and illegal), this is recently. This is all from my own eyeballs. Illegals, mexicans included, know how to game the system and ride it for all it's worth just as much as anyone.
True illegals don't want government assistance - it highlights their presence to the authorities. Gold-diggers, on the other hand, are different.
This just has not been my experience. While many illegals are indeed hard working, I've never seen an illegal refuse government assistance. The reason an illegal doesn't want assistance is more out of fear, fear of being reported, or fear of, for example going to a doctor, many don't go to doctors and dentists because of bad experiences in their home countries. (Doctors? I don't trust those doctors.)
I'll agree to disagree with you clue, I feel like I've made my point, no need to rehash it further after this.
BiscayneSunrise
02-18-08, 02:04 PM
Many libertarians I know personally have an unwavering faith in free markets. Regulation, taxes, and government is always bad, deregulation and privatization is always good. I consider myself more of a realist than these people. Pure, unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies and corruption. Strong, smart government is needed to keep the game fair and foster competition.
Jimmy
Republicans also like to say that government shouldn't pick the winners and that markets know best. The problem with markets is that they only do what is best for markets and they care nothing for the task of leading a global power.
Imagine this phone conversation some 20 years in the future: Hello Boeing? This is Col. Jones, Air Force procurement. We're having a little trouble with the Chinese, Could you speed up delivery of some more F-22's?
Boeing: Of course, Colonel, let me transfer you to the plant manager in Shanghai.
At some point, statesmen have to step in and guide a rational industrial policy.
I think we can agree to disagree.
I have worked with illegals on a day to day basis; I employed a number of them for distributing real estate flyers for my mother.
This was more than 10 years ago; these people were fruit pickers/vegetable harvesters in the appropriate season.
Some of these jobs are now mechanized because of GM - the fruit varieties these days are much harder (firmer) than before but look ripe.
It is possible things have changed.
grapejelly
02-20-08, 03:31 PM
Libertarianism is I think all about principles. The principle of freedom and liberty. That means no government except for a few things.
We are all brought up in government schools to believe that government is necessary and that nothing would happen to make life "fair" if it weren't for government.
But if you stick to principles, you can see that nobody has a right to steal what you have. Nobody has a right to force you to do something you don't want to do.
You want to pay people not to work? Fine. Pay them but don't hold a gun to my head and make me pay for your project.
You want to pay people a "fair" wage? Fine. You pay them but don't force me to.
You want "universal health care" or a "safety net". Fine. I opt out. Don't force me at the point of a gun to go along with your program.
Oh, but you say, our health program is a "public good" and there is no way for me to opt out.
That is because you designed it that way. You made it a public good by forcing me to pay for it in the first place. Don't force me to pay and I won't play.
That's Libertarianism.
I'm a libertarian simply because our country can't afford all the responsibilities it currently has and its citizenry wants. If the citizenry believes the government should finance more, than we need to get to work on our country being Balkanized so that people can pick and choose which statelet they want to be in. I also am a fiscal libertarian because I believe it lessens graft and corruption, which means that the money that government does have if they have less is spent better and wiser.
I'm generally conservative on social issues, but I do not believe you can force morals on others, you can only show morals to people and it is up to those people if they accept them or not. So for instance I think abortion is wrong but I am a realist on the issue and just think it's here to stay, so all rhetoric on the issue from both sides is meaningless.
I'm very pro-military due to upbringing and I have more respect for military leadership than government leadership, which I guess is a hard position for most libertarians to accept. However, all libertarians should know that there is nothing more anti-government than the military (I mean that in an entirely good way).
Simple enough for me: I want gov't out of my personal life but all over my public life. If next to no government is anyone's ideal, here's your libertarian dream world: the Citarum river in Indonesia. You're welcomed to move there. Me: I'll stay and suffer a bit of government, that you.
http://i29.tinypic.com/3305gzt.jpg
The tragedy of the commons writ large...
jimmygu3
02-21-08, 10:11 AM
Libertarianism is I think all about principles. The principle of freedom and liberty. That means no government except for a few things.
We are all brought up in government schools to believe that government is necessary and that nothing would happen to make life "fair" if it weren't for government.
But if you stick to principles, you can see that nobody has a right to steal what you have. Nobody has a right to force you to do something you don't want to do.
You want to pay people not to work? Fine. Pay them but don't hold a gun to my head and make me pay for your project.
You want to pay people a "fair" wage? Fine. You pay them but don't force me to.
You want "universal health care" or a "safety net". Fine. I opt out. Don't force me at the point of a gun to go along with your program.
Oh, but you say, our health program is a "public good" and there is no way for me to opt out.
That is because you designed it that way. You made it a public good by forcing me to pay for it in the first place. Don't force me to pay and I won't play.
That's Libertarianism.
GJ,
A number of members have pointed to countries where these policies (or lack thereof) have had disastrous results. Can you point to some that are doing well under your brand of Libertarianism?
