Libertarianism and natural disasters

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Phrost

What I'm saying is that, unless you're an actual libertarian, perhaps you should wait until a few posts into a thread asking libertarians a question before you add your two cents.

Seriously, should a bunch of doughy, out of shape couch potatoes respond to a thread asking what Cagefighters think about Subject_X before the actual cagefighters do?

This isn't any different because you have an opinion on the subject. Unless, of course, the premise isn't to actually engage libertarians (which it isn't), but to brow-beat them in order to try validate your own ideology.

Was someone browbeaten in this thread? Did someone speak out of turn? My first post in this thread, for instance, was in response to a specific claim by Beerina. How long was I supposed to wait? Really, if you want to complain about the progress of this thread, perhaps you should point to specific instances, with post#, so that I can see what went wrong, from your perspective.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by hgc

Perhaps you can tell us which of the characterizations of libertarianism in this thread are caricatures.

The entire OP, for starters.

[Phrost]

Originally Posted by hgc

Was someone browbeaten in this thread? Did someone speak out of turn? My first post in this thread, for instance, was in response to a specific claim by Beerina. How long was I supposed to wait? Really, if you want to complain about the progress of this thread, perhaps you should point to specific instances, with post#, so that I can see what went wrong, from your perspective.

Tell you what, you point out to me when the first actual libertarian to post a response in this thread was, and I'll answer your question about how long you were supposed to wait.

Do you honestly think that any libertarian's going to want to contribute to a discussion thread when pretty much the entire first page is taken up by non-libertarians making inane comments hoping to score points with others of a similar persuasion?

[hgc]

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

The entire OP, for starters.

OK, that's true. But we still got a lively thread out of it, with extensive posts by people taking the lib side. I think it's going well.

Quote:

Tell you what, you point out to me when the first actual libertarian to post a response in this thread was, and I'll answer your question about how long you were supposed to wait.

Do you honestly think that any libertarian's going to want to contribute to a discussion thread when pretty much the entire first page is taken up by non-libertarians making inane comments hoping to score points with others of a similar persuasion?

I'm not qualified to say exactly who's a libertarian, but Beerina came in early, followed soon by stevea. It appears that libertarians (and my apologies if you're not) want to contribute.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Wouldn't all the extra TRILLIONS saved by Libertopia in government waste prevent all natural disasters anyway?

I don't know about government waste, but all the extra TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth created by the economy due to higher rates of growth would make it much easier to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. That whole compound growth thing means that minor differences in growth rates have a very big impact over time.

That's why when there is a 7.0 earthquake in Haiti, a quarter of a million people die and the country descends into anarchy. That's why when a magnitude 6.9 quake hits in a remote and sparsely populated part of China, over 2500 people die. That's also why when there is a similar earthquake in California or Japan, a few buildings collapse and maybe a handful of people die. Having that extra wealth allows for better designed buildings that use better materials and better construction techniques (and better infrastructure, and better hospitals, more resources for search and rescue, more resources for rebuilding, etc.).

Having more wealth makes society better able to cope with just about any problem. A reduction in average annual real GDP growth from 4% to 3% means that in 100 years, that society would have less than 40% of the wealth that they would have had if growth rates had stayed at 4%.

[keale]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Colbert just invited on a guy who was raided for selling raw milk. I have a problem with that. People should be able to buy raw milk if they want to take the risk.

I have no problem with people visiting restaurants that are lousy in cleanliness, as long as they are aware of the issues. See below.





Presumably there haven't been tons of reports in the paper giving it a horrible reputation.






You just proved exactly what I claimed in your quoted paragraph. Threads like this, whether you admit it or not, are all about a "reductio ad absurdum" of straining libertarianism with an emergency situation.






Fraud is actionable in a libertarian world. It also doesn't promise people won't lie, cheat, and steal. That has always been around, and can get worse if said people get into government itself, especially when government can forcibly intrude into private decisions.

Enron, while bad, was not the cause of the current recession. That was the housing bubble bursting, abetted by many unwise loans, a big chunk of which were prompted by the government, because a home owner is a happy voter, and every politician wants to say, "Home ownership went up 10% while I was in charge!"

