Libertarian movement (3 Viewers)

[Riet]

A lot of you guys seem to be confusing anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism.

 

[redmayne]

A lot of you guys seem to be confusing anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism.

Anarcho-capitalism comes under the umbrella of libertarianism. Libertarianism covers a broad range of movements, including anarchism.

 

[Riet]

I know, but a lot of the people in this thread's complaints seem to be with anarcho-capitalism rather than libertarianism.

 

[redmayne]

I know, but a lot of the people in this thread's complaints seem to be with anarcho-capitalism rather than libertarianism.

Hokeh then, carry on.

 

[cp3]

I know, but a lot of the people in this thread's complaints seem to be with anarcho-capitalism rather than libertarianism.

yeah Riet, you're right, but the person who started the thread seemed to be advocating a friedman, rand type form of libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism i was just replying to that, thats all because alot of people automatically associate libertarianism with the ron pauls lol, just trying to say its a diverse and broad political philosophy.

 

[Riet]

See I'm still not sure where I stand on the libertarianism spectrum to be honest. I disagree with middle-class welfare (just tax us less fuuuuuu) and "concessions" that allow for tax avoidance by those who can afford the best accountants, and believe much of this could be avoided by simplification of the system. On the otherhand I am a great fan of public schooling, but not how it is achieved here. I would much rather a voucher system which would allow more diversity of schooling from both the public and private sectors. Similarly I would like to see our health system set up more like that of singapore.

 

[badquinton304]

See I'm still not sure where I stand on the libertarianism spectrum to be honest. I disagree with middle-class welfare (just tax us less fuuuuuu) and "concessions" that allow for tax avoidance by those who can afford the best accountants, and believe much of this could be avoided by simplification of the system. On the otherhand I am a great fan of public schooling, but not how it is achieved here. I would much rather a voucher system which would allow more diversity of schooling from both the public and private sectors. Similarly I would like to see our health system set up more like that of singapore.

I would have thought that was too public to be libertarian.

 

[Slidey]

Well i do consider myself a libertarian though not the same as what this 'libertarian philosophy' entails. I'm whats considered more a 'social libertarian' and personally believe in personal/social freedom just like all libertarians, though on the economic side of things, i believe capitalism to be inherently exploitative and that it will eventually be dismantled by a post-scarcity state due to technological prowess.

Capitalism has done alot of good for the world and is alot better then other economic systems we've had in history (feudalism, warlordism, merchantilism etc) though if we are to progress as a society, the inherent flaws of capitalism: the inability of the free market to regulate the distribution of weath and its inefficiencies in 'market failure' with respect to enviromental issues etc are massive flaws that need to be addressed in our current age. A socialist democracy in which the factors of production and capital are in the public which allow the full creative potential of human beings to be realised would be alot better. This would probably take a while as the technological ability of society is not at a capacity to allow for a techno-utopian society so capitalism will have to do for now. Though it should be more keynesian with regulative measures to stop the concentration of wealth getting smaller amount high classed individuals.

The common argument for capitalism is the whole 'greed/profit' incentive that pretty much states that productive capacity and an increase in the overall standard of living will not increase unless people are acting in their own self interests. But what capitalism produces is the desire for the accumulation of wealth and profits, without rather the 'need' for a specific commodity or entity. The aim of capitalism is to make a profit, not make society better in general, that comes as a side benefit of the profit incentive. To say that its in 'human nature' to be greedy is fallacious and unwittingly creates the subconcious belief on how humans must be, therefore effectively creating that greedy narcassitic nature.

Its impossible to make a statement on human nature as we have seen through technological and societal progression, the average human conciousness has changed considerably. Thomas Hobbes believed it would be impossible for humans to survive without a monarchy as they would become anarchic, maybe so true in that era, but if it wasn't for the constant reformations and revolutions of political visionaries, the true potential of humans wouldn't be further realised. As the advent of parlimentarianism, though we still have a long way to go and a constant evolution of our economic and social ideas must be done if we are to move foward. And a right wing libertarian unregulated capitalistic system would move humans further into explotation and would destory years of workplace regulations that have served as human betterment. (8 hour working days, no slave labour, child labour). Though we can see in countries like colombia, workers are exploited in coca cola factories due to the absence of workplac reforms that serve human interest rather than profit incentives. Self management factories in argentina have shown (zanon, brukman etc) that neo-classical, capitalistic economics cannot be deemed to be always correct in all contexts and the whole profit incentive goes to an obilivion in that country. So before i write down anymore since i have to go, i think a libertarian movment in which is advocated in this thread would be dangerous for the evolution and advancement of the human race.

My thoughts echo this pretty strongly. Frankly someone like Riet is the type of Libertarian I would like to deal with, rather than someone rabid like Sylvester or Dom.

 

[vikraman]

Riet +1

 

[volition]

Well i do consider myself a libertarian though not the same as what this 'libertarian philosophy' entails....

Ok cp3 just a few broad errors that I see with what you wrote:

(1) You say that "the free market" has failed to regulate distribution of wealth and has caused 'inefficiencies in market failure' with environment issues. The problem with this is that we have not had anything near a free market in over a hundred years. So you are placing the blame in the wrong direction.

(2) You talk about how it is supposedly a good thing to regulate the distribution of wealth. Why do you think this and to what extent do you mean?

Where do you think the money of the rich is invested? Contrary to what some people might think about all the rich people having all their money in luxury 'conspicuous consumption' goods, the money of the rich is actually overwhelmingly invested in capital. Capital that bids up the price of YOUR wages, and pushes down the cost of goods that YOU buy.