Jimmy
grapejelly
02-21-08, 02:31 PM
GJ,
A number of members have pointed to countries where these policies (or lack thereof) have had disastrous results. Can you point to some that are doing well under your brand of Libertarianism?
Jimmy
What county has followed these policies? Name one please.
jimmygu3
02-21-08, 03:27 PM
What county has followed these policies? Name one please.
As WT said, third world countries. As Ann said, Indonesia. I'll add Sudan. Pretty damn close to anarchy. Anarcho-tarian Spin: The Janjaweed are simply excercising their freedom. The other ethnic groups are unable to defend themselves because they made poor choices. The invisible hand of the market has a machete. :eek:
grapejelly
02-21-08, 03:36 PM
As WT said, third world countries. As Ann said, Indonesia. I'll add Sudan. Pretty damn close to anarchy. Anarcho-tarian Spin: The Janjaweed are simply excercising their freedom. The other ethnic groups are unable to defend themselves because they made poor choices. The invisible hand of the market has a machete. :eek:
No this is nothing to do with what I am talking about. Sudan and Indonesia have groups of people who routinely use deadly force against others. That is as far from Libertarian as you can get.
Closer to what I am talking about in some ways would be the US in the 19th century ex-Lincolns' administration, Hongkong and Singapore more recently in some ways. Note that economic freedom and low taxation contributed to all three miracles of growth and do not necessarily coincide at all with political freedom.
There are many flavors of Libertarian. I just read the blog of a guy who calls himself a Left Libertarian. Go figure. I consider myself a progressive Libertarian, that is, socially liberal but financially and fiscally conservative.
The principles of Libertarianism are too important to be left to ideology and religiosity. I'm starting this thread to develop the iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian. We'll frame it with the extremes and the community can fill in the wee parts in between.
Flat Earth Libertarian: Get rid of all government. No taxes. Privately owned Air Force. Build your own roads and sewer system. Slavery is acceptable as long as there are no sales taxes.
Left Libertarian: The government, while infinitesimally small, provides for our every need, eliminates all risk in life, provides health care and education and jobs and so on, but costs nothing. See also: Utopian Libertarian.
Utopian Libertarian: No taxes or government. But I like to hunt, fish, and camp and don't like pollution, so just enough government to keep the chemical and mining industries from ruining the environment. And I don't like toxic crap in my food, either, so just enough government to keep the food industry from putting too many dangerous chemicals in my food. And no toxic chemicals in my cat's food, for that matter, so just enough government to keep the China's food industry from poisoning my cat. And no dangerous car designs that let the hood pop through the windshield and cut off my head in an accident like they did before laws went into effect, so just enough government to pressure the car industry into making expensive design changes for safety. And I don't like guys driving 100 MPH in the breakdown lane, so just enough government to police the roads. And... (fill in the blank 1,000 things government does that Libertarians can't live a day without)...
It all comes down to principles. Many people who claim to be libertarian seem to accept coercive actions by the government in the name of social progress/harmony/(insert word here) or providing some service that the market is supposedly unable to deliver. For some reason the very people who understand that government can never be trusted to look after our food supply, energy needs or even deliver the mail at a reasonable cost seem to think that it is capable of delivering education, health care or law and order more effectively.
Even if we put aside that little problem that governments have never been able to deliver goods or services more effectively than the unhampered market the so-called libertarians put themselves on the losing side of the argument because once they accept some coercion they give up the moral and ethical high ground and give the statists an advantage when those statists argue their case for more government or use the 'necessity of defence' argument that has been used to fight many unnecessary wars.
The argument in favour of a voluntary society is too long to cover here. If you have the time and the desire to review a rigorous discussion of the libertarian position I suggest that you take a look at the The Ethics of Liberty (http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203866653&sr=8-1).
It all comes down to principles. Many people who claim to be libertarian seem to accept coercive actions by the government in the name of social progress/harmony/(insert word here) or providing some service that the market is supposedly unable to deliver. For some reason the very people who understand that government can never be trusted to look after our food supply, energy needs or even deliver the mail at a reasonable cost seem to think that it is capable of delivering education, health care or law and order more effectively.
Even if we put aside that little problem that governments have never been able to deliver goods or services more effectively than the unhampered market the so-called libertarians put themselves on the losing side of the argument because once they accept some coercion they give up the moral and ethical high ground and give the statists an advantage when those statists argue their case for more government or use the 'necessity of defence' argument that has been used to fight many unnecessary wars.
The argument in favour of a voluntary society is too long to cover here. If you have the time and the desire to review a rigorous discussion of the libertarian position I suggest that you take a look at the The Ethics of Liberty (http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203866653&sr=8-1).
This has been a fruitful discussion. My two cents.
One need not rely completely on theory. There are plenty of real-world examples of pure or near pure libertarian society in the world today. Paradoxically, these tend to be places where even Flat Earth Libertarians do not want to live.