And will bailouts hinder or encourage risky behavior in the future? "Too big to fail" is another red herring whose purpose is memetic support of ever-bigger government.

Ever heard of sub prime? This is the root cause lenders got greedy and started inventing all sorts of great ways to get you financed. Stated income loans yeah you could go into your local lender and say yeah I make xxxxxxxx and we will take your word for it. You got your loan we made money everyone is happy. Then theres the ARM where we give you the insane teaser rate and promise to re finance you in 5 years.....assuming the market didnt crash like it did. People like to put the blame on Fanny and Freddy but they DO NOT give loans they only back them. Lenders/ banks give loans. How do I know this? This was my job before the bottom fell out.

[Phrost]

Originally Posted by hgc

I'm not qualified to say exactly who's a libertarian, but Beerina came in early, followed soon by stevea. It appears that libertarians (and my apologies if you're not) want to contribute.

Frankly, I feel "libertarian" is nothing more than a label applied (sometimes self-applied) to people as the antithesis of "authoritarian". A lot of people don't like to hear this though, especially self-described "liberals" a lot of whom I've found can't get their heads around how having Government apply force towards individuals in order to coerce behaviors (bans on smoking, trans-fats, etc. for example), is absolutely authoritarian.

But this thread isn't about me, just my observations on how libertarians, and pretty much anyone who isn't a pro-big-government "liberal" around here gets bagged on with inane comments like:

Quote:

Under a truly free market, there would be no natural disasters.

and

Quote:

Wouldn't all the extra TRILLIONS saved by Libertopia in government waste prevent all natural disasters anyway?

I imagine a few trillion saved from burdensome health care, roads, sanitation, food inspectors, drug regulators, traffic coordination, public transit, schools, the EPA, DEA and other acronyms would almost ensure that the private sector would create an Earth Shield to repel asteroids. And wouldn't a private health care industry - unburdened by regulation - have developed a Super Immune System pill to stop any pandemic in its tracks??

That add nothing to the discussion other than discouraging people from participating in a productive, vitriol-free manner that the JREF forums seems to feel is necessary. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for spirited discussion; I have my own socio-political discussion forum with around 70k members and we're not forced by arbitrary rules that basically turn every heated conversation into a passive-aggressive snipefest as you can see with the above examples.

's all I really have to say.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Phrost

Frankly, I feel "libertarian" is nothing more than a label applied (sometimes self-applied) to people as the antithesis of "authoritarian". A lot of people don't like to hear this though, especially self-described "liberals" a lot of whom I've found can't get their heads around how having Government apply force towards individuals in order to coerce behaviors (bans on smoking, trans-fats, etc. for example), is absolutely authoritarian.

Absolutely authoritarian? There's no nuance between a trans-fat ban and, say, limitless police power to detain political prisoners. That's the kind of overheated rhetoric that leads to the humorous hyperbole that you have decried above.

Here's the thing about authoritarianism -- it can come from the government or it can come from the criminal gangs that fill the power void when government breaks down or withers. I also don't like excessive authority, but I recognize the need for some kind of coercive enforcement of the rules in order for the smooth functioning of civilized society.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by Phrost

's all I really have to say.

If you're really a libertarian, then why do are you telling people how to argue in a forum? Shouldn't they be left to decide by themselves how to argue? I say that it is you, sir, who is the authoritarian.

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

I don't know about government waste, but all the extra TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth created by the economy due to higher rates of growth would make it much easier to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. That whole compound growth thing means that minor differences in growth rates have a very big impact over time.

You're assuming that libertarianism would provide higher rates of growth. Libertarianism suffers from a lack of central planning, which can actually provide many benefits that improve growth. A guaranteed national health service can provide a healthier, happier work force who know that none of them have to worry about not being able to afford healthcare should they take risky jobs. And as shown by the far more expensive system in america, a privatised health service is more expensive than a centrally planned nationalised system, due to various unneccessary overheads like advertising.

Central planning also allows for a more efficient infrastructure that provides a more streamlined network of trade than a haphazard, on the fly private infrastructure would. No private company would profit in a small enough space of time to make constructing large networks of motorways feasible, for example.

