Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

The T wrote: What do people believe of this article?  Do free markets really depend on the government to exist?  Also, here's the repaired link (I hope) for my animal rights question a few posts ago. The idea is difficult to maintain in some areas but it can't be said that it doesn't make some sense.  EDIT: Oh damn it still doesn't work. Just copy paste this:  http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/A%20Libertarian%20Replies%20to%20Tibor%20Machan's%20'Why%20Animal%20Rights%20Don't%20Exist'.htm

T I read the first two paragraphs of that article. I don't think I'm going to read the rest. It's completely false. It's actually ridiculous.

Markets arise in spite of government, not because of it. To see this, just look at any black market. The government attempts to subdue the market, but the market forces are nothing more than human nature. Humans cooperate. Humans specialize labor. They trade to maximize their returns.

Government does not provide a stable currency for a market. This is the most absurd notion in the short part I read. First off, money predates government. Secondly, governments do not chose a currency, the market does. No government decided that gold would be the medium of exchange, people decided it for themselves. It just happens to function perfectly as a money. Ancient societies used feathers, or salt, or animal skins. It's chosen by the market for the market independent of government. The idea that government somehow stabilizes money is ridiculous. Since the creation of the Federal reserve, can you say anything about money is stable? What a joke.

Also, he mentions how courts are provided by government and needed to enforce market processes. That unfortunately for his argument is also untrue. People like to completely ignore that the rise of banking and commerce in middle aged Italy was done so without the aid of government. Merchants divides a system of credit, bank notes, and law to oversee their transactions. They had their own courts, and their own means of enforcement. Plenty historical examples of non-governmental courts exist. Hell in our own country, thousands of companies have agreements to use private arbitrators (though technically not a court system, very close) to circumvent government courts.

I might read it later, but I actually have worked to do today. Plus it really, really pissed me off. It's written in such a condescending attitude, but starts off with two paragraphs in which every sentence is literally false, and easily shown to be so.

I'll read your animal article later.

EDIT: Oh yeah and the middle class created by government? What? Then why did a middle class never exist in history before? Why has it been slowly disappearing in face of increased government intervention? It's directly a result of the wealth created by and class mobility allowed by a free market.

I scrolled to see how long it was, and I read that Smooth Hawley tarriff was actually a positive thing for the Great Depression. This article is a complete joke.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - January 19 2011 at 12:01

manofmystery wrote: JJLehto wrote: Though I agree, libertarianism is one thing but reaching these extreme scenarios like those supported by Pat and Llama...would be one hell of a (very slow) process. An even in a "regular" libertarian setup, I honestly think people will lose faith in it/see it's problems after a while.     AHEM

The T wrote: Problem of the day: we all can agree political change, in this era, occurs rather gradually, step by step. Revolutions seem to be a thing of the past. So for a libertarian society to exist, the steps in that direction will succeed each other, not happen all at once. Couldn't that generate the problems that critics of the idea usually voice? Let's say that so e steps are taken: minimal wages and working safety regulations dropped, anti-trust regulations demolished, and the market is somewhat freer; but subsidies and government monopolies remain, plenty of other regulations to the economy and the man still in place; under this less than ideal scenario, wouldn't the worker have even less mobility than before? Wouldn't this benefit just one part of the equation? Or are these steps necessarily like a domino setup where the tearing down of one piece will in time assuredly bring about the tearing down of the next one? I haven't thought that well about the actual scenario, but you get the idea.

Well I think it should be stressed that the actual process of 'libertarianization' should be secondary in the discussion. The problem at hand is to convince people that this is a desirable and necessary process. Once this has been done I think the basic steps can proceed in a number of different ways.

For example repealing minimum wage laws would be fine. Repealing most taxes would be fine. The same can be said of safety and anti-trust regulations. These steps require little phasing out.

The issue comes with some sectors where deregulation can't proceed before other structural changes occur. As I mentioned before, deregulation in the financial sector does little good when we are forced to retain quasi-private government entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Reserve. Really that last guy is the biggest problem when talking about financial deregulation, but the other two are specifically involved in this crisis so they deserve a mention.