You can visit nearly any 3rd world country and find a society that conforms relatively well to the definition of pure libertarian society. Government supplies little in the way of law and order and involves itself in only marginally in daily life. In the absence of government, typically warlords or private armies supply security and extract what little economic surplus the people can produce. History shows that even developed societies can revert to such medieval structures quickly when the western legal institutions that have developed over the past several hundred years fail. I doubt even Flat Earth Libertarians would choose to eliminate these institutions on purpose. One can argue that the US is warlording over the world and that is a valid point, but it is due to failure of the political system to enforce Constitutional law and international law; the elimination of the legal institutions and laws will not foster peace.
My view is that there is over time and from place to place a continuum from too much government to too little and that in the real world balance is provided through the political process, where a strong institutional framework exists. In western societies a dynamic tension between the political forces pressing for more government and the forces pressing for less provides a healthy balance. Eliminate either and government turns either dysfunctionally communistic (slavery to the state and equal distribution of poverty) or dysfunctionally free market (institutions of government co-opted by money interests).
Rule by money interests is what occurred in the financial markets as a result of Greenspan executing his libertarian ideology in the banking system and financial markets 1987 to 2006. The system naturally evolved to extract economic rent via credit dependency and continuous debt service (see New Road to Serfdom (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7343#post7343)).
My favorite market analogy is a highway. To function, speed limits and other rules of the road, lanes, driver's licenses, insurance, maintenance, and policing are minimum requirements for high level function. You can find countries where some or none of these do exist; these are places where you do not want to drive. Again, one does not need to rely on theory. Take Costa Rica, for example. "Although the speed limit (http://www.infocostarica.com/general/transport.html) is usually 50 mph, Costa Rica holds the world's highest auto fatality rate (18 deaths per 100,000 kms., as opposed to 2.7 deaths in the U.S.)" The rules are there but are not enforced.
Markets are similar. Without speed limits and other rules of the road, lanes, licenses, maintenance, and policing they cannot function. It is ideology – fantasy – divorced from reality to believe otherwise. Certainly these need to be reformed from time to time if they become too restrictive or too loose; with the political process providing the balance. Costa Rica market failure recently occurred in the US housing market. The rule breakers got into a pileup and we'll all be squeezing by in the breakdown lane for 10 years or more.
As the credit system and the FIRE Economy born of free market ideology and fantasy decline in crisis, voices pressing for greater economic freedom will be drown out by those pressing for greater government involvement in the markets and economy to rescue the economically injured. The system will lurch from too little regulation to too much. That is unfortunate and presents a great irony: the greater socialism in our future is the result of the misguided application of libertarian fantasies of our past. When everyone tires of the relative poverty it will produce – via inflation and economic stagnation in my view – we shall go the other way again. Some day the political system can gather the wisdom to avoid these extremes and settle on a pragmatic and less ideologically driven approach.
I'll give it a try. I'm also socially liberal and fiscally/ financially conservative.
I strongly believe in a balanced budget, definitely at the personal level and as much as possible at the government level. I've lived a life that any "Bush/ Reagan conservative" would be proud of, never any government handouts ever, worked my way thru college, grad school, and rest of my life, saved and invested, and expect to pay for my own old age.
And the truth is, I can't stand the "core conservative" philosophy of social Darwinism and every man for himself only.
We don't all start from a level playing field and sometimes it's very appropriate to give our fellow man "a hand-up". All the great religions of the world tell us this. We are our brothers keepers, to quote Christianity. In hunter-gatherer societies, where mankind has spent its entire existence except for last 10,000 years, sharing is THE strong value, not competition. It's how they survive in good times and especially bad times.
I've travelled a lot in third world countries, where government is weak and/ or corrupt. Traveled with non-profit organizations where I was able to meet the average (often very poor) citizen.
Imagine living in a country where there is no unemployment insurance, no social security system, no FHA-guaranteed mortgages, no student loan system, where even primary schools are not free (parents skimp to pay fees), no county hospitals, basic health care is unaffordable so you can't see a doctor when you break your leg (I saw that in Ghana) because there are no laws that say hospitals must treat even the indigent in emergency rooms, very poor infrastructure and roads because laws against corrupt politicians and businesses are not enforced. There the buyer must truly beware because there is so little regulation to thwart the predatory and unscrupulous. Also no Small Business Administration to assist small businesses, interest rates are usurious beyond what we can imagine, and you sink or swim, alone.
In many ways, some of these thirld world countries meet the definition of a "Pure Libertarian" society. And, believe me, they are not places where most people would choose to live.
In many of these societies, family, tribal , and ethnic ties are very strong. And much of the reason is that they are your only social safety net.
My opinion is that we need enough government regulation to keep the system as fair and honest as possible. Also to provide basic infrastructure, free education through high school, basic health care for all citizens, and a "helping hand" to society's less fortunate members.
I feel strongly about giving a "helping hand" from government. A child who is born to a single teenage mother, to drug addicts or alcoholics, to very poor parents who make minimum wage, etc. is going to have a much harder time making it into the professional classes than a child born to educated, professional, or wealthy people. There are alway a few exceptional children who do rise above this environment, but they are rare, that is why they are called exceptional. The journey is arduous, fought with peril (especially in teen years), and few mistakes are allowed.