Research into theoretical areas that may have long term benefits but are unlikely to produce short term benefits are also beneficial to growth, but unlikely to arise spontaneously from the private sector. No private company is going to invest huge sums of money with the goal of maybe sending sattelites into space in 25 years time, but the centrally planned soviet union might, or the centrally funded NASA.

Originally Posted by Phrost

That's why when there is a 7.0 earthquake in Haiti, a quarter of a million people die and the country descends into anarchy. That's why when a magnitude 6.9 quake hits in a remote and sparsely populated part of China, over 2500 people die. That's also why when there is a similar earthquake in California or Japan, a few buildings collapse and maybe a handful of people die. Having that extra wealth allows for better designed buildings that use better materials and better construction techniques (and better infrastructure, and better hospitals, more resources for search and rescue, more resources for rebuilding, etc.).

Having more wealth makes society better able to cope with just about any problem. A reduction in average annual real GDP growth from 4% to 3% means that in 100 years, that society would have less than 40% of the wealth that they would have had if growth rates had stayed at 4%.

Having more wealth doesn't automatically translate into that wealth being shared out into the right hands. Under a libertarian society, it is quite plausible that the total amount of wealth would be higher, and thus the average wealth higher, but the median wealth far lower, as there are no restrictions in place preventing individuals from hoarding huge amounts of it in order to wield political power.

Granted, that is possible currently, but progressive tiered tax levels mitigate the problem to a certain extent and redistribute the wealth to those less fortunate, as well as is used to fund opportunities for the poorer members of society to make themselves more productive through training courses etc.

In a libertarian society, if an earthquake hit san francisco there is no guarantee it wouldn't demolish a large spread of slums, and with no organisation available to prevent the spread of disease, the situation could feasibly be worse than haiti.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by hgc

Here's the thing about authoritarianism -- it can come from the government or it can come from the criminal gangs that fill the power void when government breaks down or withers. I also don't like excessive authority, but I recognize the need for some kind of coercive enforcement of the rules in order for the smooth functioning of civilized society.

Yes, government needs coercive enforcement power to protect people from violation of their rights, persons, and property, but libertarians believe that government's coercive power is only used legitimately for those specific purposes. To quote John Stuart Mill:

Quote:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

Which brings up this:

Quote:

Absolutely authoritarian? There's no nuance between a trans-fat ban and, say, limitless police power to detain political prisoners. That's the kind of overheated rhetoric that leads to the humorous hyperbole that you have decried above.

Governmental use of coercive power to prevent people from freely engaging in activities that harm no one else are illegitimate. It's that simple. It's like the First Amendment; it is just as illegitimate for the government to fine someone for constitutionally protected speech as it for the government to impose the death penalty for constitutionally protected speech. Obviously, one has effects that are dramatically more severe (and substantially more unjust), but the lack of legitimacy is the same. The government should do neither.

If I want to buy a donut cooked in trans fats from a restaurant, that should be between the restaurant and myself. If I want to buy food with added salt from a restaurant, same thing. Now, if I ask the restaurant staff about the macronutrient content of a particular dish and they lie to me, now we have an issue where governmental involvement is legitimate because the restaurant has committed fraud and has done harm to me.

One of the most beautiful paragraphs in the English language:

Quote:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by stokes234

If you're really a libertarian, then why do are you telling people how to argue in a forum? Shouldn't they be left to decide by themselves how to argue? I say that it is you, sir, who is the authoritarian.

What dross. Is he pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to argue a certain way...or is he attempting to persuade?

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

What dross. Is he pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to argue a certain way...or is he attempting to persuade?

Has anyone ever pointed a gun at you and demanded you stop eating trans fats?

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by stokes234

You're assuming that libertarianism would provide higher rates of growth. Libertarianism suffers from a lack of central planning, which can actually provide many benefits that improve growth.

I have to admit, I stopped reading right there.

"Libertarianism suffers from a lack of central planning, which can actually provide many benefits that improve growth."

It's like the 20th century didn't even happen.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by stokes234

Has anyone ever pointed a gun at you and demanded you stop eating trans fats?

YES.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

I have to admit, I stopped reading right there.

"Libertarianism suffers from a lack of central planning, which can actually provide many benefits that improve growth."