Governmental power also needs to be curved for deregulation to take place. As of now the bailout policies of this and the previous administration have clearly set a precedent saying that large companies will not be punished on the market for their risky and poor investments, instead the taxpayer will be punished. This moral hazard permeates the entire economy. This would have to be eliminated in some way before a lot of deregulation could take place.

Social programs also present a problem. Private charity cannot instantly swoop in to pick up the slack. The market will need some realistic time to absorb this change. People themselves also need some time to (hopefully) change their consumption habits and work habits.

Some markets which have been completely dominated by the government will also need time. Government takeover of a sector causes two big problems. I've seen them refereed to as the superfluous discovery process and the undiscovered discovery process, more specifically in this case a retardation of the undiscovered discovery process. Basically the industry has wasted time reacting to government intervention and spent resources towards unpromising output under the constraints imposed by government.  In the process, the market process of developing true innovation has been retarded or completely shutdown depending on how shielded the industry was. On the ultra-libertarian side you see this with courts and police. On the less extreme side things such as roads and municipal services, clearly the former much more than the latter.

One thing that can clearly be greatly reduced is the defense budget. In fact, it most certainly should be reduced before things such as welfare programs if any sort of moral credibility is to be maintained (not that welfare programs are moral). Since we're talking about eliminating the industry which people don't depend on, this can be done quickly.

The more freedom is restored to the market, the more quickly it can be restored. If people could see what these changes would actually bring, rather than the apocalypse that those in power claim will occur, I think they will support more and more changes.

I've rambled too long I think, but one thing I should say is that we shouldn't talk about freeing the economy without freeing the person. The two are inseparably linked. For the market to function, people must be free. For people to be free, they must have an economic means of exercising their freedom. A return to a freer economy should coincide with a lifting of constraints on personal freedom. Like war abroad, war on personal freedoms at home is the health of the state. If we allow it the power for these things, we can not withhold the power it needs to take over the market.

JJLehto wrote: Though I agree, libertarianism is one thing but reaching these extreme scenarios like those supported by Pat and Llama...would be one hell of a (very slow) process. An even in a "regular" libertarian setup, I honestly think people will lose faith in it/see it's problems after a while.

 

Problem of the day: we all can agree political change, in this era, occurs rather gradually, step by step. Revolutions seem to be a thing of the past. So for a libertarian society to exist, the steps in that direction will succeed each other, not happen all at once. Couldn't that generate the problems that critics of the idea usually voice? Let's say that so e steps are taken: minimal wages and working safety regulations dropped, anti-trust regulations demolished, and the market is somewhat freer; but subsidies and government monopolies remain, plenty of other regulations to the economy and the man still in place; under this less than ideal scenario, wouldn't the worker have even less mobility than before? Wouldn't this benefit just one part of the equation? Or are these steps necessarily like a domino setup where the tearing down of one piece will in time assuredly bring about the tearing down of the next one? I haven't thought that well about the actual scenario, but you get the idea.

ExittheLemming wrote: The T wrote: In the marijuana thread Ivan raised a valid question (or, actually, I'm adapting it to make it a valid question ). If we finally get rid of so much interference in people's lives and we agree that we will only punish actions that interfere with the rights of others, we still need some fair universal rules. Let's say X steals from B. A police officer captures X. Then it's time to administer justice. In what basis? Judges would do it but based on? We would need a very jurisprudence-based system then. Also, even at the cop level itself. How is he to judge if a third person's rights have been injured? Either he has to have an objective guide or he will decide it all by his discretionary abilities, which might or might not be ideal for the task.  Discarding donation-based police and courts (an idea that I still believe improbable), at least some minimal form of taxation and government wouldn't be needed to sustain this system?  It's important to remember that a judge is a judge of law, not of fact (that's for a jury to decide) Case law is a 'challenge and response' system i.e. our laws are not 'set in stone' but evolve and mutate over time due to new or amended rulings arrived at by judges based on precedence. Similarly, a cop can arrest and charge you but he cannot convict you.(that's for a court to decide) Your post highlights several of the w.a.n.k.y. aspects of having numerous competing law enforcement agencys and the prospect of having jurisdiction reduced to which brand of justice you put in your trolley from LawMart U'like. Although there currently exists incompatible laws in different states/nations/jurisdictions etc a consumer has recourse to appealing any decision to the next hierarchical level of justice (regional court, high court, court of human rights et al) Such a hierarchical system would require all its subsidiaries to agree upon a central core of legislation to be used to settle disputes. It strikes me that under a completely unfettered free market system advocated by Libertarians, the court would be free to 'cherrypick' which case precedence laws it adopts depending on what would best serve their income/profit.

