Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

The T wrote: Now I'm off to sleep. I'd suggest doing the same since no system will work with energy-less people

Peace.

The T wrote: I can't believe I couldn't see this before and now I can't even understand not seeing it. To reach power in this country (and most countries) you have to be either famous or rich or have powerful contacts. Fame and wealth usually go together since famous people sell and they get paid a lot; rich people can't put themselves in every little person's shoes; powerful people have connections and other people who facilitated their coming to power. They have to think on them first. The fools that vote for them come last. Is such a lie that libertarianism is the ideology of white rich people (that would be neoconservatism), when it's the ONLY ideology that is actually color and class-blind since it treats EVERYBODY the same way. So, if government and senate are institutions used by the powerful to get even more powerful, what's the answer? A proletariat dictatorship or any other lesser kind of new group that will eentually degenerate into exactly the same thing, a system that feeds on itself and working people? No. You just don't eliminate the player. You have to eliminate the game.

Yes T. I've made this argument many times. I've never understood how libertarianism is sold as a philosophy of the affluent and the white. Most of the evil rich white people which hatemongers bring up are rich because they've made a life of using government power to gut the wealth of the people.

It's touted as a philosophy of big business, yet political corruption and governmental power are continually abused to allow hand out subsidies, bailouts, and provide de facto monopolies for big business.

How often do you hear large businesses complaining about government? A good deal of the expansion of government is the direct result of big business' rent seeking activities in government. How can a political philosophy which supports an institution like the Federal Reserve be as anything but pandering to powerful corporate elites? Yet somehow libertarianism takes the blame here.

How is libertarianism a racist philosophy when its fundamental axiom is that no person's freedoms may be violated [note the lack of qualifiers on no person's]. It has its roots in radical abolitionism. It touts the individual over arbitrary distinctions of race, creed, gender, etc..

T, your last question is one of the things which led me to anarchism.

Also, isn't it amazing how quickly the descent into libertarianism occurs? The matrix analogy is actually very much in line with my own feelings when the switch flipped for me.

I think T will overtake Llama soon as my number 2.

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I think T will overtake Llama soon as my number 2. I would tell you that your ego is incredible, but would prefer not to contribute to the problem.

Too late!

I never took any sort of economics, but I would think total profit is what's important, which is achieved by the product of margin and volume - so in the case of catering to wealthy people you have high margins, but low volume (not many people are going to buy a $100,000 car, for example).  But you can also make significant profit with low margin and high volume.

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I think T will overtake Llama soon as my number 2. I would tell you that your ego is incredible, but would prefer not to contribute to the problem.

I meant number 2 in terms of how radical the our philosophies are.

Henry Plainview wrote: So I'm taking Macroeconomics this semester at my CC and my professor is from Sri Lanka, so I'm pretty sure she's kind of a socialist. She has stated repeatedly that the government offers monetary incentives to manufacturers so they will produce goods for low income people because if the firm's motives were pure profit they would only produce goods for upper income people (because of the greater profit margin possible in high priced goods) and there would be nothing for the poor people. This is part of the greater macroeconomic goal of distributive efficiency.

This simply isn't true though. I mean yes the government does offer incentives (and disincentives too which is great). Just imagine the situation where you have the poor market and the rich market in some good, meat let's say. All producers are producing high end Kobe Beef for rich people. Meanwhile there's  90% of the population of the country which would like to purchase $7.00 per pound ground chuck. Wouldn't it seem like a good idea to tap into that market as the sole provider rather than compete with hundreds for the 10% of the population? 

I am aware of the government's massive agricultural subsidies to keep food prices low and the perverse bidding war that sometimes occurs between states when a major company is considering where to open a new manufacturing plant, but that statement seems completely wrong to me. Do you guys have any idea what she is talking about? I do not care about the class because this is my third time around on this material in a class and I just want to get it over with, so I'm not going to argue with her, but I don't recall ever hearing that concept before so I'm curious what you guys think.

She also said that governments have mixed economies because of uneven wealth distribution. While wealth redistribution through subsidization of public services is a part of it, I always thought the mixed economy was more of an attempt to ensure stability. Maybe that's an American perspective I have, since, despite the US' vast inequality, saying redistribution out loud is political suicide.

I see it as a mixture of good intentions perverted by the force that is necessary for governmental action, and the tendency of those in power to get corrupt and expand their power.

Also Pat, as an anarchist, what your thoughts (briefly) on currency? Wouldn't currencies tied to individual banks be a huge frickin pain in a global economy?

As an anarchist, obviously there would be no institution to determine what the currency is. The market determines the currency. Whatever good people are willing to trade for and agree upon as a money becomes the currency. Gold makes the ideal currency for a variety of reasons and tends to be the one which the market likes. Individual bank notes, backed by their gold reserves, don't pose much of a problem. They were used extensively in the past.

Also, I am 4 decades late, but I have another reason to hate America. Sure, it eventually got overturned, but what the hell...

Hate should be relative.

Padraic wrote: I never took any sort of economics, but I would think total profit is what's important, which is achieved by the product of margin and volume - so in the case of catering to wealthy people you have high margins, but low volume (not many people are going to buy a $100,000 car, for example).  But you can also make significant profit with low margin and high volume.

^This

Great discussion! I liked the part in particular (whomever said it) about one not being a true libertarian when religious worship of a deity is involved.

Edited by AllP0werToSlaves - February 04 2011 at 11:05

The move toward Libertarianism is like getting rid of one's faith in a security blanket laden with smallpox.

The government may make people feel secure, but it offers no real security, and in truth can be incredibly harmful.