Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

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.

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: 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

Epignosis wrote: It would be really interesting to see what would happen if most people (including corporations) stopped using money altogether and operated on a system of bartering (or assigning value to something other than the US dollar). What then of income tax?

Plus I'm sure libertarians don't object to currency itself, just fiat currencies and manipulation of the supply by a state.

Yes, I also saw flaws in the article but it's so difficult to destroy rhetoric when your knowledge of certain areas is limited. You are capable of debunking those points because you have your history and economics straight, but the average person? Quite difficult. As I said before, the idea of the over-protective Mommy State (as opposed to MOMmy state ) seems safer, like a return to childhood for people, to the part of childhood where you had safety that no matter what happened, your mom was going to take care of you. This is in conflict with the crisis that one experiences when one wants to break free and be oneself. Maybe deep socialism has strong connections with how the person surpasses this stages. 

Yeah T it's a shame. People are able to win these arguments just from ignorance. Actually it's worse than ignorance because people firmly believe the false story. I agree with your psychological analysis. Fear drives most of our policies. It's more noticeable in foreign policy, but the same mechanism drives the economic policy.

A system of multiple currencies does tend to be a little tricky. Usually the market will chose once currency, but if multiple are chosen you can think of different objects as different denominations. Silver and Gold were used concurrently, just with one ounce of silver being worth less goods than one ounce of gold. One thing that doesn't work is having a fiat money mixed with a true money. This is why the government doesn't issue $10 gold coins for example. It doesn't work because the gold is assigned an arbitrary value by government, but the gold has a real value as a true currency. There's a saying that 'bad money drives out good' commonly referred to by Gresham's Law. Basically people will hoard the gold coins and only use the fiat money for purchases. The reason being that the value of the fiat money is at the whim of government. Fiat money doesn't serve as a store of value (a technical definition of a money) so it is spent. The $10 gold coin does serve as a store of value, so it will be hoarded rather than spent when fiat money is available.

EDIT: Yeah and Pat pointed out the most obvious example. Duh how'd I miss that.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - January 19 2011 at 12:37

Hey libertarians, sorry to interject, but out of curiosity, where do we all stand on gun control?

NecronCommander wrote: Hey libertarians, sorry to interject, but out of curiosity, where do we all stand on gun control?

GUNS FOR EVERYONE

stonebeard wrote: The Wild West isn't exactly a paragon of civility to aspire to.

An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West