It's like the 20th century didn't even happen.

I'm sorry, it sounds like you're about to provide a long list of economies that grew successfully in the 20th century without central planning. Don't let me stop you.

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

Yes

From your link: "Food manufacturers and restaurants that violate the legislation face fines of up to $1,000. " Sounds like a ban on selling harmful products to other people to me, rather than a ban on harming yourself. Also sounds like it'l be enforced with fines, rather than guns.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by stokes234

I'm sorry, it sounds like you're about to provide a long list of economies that grew successfully in the 20th century without central planning. Don't let me stop you

You're serious, aren't you? I'll give you a very partial list.

The United States of America (there was no government planning agency that allocated resources to, nor gave direction to Bill Gates in the formation of Microsoft, for instance)
South Korea (compare to North Korea)
West Germany (compare to East Germany)
China after liberalization (compare to China before liberalization)


BTW, the correlation between GDP per capita and the Economic Freedom Index (Heritage's version) is 0.71.

Quote:

From your link: "Food manufacturers and restaurants that violate the legislation face fines of up to $1,000. " Sounds like a ban on selling harmful products to other people to me, rather than a ban on harming yourself.

I can no longer purchase specific foods from restaurants, even if that restaurant would like to sell it to me and I would like to buy it.

Quote:

Also sounds like it'l be enforced with fines, rather than guns.

Tell the nice judge that you won't pay the fine and you will see why the reference to guns is relevant.

[Phrost]

Excellent posts, Mike.

Honestly, I just popped into this thread to point out a bit of unpleasant JREF Forum culture so I'm glad you're actually addressing the issues.

If you're one of the people who doesn't see how an overabundance of regulation can be abused in a manner which, while appearing to appeal to the common good, actually poses threats to individual liberty, then lately I don't have the time or energy to argue with you. Especially since, in many cases, "you" feel that way because in your world, the individual is of secondary importance to the collective; an idea which I find repugnant.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

You're serious, aren't you? I'll give you a very partial list.

The United States of America (there was no government planning agency that allocated resources to, nor gave direction to Bill Gates in the formation of Microsoft, for instance)
South Korea (compare to North Korea)
West Germany (compare to East Germany)
China after liberalization (compare to China before liberalization)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...52-2005gdp.gif.

Thankyou for the list of 5 countries that employed extensive central planning of infrastructure, taxation, education, legal systems, armed forces and welfare, it's particularly interesting. However, I was actually asking for a list of countries that didn't employ central planning, and can thusly be used as examples of libertarianism in action. Whenever you like.

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

I can no longer purchase specific foods from restaurants, even if that restaurant would like to sell it to me and I would like to buy it.

I understand why you think it should be completely legal, and I happen to agree with most libertarian ideas of personal liberties. For example, legalisation of drugs for certain age groups, abortion, freedom of religion, free speech etc, but trans fats are so difficult to track and prove that it would be impossible to restrict parents from feeding them to their children who are in no position to properly understand why it is bad for them. As a result, more taxes are required to pay for the resulting increased healthcare costs.

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

Tell the nice judge that you won't pay the fine and you will see why the reference to guns is relevant.

Well, perhaps you are right in this case. I live in the uk, where you don't get shot by police for not paying fines, but i'll bow to your expertise in the case of the american system.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by Phrost

If you're one of the people who doesn't see how an overabundance of regulation can be abused in a manner which, while appearing to appeal to the common good, actually poses threats to individual liberty, then lately I don't have the time or energy to argue with you. Especially since, in many cases, "you" feel that way because in your world, the individual is of secondary importance to the collective; an idea which I find repugnant.

I don't oppose individual freedoms, as stated in the above post. I believe in freedom to use drugs, freedom of sexuality, religion, extreme sports, abortion etc. Basically freedom to do whatever you like to yourself, so long as it doesn't harm others. I just happen to disagree with giving people the economic freedom to exploit others in an uncaring market, and with leaving people to die in the streets if they can't afford to pay for healthcare, or leaving people behind in the education system because their parents couldn't afford private school. In short, I don't hold the belief that poor people, as a general rule, deserve to be poor because of some failing in their own methods. I believe it more commonly to be a result of imbalance in the system, for example imbalances in economic background resulting in lower chances in life.