You don't seem to trust some people to co-operate and to do what is right. That is fine. But what makes you certain that giving other people a monopoly on force is a good idea?
And how does one justify funding a "helping hand" by coercion? Why should some people be forced to pay for programs that governments choose to help certain special interests if they oppose those programs? After all, some people oppose programs because they do not believe that governments are capable of delivering them effectively and they oppose the waste of scarce resources that may be used to increase the overall standard of living for society. Why do we need a massive bureaucracy to fight poverty when that bureaucracy has wasted trillions and made things worse? Why do we need healthcare regulations when we long for the good old days when healthcare was cheap because in the unregulated environment costs were easier to control and that made insurance affordable to most people?
I could go on but I hope that I have made my point. History shows us that unhampered societies have higher standards of living and happier citizens than those in which the state is much larger and interferes much more.
This has been a fruitful discussion. My two cents.
One need not rely completely on theory. There are plenty of real-world examples of pure or near pure libertarian society in the world today. Paradoxically, these tend to be places where even Flat Earth Libertarians do not want to live.
You can visit nearly any 3rd world country and find a society that conforms relatively well to the definition of pure libertarian society. Government supplies little in the way of law and order and involves itself in only marginally in daily life. In the absence of government, typically warlords or private armies supply security and extract what little economic surplus the people can produce. History shows that even developed societies can revert to such medieval structures quickly when the western legal institutions that have developed over the past several hundred years fail. I doubt even Flat Earth Libertarians would choose to eliminate these institutions on purpose. One can argue that the US is warlording over the world and that is a valid point, but it is due to failure of the political system to enforce Constitutional law and international law; the elimination of the legal institutions and laws will not foster peace.
My view is that there is over time and from place to place a continuum from too much government to too little and that in the real world balance is provided through the political process, where a strong institutional framework exists. In western societies a dynamic tension between the political forces pressing for more government and the forces pressing for less provides a healthy balance. Eliminate either and government turns either dysfunctionally communistic (slavery to the state and equal distribution of poverty) or dysfunctionally free market (institutions of government co-opted by money interests).
Rule by money interests is what occurred in the financial markets as a result of Greenspan executing his libertarian ideology in the banking system and financial markets 1987 to 2006. The system naturally evolved to extract economic rent via credit dependency and continuous debt service (see New Road to Serfdom (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7343#post7343)).
My favorite market analogy is a highway. To function, speed limits and other rules of the road, lanes, driver's licenses, insurance, maintenance, and policing are minimum requirements for high level function. You can find countries where some or none of these do exist; these are places where you do not want to drive. Again, one does not need to rely on theory. Take Costa Rica, for example. "Although the speed limit (http://www.infocostarica.com/general/transport.html) is usually 50 mph, Costa Rica holds the world's highest auto fatality rate (18 deaths per 100,000 kms., as opposed to 2.7 deaths in the U.S.)" The rules are there but are not enforced.
Markets are similar. Without speed limits and other rules of the road, lanes, licenses, maintenance, and policing they cannot function. It is ideology – fantasy – divorced from reality to believe otherwise. Certainly these need to be reformed from time to time if they become too restrictive or too loose; with the political process providing the balance. Costa Rica market failure recently occurred in the US housing market. The rule breakers got into a pileup and we'll all be squeezing by in the breakdown lane for 10 years or more.
As the credit system and the FIRE Economy born of free market ideology and fantasy decline in crisis, voices pressing for greater economic freedom will be drown out by those pressing for greater government involvement in the markets and economy to rescue the economically injured. The system will lurch from too little regulation to too much. That is unfortunate and presents a great irony: the greater socialism in our future is the result of the misguided application of libertarian fantasies of our past. When everyone tires of the relative poverty it will produce – via inflation and economic stagnation in my view – we shall go the other way again. Some day the political system can gather the wisdom to avoid these extremes and settle on a pragmatic and less ideologically driven approach.
Again I disagree. I believe that you are framing the argument in a way that allows you to make points that cannot really be justified. You claim that the real world shows us plenty of almost libertarian societies. Well, I don't see the examples as libertarian at all because when most libertarians talk about society they mean one in which the laws protect people and their property from intrusion.
Libertarians are not prone to utopian gibberish and understand that there will always be crime and discontent in a human society. They also understand that there will be a need and a market for law and order. Where they often disagree is the position of who is best capable of delivering that law and order. I think that it is your position that you need a government monopoly on power in order to have law and order. But I would argue that there is no reason why your assertion is correct. After all, governments are terrible at delivering the mail, producing food, goods or delivering education, health care or other services. Why should I accept the statement that governments are any better at providing law and order than the market, which is clearly superior in the areas that I just listed?
A good example would be to look at Somalia, which lost its government in 1991. Without a government you would think that the country would move towards chaos and that things would be worse for the people that needed law and order to protect them. But that never happened. When Peter Leeson looked at statistical data from the CIA, the UN Development Project, the WHO and the World Bank and compared current figures with what happened from 2000 to 2005 with 1985-1990 (the last five years under the central government) he found that things got a lot better (http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf).