(3) Improved working conditions (8 hr working days, no slave labour etc) come when workers become more productive and the economy can support this. The reason the poor in the US have it so much better than the poor in some African nation is because the economy in the US just has a much more productive workforce on average. (now much of this can be due to huge government intervention or trade embargoes imposed on these nations, which goes back to point 1 about not having a free market in the first place) The government cannot help in these things because you cannot necessarily just make things better by legislating for certain things when the economy cannot support it. The infrastructure and productivity just may not be there to allow it, and this is not a fault of capitalism, it is a realisation of cold hard reality. Free markets are the way to improve this situation though, because they allow productivity growth to occur so that eventually the poor may be lifted out of poverty.

 

[Slidey]

Ok cp3 just a few broad errors that I see with what you wrote:

(1) You say that "the free market" has failed to regulate distribution of wealth and has caused 'inefficiencies in market failure' with environment issues. The problem with this is that we have not had anything near a free market in over a hundred years. So you are placing the blame in the wrong direction.

(2) You talk about how it is supposedly a good thing to regulate the distribution of wealth. Why do you think this and to what extent do you mean?

Where do you think the money of the rich is invested? Contrary to what some people might think about all the rich people having all their money in luxury 'conspicuous consumption' goods, the money of the rich is actually overwhelmingly invested in capital. Capital that bids up the price of YOUR wages, and pushes down the cost of goods that YOU buy.

(3) Improved working conditions (8 hr working days, no slave labour etc) come when workers become more productive and the economy can support this. The reason the poor in the US have it so much better than the poor in some African nation is because the economy in the US just has a much more productive workforce on average. (now much of this can be due to huge government intervention or trade embargoes imposed on these nations, which goes back to point 1 about not having a free market in the first place) The government cannot help in these things because you cannot necessarily just make things better by legislating for certain things when the economy cannot support it. The infrastructure and productivity just may not be there to allow it, and this is not a fault of capitalism, it is a realisation of cold hard reality. Free markets are the way to improve this situation though, because they allow productivity growth to occur so that eventually the poor may be lifted out of poverty.

Tell us more about how evil democracy is, Volition.

 

[Omar-Comin]

(2) You talk about how it is supposedly a good thing to regulate the distribution of wealth. Why do you think this and to what extent do you mean?

Inequality leads to a (constrained) Pareto inefficient outcome in the presents of asymmetric information. (primarily due to a principle agent problem)

Begin on Page 47

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Inequality leads to a (constrained) Pareto inefficient outcome in the presents of asymmetric information. (primarily due to a principle agent problem)

Begin on Page 47

Dropping a few vauge references to other people's work is not a response. Try responding with your own thoughts in plain English.

You don't even understand what Pareto inefficiency means. Pareto inefficiency means no person's situation can be improved without making someone else worse off. It is used to argue against welfare, because redistribution obviously makes someone else worse off.

How is asymmetric information and the principle agent problem even relevant here? You're clearly just dropping in buzz words and phrases you have heard at uni which you don't appear to even understand.

 

[Omar-Comin]

Dropping a few vauge references to other people's work is not a response. Try responding with your own thoughts in plain English.

You don't even understand what Pareto inefficiency means. Pareto inefficiency means no person's situation can be improved without making someone else worse off. It is used to argue against welfare, because redistribution obviously makes someone else worse off.

How is asymmetric information and the principle agent problem even relevant here? You're clearly just dropping in buzz words and phrases you have heard at uni which you don't appear to even understand.

Such a muddled response does not require refutation, and I take it you haven't done the required reading.
(Oh, and it is in English..perhaps discourse at this level goes over you head?)

 

[volition]

Tell us more about how evil democracy is, Volition.

It's only evil when it's imposed on you, there is no problem if you opt in to it.

Slidey, just cos you're a fellow member of this forum, I'm going to make you a member of my $1000 hot dog club. Pay me $1000 for my delicious hot dogs! You are receiving a service, so why are you not willing to pay for it?

 

[Omar-Comin]

It's only evil when it's imposed on you, there is no problem if you opt in to it.

Slidey, just cos you're a fellow member of this forum, I'm going to make you a member of my $1000 hot dog club. Pay me $1000 for my delicious hot dogs! You are receiving a service, so why are you not willing to pay for it?

By definition he's only receiving the service if he's paid for it. Never speak again. F**ktard.

 

[Anonymous-]

By definition he's only receiving the service if he's paid for it. Never speak again. F**ktard.

stfu you socialist muslim scum

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Such a muddled response does not require refutation, and I take it you haven't done the required reading.
(Oh, and it is in English..perhaps discourse at this level goes over you head?)

Haha, the "required reading." I prescribe Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt as required reading for understanding libertarianism. You are an uneducated fool unless you have read what I told you to read.

I didn't read what you posted, but I am familiar with the concepts you used, and as I pointed out you misused them.

Can you explain in your own words how pareto optimality and the principal agent problem are relevant here?

The point of this forum is to discuss things, not to post links to verbose texts at each other and then claim that the link wins the argument.

 

[Omar-Comin]

Haha, the "required reading." I prescribe Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt as required reading for understanding libertarianism. You are an uneducated fool unless you have read what I told you to read.

Lol, how pathetic, you link a sad little book by some drop-out tabloid journalist crank (and juxtaposed to Joseph Stiglitz..please..).

I didn't read what you posted, but I am familiar with the concepts you used, and as I pointed out you misused them.

No. No you're not familiar with them, because if you where you wouldn't have asserted this next comment.

Can you explain in your own words how pareto optimality and the principal agent problem are relevant here?

^Because a third party can implement Pareto improvements....you honestly have no idea what you're talking about do you?
..just stick to mises.org or whatever crankpot simpleton stuff you read and leave the real thinking to others.

 

[Anonymous-]

mises.org = GOD