If you're still clinging to a monopoly provider of law and police services then yes I suppose you need minimal taxation.

I'm not so sure how much worse things would be without IP law.  We have had ample periods in human history that did not really have IP protections, and yet there was not really a dearth of both artistic and scientific/technological achievement.  Yet, I'm not sure I would be ready to abandon IP law/protections altogether, though a significant scale back (especially with respect to artistic works) would be welcome.

The T wrote: But IP are I think a natural extension of property rights, if we assume you have the right to own the fruits of what you produce. Of course the arts are so, we can say, irrelevant to sustain any of our basic rights (like the one to live) that we can assume is just a leisure activity. Yet it is not one for the artist, for whom is as important as making things for thw manufacturer or planning buildigs for the architect. What I would assume is that said rights should start and end with the person. If the person dies, so do his rights, unless he transfers them while still alive to his heirs or whoever he wants. Of course this second person wouldn't be able to the same because if not it could be done ad nauseaum till eternity. Once the original benefitiary dies, the work is in the "public domain" or the formula can be used by anyone. That will though have great implications for corporations that rely on their trademarks and secret formulas to survive (famous drink here). Though in the end even this will get solved by itself: anyone could copy this formula but someone will be the best using it, and the original owner will still be able to beat the competition with a better product or by adapting and innovating. But then the entire thing of actual physical property righs and inheritance would create an incongruence here. Damn is this difficult, trying to make everything make sense.

This is a slippery critter when it comes to the arts methinks. I think Pat is right when he states no-one owns the means of production (rhythms, harmonies, chords, scales etc), but apart from distinct melodies and lyrics, nothing else could be considered capable of being protected by copyright. Why should the chain of nominated beneficiaries stop at one? (ain't this an infringement of their liberty to bequeath ownership to a chosen heir or sell their rights to a 3rd party under a binding contract?)

I think Michael Jackson bought the Beatles publishing rights before he died and presumably these are now owned by the executors of his estate. From memory I believe the copyright on this work will revert to public domain 50 years after the death(s) of the composer(s).

You have correctly outlined the dilemma here though i.e. tangible property rights are bundled with exclusive ownership and transferred when the property is sold while intangible property like music and literature are sold as goods e.g. if I buy a CD or novel I own the good(s) but not the underlying copyright in the book' or CD's content.

An entertainment industry without IP currently exists of course in the domain of the internet, where free illegal downloads are everywhere. Perhaps Pat is right in stating that the legitimate industry will not disappear because of this, but 'beating the competition with a better product' in a post-IP world, would still rest upon the consumer's confidence in being able to identify the true originator of any given work.

My head hurts

The T wrote: But IP are I think a natural extension of property rights, if we assume you have the right to own the fruits of what you produce. Of course the arts are so, we can say, irrelevant to sustain any of our basic rights (like the one to live) that we can assume is just a leisure activity. Yet it is not one for the artist, for whom is as important as making things for thw manufacturer or planning buildigs for the architect. What I would assume is that said rights should start and end with the person. If the person dies, so do his rights, unless he transfers them while still alive to his heirs or whoever he wants. Of course this second person wouldn't be able to the same because if not it could be done ad nauseaum till eternity. Once the original benefitiary dies, the work is in the "public domain" or the formula can be used by anyone. That will though have great implications for corporations that rely on their trademarks and secret formulas to survive (famous drink here). Though in the end even this will get solved by itself: anyone could copy this formula but someone will be the best using it, and the original owner will still be able to beat the competition with a better product or by adapting and innovating. But then the entire thing of actual physical property righs and inheritance would create an incongruence here. Damn is this difficult, trying to make everything make sense.