Life expectancy went up by five percent. It is still too low but the trend is up. Immunization rates for children went up by one third for measles and 70% for TB. The number of physicians per person went up by 18 per cent. Infants born with low birth weight dropped by 98%. The infant mortality rate was reduced by 24 per cent. The maternal mortality rate dropped by 31%. Fatalities due to measles dropped by 30%. Access to sanitation, health facilities, radios, televisions and telephones improved and the percent of the population that lived in extreme poverty declined. Of the 18 development indicators that Leeson examined, 13 clearly improved
after the collapse of the government while only two, adult literacy and school enrollment, clearly declined. The last two are attributed to a reduction in aid.
A later study by Benjamin Powell, Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh of the Independent Institute (http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf) reaches the same conclusion. The study found that of 13 measures, Somalia ranked in the top 50 percent of 42 Sub-Saharan nations nations in six. It only ranked near the bottom in infant mortality, immunization rates, and access to improved water sources. But all of the measures had improved relative to other countries since the collapse of the Somali state.
The Somali economy is getting stronger. It is the biggest exporter of livestock in Eastern Africa. Without a national regulator the telecom sector is booming and access to cell phones is cheaper than anywhere on the continent. International investment is flowing into the country as Coca Cola, Dole, DHL, GM and other companies have established a presence. These companies went in even though the country has no statutory law. But it certainly has a legal system (http://www.amazon.com/Law-Somalis-Foundation-Economic-Development/dp/156902250X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203894846&sr=8-1) that is adequate in settling disputes without the need of a central government. If anything the introduction of a state would introduce legal chaos and probably create another vampire state that is typical when some men are given monopoly power.
I do believe that your analogy about roads is a good one. But I would say that the issue is not about having signs on the roads but how those signs and placed, what they say and who owns them. I believe that it is implicit in your argument that it is all right for some bureaucrat to arbitrarily decide what the limits should be and that once they are posted everyone will (or should) try to comply. Well, I really don't know what the limits should be and would have a market process decide on the nature of the signs and the information they contain. Instead of having an arbitrary limit set by political hacks and lobbyists it is preferable that the owners of the highway can choose to have different limits on different sections on the basis on local conditions, customer feedback and rigorous analysis. If the owner does a bad job s/he will lose customers and will have to adjust just as businesses do now.
Having grown up in a society where very bright folks tried to plan the economy and bungled it every step of the way, I don't have the type of faith in central planning that seems to be advocated on this board. In the case of the economy the biggest problem seems to be the monopoly power that the central banks seem over creating money out of thin air. Such power cannot possibly be justified in any society that wants to call itself free. And neither can government intrusion into the economy as it intervenes to pick winners and make others losers.
I have to cut this short because the kids want me to take them swimming.
World Traveler
02-24-08, 05:48 PM
300,000 die in 1991-1992 Somalia Famine, President Bush (Sr) sends in U.S. troops in 1992 to enable relief efforts and prevent further starvation, (relief efforts stymied due to fighting among local warlords).
Below is exerpt from Frontline/ PBS. Same info available from many other publications.
<TABLE><TBODY><TR align=left><TD align=left>Civil War and famine
Long-time dictator Siad Barre is forced out of Mogadishu in January, 1991. Conflict between the Somali National Movement (SNM), Aidid's party, and other factions causes clan infighting, leading to famine and lawlessness throughout portions of the country. An estimated 300,000 Somalis die of starvation during the year of civil war that followed Barre's ouster.
</TD></TR><TR align=left><TD align=left colSpan=2>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/art/cron2.gif
</TD></TR><TR align=left><TD align=left bgColor=#eeeeee>March 3
</TD><TD align=left>Ceasefire
Warring faction leaders sign a ceasefire agreement, which includes provisions to allow a UN monitoring mission into Somalia to oversee arrangements for providing humanitarian assistance.
</TD></TR><TR align=left><TD align=left bgColor=#eeeeee>April 24
</TD><TD align=left>UN Military Observers to Somalia
UN Security Council approves UN operation in Somalia, pursuant to the ceasefire agreement. In July, 50 unarmed UN military observers are deployed to Mogadishu to monitor the ceasefire.
</TD></TR><TR align=left><TD align=left bgColor=#eeeeee>August 15
</TD><TD align=left>Operation Provide Relief (United Nations Operation in Somalia -- UNOSOM I)
UN humanitarian relief effort begins.
</TD></TR><TR align=left><TD align=left bgColor=#eeeeee>December 4
</TD><TD align=left>
US President George Bush launches Somalia intervention
Deteriorating security prevents the UN mission from delivering food and supplies to the starving Somalis. Relief flights are looted upon landing, food convoys are hijacked and aid workers assaulted. The UN appeals to its members to provide military forces to assist the humanitarian operation. With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach. Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis, and then the operation will be turned over to the UN peacekeeping forces. He assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton's inauguration in January.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
metalman
02-24-08, 06:21 PM
300,000 die in 1991-1992 Somalia Famine, President Bush (Sr) sends in U.S. troops in 1992 to enable relief efforts and prevent further starvation, (relief efforts stymied due to fighting among local warlords).