What is the libertarian view on the opportunities of children? Do libertarians believe everyone should have an equal start and thus an equal chance in life, or do they believe that, if they're unlucky enough to be born into a poor family, **** 'em?

[jfeheley]

[quote=stokes234;6570242]If you're really a libertarian, then why do are you telling people how to argue in a forum? Shouldn't they be left to decide by themselves how to argue? I say that it is you, sir, who is the authoritarian.

Yes, a libertarian is left to decide by themselves how to argue but with this freedom you have the ability to learn from other opinions. If we couldn't know other opinions how would we know anything?

[DreadNiK]

Originally Posted by stokes234

What is the libertarian view on the opportunities of children? Do libertarians believe everyone should have an equal start and thus an equal chance in life, or do they believe that, if they're unlucky enough to be born into a poor family, **** 'em?

The problem of children is one of the reasons I'd call myself a left-libertarian (or cop-out libertarian :P)

However, it is a matter of degree, with 'pure' libertarianism either ignoring the problem of children, or suggesting in general human nature will take care of it, or making an exception. But if you want total equality of opportunity, rather than the middle ground of minimum standard of opportunity provided by government, you're going to have to go with a Plato-esque 'wards of the state' type thing which is utterly contrary to human nature...

[DreadNiK]

Originally Posted by hgc

OK, that's true. But we still got a lively thread out of it, with extensive posts by people taking the lib side. I think it's going well.

I agree. I feel I will take some time to read the entirety of the thread and delurk for once in a long time.

Originally Posted by hgc

I'm not qualified to say exactly who's a libertarian, but Beerina came in early, followed soon by stevea. It appears that libertarians (and my apologies if you're not) want to contribute.

Maybe we should talk in terms of people's political spectra, it kinda sidesteps the whole strawman/guilty by association/probably more troubles.

Also, it appears the assumption is being made that (sigh) those of a libertarian bent would demand an instant switch to such a system, but it could be achieved via a carefully monitored process, being willing to concede ground (and generally finding that it is again in 'the commons'?)

It could be that a lot of the features of central government are the best answer, but that a lot of them aren't, and all of them are there via an illegitimate process and have illegitimate features - if you snapped right over to 'pure' libertarianism, I reckon you'd slowly see certain features of government evolve, but at a cost.

[DreadNiK]

Originally Posted by stokes234

Thankyou for the list of 5 countries that employed extensive central planning of infrastructure, taxation, education, legal systems, armed forces and welfare, it's particularly interesting. However, I was actually asking for a list of countries that didn't employ central planning, and can thusly be used as examples of libertarianism in action. Whenever you like.

Ok, so you are asking him to support libertarianism by providing examples of countries where it has worked?

So what if before democracy first came about, they decided they needed to have seen democracy in action working well for the society before they might implement it?

Feels like some sort of exclusive to political philosophy fallacy to me...

Originally Posted by stokes234

Well, perhaps you are right in this case. I live in the uk, where you don't get shot by police for not paying fines, but i'll bow to your expertise in the case of the american system.

Slightly facetious. The point is fines will be enforced if they are legitimate. The one thing libertarianism always has is enforcement of those laws it has...guns is a catch-all for forceful incentives

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

The problem of children is one of the reasons I'd call myself a left-libertarian (or cop-out libertarian :P)

However, it is a matter of degree, with 'pure' libertarianism either ignoring the problem of children, or suggesting in general human nature will take care of it, or making an exception. But if you want total equality of opportunity, rather than the middle ground of minimum standard of opportunity provided by government, you're going to have to go with a Plato-esque 'wards of the state' type thing which is utterly contrary to human nature...

Are you saying that the only libertarian system that provides total equality of opportunity is Plato's, or that the only system at all that would provide it is Plato's?

I personally advocate a much smaller gap between rich and poor as well as abolition of private schools and hospitals, which in my opinion would be enough to allow the ability and drive of an individual to be by far the biggest factors in determining their success, in most cases.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

Ok, so you are asking him to support libertarianism by providing examples of countries where it has worked?

So what if before democracy first came about, they decided they needed to have seen democracy in action working well for the society before they might implement it?