Below is exerpt from Frontline/ PBS. Same info available from many other publications.
<table><tbody><tr align="left"><td align="left">Civil War and famine
Long-time dictator Siad Barre is forced out of Mogadishu in January, 1991. Conflict between the Somali National Movement (SNM), Aidid's party, and other factions causes clan infighting, leading to famine and lawlessness throughout portions of the country. An estimated 300,000 Somalis die of starvation during the year of civil war that followed Barre's ouster.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
good one.
Libertarians are not prone to utopian gibberish.
yeh, right. as prone as socialists, if you ask me. socialists turned inside out. fanatical, utopian, incapable of valuing 10,000 yrs of civilization. "the state is evil!" too much state is evil. too little is evil.
humans are a fucked up animal. no way do you want them running round loose without a state strong enough to enforce the law.
did you see apocalypto? ok, so mel gibson has some "issues" but this movie is great. the spanish ships show up at the end. what do they represent? yeh, that's right. civilization. treasure it.
good one.
yeh, right. as prone as socialists, if you ask me. socialists turned inside out. fanatical, utopian, incapable of valuing 10,000 yrs of civilization. "the state is evil!" too much state is evil. too little is evil.
humans are a fucked up animal. no way do you want them running round loose without a state strong enough to enforce the law.
did you see apocalypto? ok, so mel gibson has some "issues" but this movie is great. the spanish ships show up at the end. what do they represent? yeh, that's right. civilization. treasure it.
I think that you are confused. You have mistaken the modern state, which is what being discussed, with '10,000 years of civilization.' The simple fact is that history is on the side of those that advocate as little government as possible because there is a correlation between the size and the degree of control by government and the standard of living. The socialism that is being defended by the opponents of liberty has not delivered the goods and unless a country was very rich in natural resources and had a small homogeneous population it could not tolerate socialism for long.
As an aside, it is important to keep the terminology in this debate straight. Ayn Rand used to write about 'anti-concepts,' which were defined as unnecessary and rationally unusable terms that were designed to substitue for legitimate concepts. According to Rand the use of anti-concepts gave the readers or listeners a, "sense of approximate understanding." Of course, when you obscure the truth the approximate becomes worse than inadequate; it becomes the same as a lie. An important category of anti-concepts is something that Rand called the 'package deal.' Such terms had meanings that concealed an implicit assumption that some things go together when they could not and do not.
In this debate many of the folks are using libertarian society to mean a society in which men are free to ignore the laws. (That is a lot like using the term 'capitalism' to mean the free-market system that currently dominates in the United States and other Western countries.) But libertarians are just as interested in law and order as other people. The major difference is their support for maximum liberty in both the social and economic spheres. Those libertarians that tolerate governments want them small and limited to protecting individuals and their property. On the whole they stand for individual responsibility, the free market, private charity and civil liberties. They oppose taxes and government bureaucracies. Most importantly, a libertarian system does not need human beings to become something that they are not in order to work, which is the only way that statism can work.
metalman
02-24-08, 08:31 PM
I think that you are confused. You have mistaken the modern state, which is what being discussed, with '10,000 years of civilization.' The simple fact is that history is on the side of those that advocate as little government as possible because there is a correlation between the size and the degree of control by government and the standard of living. The socialism that is being defended by the opponents of liberty has not delivered the goods and unless a country was very rich in natural resources and had a small homogeneous population it could not tolerate socialism for long.
As an aside, it is important to keep the terminology in this debate straight. Ayn Rand used to write about 'anti-concepts,' which were defined as unnecessary and rationally unusable terms that were designed to substitue for legitimate concepts. According to Rand the use of anti-concepts gave the readers or listeners a, "sense of approximate understanding." Of course, when you obscure the truth the approximate becomes worse than inadequate; it becomes the same as a lie. An important category of anti-concepts is something that Rand called the 'package deal.' Such terms had meanings that concealed an implicit assumption that some things go together when they could not and do not.
In this debate many of the folks are using libertarian society to mean a society in which men are free to ignore the laws. (That is a lot like using the term 'capitalism' to mean the free-market system that currently dominates in the United States and other Western countries.) But libertarians are just as interested in law and order as other people. The major difference is their support for maximum liberty in both the social and economic spheres. Those libertarians that tolerate governments want them small and limited to protecting individuals and their property. On the whole they stand for individual responsibility, the free market, private charity and civil liberties. They oppose taxes and government bureaucracies. Most importantly, a libertarian system does not need human beings to become something that they are not in order to work, which is the only way that statism can work.
well put! and no argument.
jimmygu3
02-25-08, 04:08 PM
I do believe that your analogy about roads is a good one. But I would say that the issue is not about having signs on the roads but how those signs and placed, what they say and who owns them. I believe that it is implicit in your argument that it is all right for some bureaucrat to arbitrarily decide what the limits should be and that once they are posted everyone will (or should) try to comply. Well, I really don't know what the limits should be and would have a market process decide on the nature of the signs and the information they contain. Instead of having an arbitrary limit set by political hacks and lobbyists it is preferable that the owners of the highway can choose to have different limits on different sections on the basis on local conditions, customer feedback and rigorous analysis. If the owner does a bad job s/he will lose customers and will have to adjust just as businesses do now.
Vangel,
Private ownership of roads illustrates the folly of a society based purely on property rights. Those who own the roads would have all the drivers by the balls. There's a $.50 toll here on a highway here in Atlanta. If it were privately owned, the owner might decide to start charging $100. If people didn't like it, they would find alternate routes and the owners of those routes could then put up a toll booth and charge people $99, and so on until we had a city of toll booths. Who is the big winner in this situation? Certainly not the well-being of the city as a whole. In fact, it would be a much more restrictive and burdensome state of affairs than under our current government beaurocracies.
I agree that "lobbyists and political hacks" should not make the rules of the road. We have a system of democratically elected lawmakers who make the rules, and we need more regulations- not less- to keep lobbyists out of lawmaking and our electoral process. Though our system is far from perfect, it does have checks and balances in place to continually pull government back toward serving the will of the people.
I don't expect you will agree.
Jimmy
metalman
02-25-08, 05:13 PM
Vangel,
Private ownership of roads illustrates the folly of a society based purely on property rights. Those who own the roads would have all the drivers by the balls. There's a $.50 toll here on a highway here in Atlanta. If it were privately owned, the owner might decide to start charging $100. If people didn't like it, they would find alternate routes and the owners of those routes could then put up a toll booth and charge people $99, and so on until we had a city of toll booths. Who is the big winner in this situation? Certainly not the well-being of the city as a whole. In fact, it would be a much more restrictive and burdensome state of affairs than under our current government beaurocracies.
I agree that "lobbyists and political hacks" should not make the rules of the road. We have a system of democratically elected lawmakers who make the rules, and we need more regulations- not less- to keep lobbyists out of lawmaking and our electoral process. Though our system is far from perfect, it does have checks and balances in place to continually pull government back toward serving the will of the people.
I don't expect you will agree.
Jimmy
these ideas about privately owned roads and schools and so on shows the most profound ignorance at how western societies arrived at current systems.
whenever someone's trying to sell me on a "new" idea (there are no new ideas... btw) i always ask: show me where it's working or ever has?
they say, "it's never been tried!"
i say, "bullshit". what arrogance. everything has been tried.
you can still find dark holes in this earth where money and power are left alone to create the best result for society.
so where did gov't fire depts come from? ok, i'll dispense with the back and forth with the folks here who might be weak on the history. they started off as private businesses run by insurance companies. insurance companies figured they'd save money if they put out building fires. the fire trucks did not respond to a fire burning in a building that was not a customer of the fire/insurance company. guess what? an uninsured building next to an insured building burns just as well as an insured one. they both burned down. didn't take long before the insurance companies were lobbying gov't to make fire safety a "public good". now fire insurance is universally subsidized by the government. why don't the libertarians complain and rail... STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERING IN FIRE PROTECTION! LET THE FREE MARKET SORT IT OUT!
why don't they complain? seems the complains about gov't impinging on economic freedom are awfully selective.
Jim Nickerson
02-25-08, 05:37 PM
these ideas about privately owned roads and schools and so on shows the most profound ignorance at how western societies arrived at current systems.
whenever someone's trying to sell me on a "new" idea (there are no new ideas... btw) i always ask: show me where it's working or ever has?
they say, "it's never been tried!"
i say, "bullshit". what arrogance. everything has been tried.
you can still find dark holes in this earth where money and power are left alone to create the best result for society.
so where did gov't fire depts come from? ok, i'll dispense with the back and forth with the folks here who might be weak on the history. they started off as private businesses run by insurance companies. insurance companies figured they'd save money if they put out building fires. the fire trucks did not respond to a fire burning in a building that was not a customer of the fire/insurance company. guess what? an uninsured building next to an insured building burns just as well as an insured one. they both burned down. didn't take long before the insurance companies were lobbying gov't to make fire safety a "public good". now fire insurance is universally subsidized by the government. why don't the libertarians complain and rail... STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERING IN FIRE PROTECTION! LET THE FREE MARKET SORT IT OUT!
why don't they complain? seems the complains about gov't impinging on economic freedom are awfully selective.
Nice argument, metalman, and yes, I'm a weak-sister when it comes to history.
I did have one original idea, and I would tell you about it, except it isn't pertinent to making money by investing.
Vangel,
Private ownership of roads illustrates the folly of a society based purely on property rights. Those who own the roads would have all the drivers by the balls. There's a $.50 toll here on a highway here in Atlanta. If it were privately owned, the owner might decide to start charging $100. If people didn't like it, they would find alternate routes and the owners of those routes could then put up a toll booth and charge people $99, and so on until we had a city of toll booths. Who is the big winner in this situation? Certainly not the well-being of the city as a whole. In fact, it would be a much more restrictive and burdensome state of affairs than under our current government beaurocracies.
I agree that "lobbyists and political hacks" should not make the rules of the road. We have a system of democratically elected lawmakers who make the rules, and we need more regulations- not less- to keep lobbyists out of lawmaking and our electoral process. Though our system is far from perfect, it does have checks and balances in place to continually pull government back toward serving the will of the people.
I don't expect you will agree.
Jimmy
You are right. I don't agree. And I am certain that you won't agree with my response.
First, there are plenty of arguments about private ownership of roads that you seem to be unacquainted with. A road will do an owner little good if he can't attract customers to use it and he certainly won't attract many if his costs are prohibitive. The assumption made is that there will only be one means of getting from point A to B and that the person controlling it would have a monopoly position that can be used to abuse customers. But in a competitive world there are alternatives and incentives that you seem to ignore.
Second, the system does not seem to have very effective checks and balances at all. If it did we would not have bridges and roads to nowhere, snow covered roads that are not being cleared in a timely manner, and transportation infrastructure that is not up to standard and past its useful life. We certainly would not have bridges collapsing into rivers and killing dozens of motorists who were using them at the time.
The simple fact that the government can build roads that do not service any communities or that it can ignore dangerous conditions or skip standard maintenance requirements shows that the system is not working. In fact there is no incentive for bureaucrats to service users of transportation assets but plenty of incentives to serve their political masters. (How many people were fired when the Minneapolis bridge collapsed? What do you think would have happened if that was a privately owned (and insured) bridge? Would the insurance company have permitted the bridge to deteriorate and get to a dangerous position?)
From what I see it looks as if the US will need to spend more than $1 trillion to upgrade its neglected infrastructure. There is nothing to suggest that the money will be used wisely and everything to suggest that it will be used to reward those with political connections. All taxpayers will pay through higher taxes, deferred taxation in the way of more debt and through inflation. Motorists will pay through some other charges and fees that are above board or hidden. At the end, the cost will be much higher than it would have been if the transportation infrastructure had been privately owned and operated.
these ideas about privately owned roads and schools and so on shows the most profound ignorance at how western societies arrived at current systems.
whenever someone's trying to sell me on a "new" idea (there are no new ideas... btw) i always ask: show me where it's working or ever has?
they say, "it's never been tried!"
i say, "bullshit". what arrogance. everything has been tried.
you can still find dark holes in this earth where money and power are left alone to create the best result for society.
so where did gov't fire depts come from? ok, i'll dispense with the back and forth with the folks here who might be weak on the history. they started off as private businesses run by insurance companies. insurance companies figured they'd save money if they put out building fires. the fire trucks did not respond to a fire burning in a building that was not a customer of the fire/insurance company. guess what? an uninsured building next to an insured building burns just as well as an insured one. they both burned down. didn't take long before the insurance companies were lobbying gov't to make fire safety a "public good". now fire insurance is universally subsidized by the government. why don't the libertarians complain and rail... STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERING IN FIRE PROTECTION! LET THE FREE MARKET SORT IT OUT!
why don't they complain? seems the complains about gov't impinging on economic freedom are awfully selective.
Fire protection is your argument? From what I see fire protection services are way too expansive. You have bureaucrats and the unions rip off taxpayers and overpay for service that may or may not be adequate. In the old days you had the NY fire department unable to deal with fires over 10 stories even though there were buildings that were 50 stories high.
metalman
02-25-08, 08:40 PM
Fire protection is your argument? From what I see fire protection services are way too expansive. You have bureaucrats and the unions rip off taxpayers and overpay for service that may or may not be adequate. In the old days you had the NY fire department unable to deal with fires over 10 stories even though there were buildings that were 50 stories high.
and your improvement is fire dept. for rich people living in 50 story buildings and fuck the people in 10 story buildings that can't afford the payments?
nice world you dream of. all yours. you're welcome to live in it. here ya go... (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82313&page=1)
Guards Blocked Exit in Mexico City Disco Fire
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Site/byline_abcnews.gif
By Julie Watson
M E X I C O C I T Y, Oct. 22
With flames and smoke filling a glitzy Mexico City nightclub, terrified patrons fled for the sole exit — only to find the club’s guards barring the way to some, demanding they first pay their bills, survivors said.
The blaze killed 20 people, and injured two dozen more.
<script type="text/javascript"></script>
The Lobohombo club was still packed at 5 a.m. when the blaze started Friday. “Please! It’s burning! Open the door!” Sara Falcon said she and others pleaded to the guards who stopped them asking for tickets proving they’d paid.
jimmygu3
02-25-08, 08:44 PM
You are right. I don't agree. And I am certain that you won't agree with my response.
Your intuition was correct. Well, at least we can agree that the other is wrong. :D
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.