Feels like some sort of exclusive to political philosophy fallacy to me...

You imply that every system has an equal chance of being successful before it is put into practice. Would you want to experiment with a "what if society was run by computers who assign you a job completely at random every day?" system, just because nobody had ever tried it before?

My point was that he was claiming that the 20th century was evidence of libertarianism being successful, despite having no examples of libertarianism in action in the 20th century.

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

Slightly facetious. The point is fines will be enforced if they are legitimate. The one thing libertarianism always has is enforcement of those laws it has...guns is a catch-all for forceful incentives

Yes, it was. By that point I wasn't really being serious.

[DreadNiK]

Originally Posted by stokes234

Are you saying that the only libertarian system that provides total equality of opportunity is Plato's, or that the only system at all that would provide it is Plato's?

Neither. I'm saying to provide total equality of opportunity, you'll have to take children away from their parents and raise them all in exactly the same fashion

Originally Posted by stokes234

I personally advocate a much smaller gap between rich and poor as well as abolition of private schools and hospitals, which in my opinion would be enough to allow the ability and drive of an individual to be by far the biggest factors in determining their success, in most cases.

You advocate a much smaller gap between rich and poor? Good for you. Good luck with that. What about someone who gambles away all their money? Should we make everyone else poorer to ensure the size of the gap is kept small and that their kids aren't unfairly affected?

I can agree with making the individual the biggest factor by far in determining their own success, however. That sounds like a sensible compromise in the fact of the difficulties of going for making it the only factor.

But abolishing private health and education would reduce the drive for some people to earn and create wealth, because one of the reasons for that drive is so that they can ensure they have high quality healthcare and education (for their children) in line with the effort they've put in to make that available to themselves. Why should someone who has worked incredibly hard be forced to accept the potentially lowest common denominator of these things just because there are people who don't work hard but still need it to be available to them?

[DreadNiK]

Originally Posted by stokes234

You imply that every system has an equal chance of being successful before it is put into practice.

Where did I do that?

Originally Posted by stokes234

Would you want to experiment with a "what if society was run by computers who assign you a job completely at random every day?" system, just because nobody had ever tried it before?

Nope. But I wouldn't use 'show me where that has worked before, oh wait you can't' as an argument as to why I wouldn't want to.

Originally Posted by stokes234

My point was that he was claiming that the 20th century was evidence of libertarianism being successful, despite having no examples of libertarianism in action in the 20th century.

I think he was more claiming there are examples where moving towards libertarianism on the spectrum (i.e. more free market policies and less authoritarianism/central planning) have shown a great increase in wealth/happiness/some measure of success, and that is therefore suggestive that maybe going further in that direction will have even more success.

I think the whole disagreement there stemmed from the use of the term 'central planning' which generally means a very communistic society, whereas you meant 'any sort of centralised govt that controls certain spheres of society. Again talking in absolutes rather than degrees causes more problems than it is worth on both sides here.

Originally Posted by stokes234

Yes, it was. By that point I wasn't really being serious.

Yeah I thought so :P

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

Neither. I'm saying to provide total equality of opportunity, you'll have to take children away from their parents and raise them all in exactly the same fashion

Well, sure. But i'm not advocating that, since I don't believe that the pros of total equality would outweigh the cons of living in a society where children were taken away from their parents.

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

You advocate a much smaller gap between rich and poor? Good for you. Good luck with that. What about someone who gambles away all their money? Should we make everyone else poorer to ensure the size of the gap is kept small and that their kids aren't unfairly affected?

No, i'm not advocating everybody earning x amount per hour or per year. I'm advocating a narrower gap, not a removal of said gap. It's a grey area, but if I were in charge I would want to impose a cap of roughly $300-350k per year, or perhaps a ben-and-jerrys type system that made the maximum hourly wage ~8-10 times the minimum hourly wage, and I would want doctors, surgeons etc to be at the top of the band.

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

But abolishing private health and education would reduce the drive for some people to earn and create wealth, because one of the reasons for that drive is so that they can ensure they have high quality healthcare and education (for their children) in line with the effort they've put in to make that available to themselves. Why should someone who has worked incredibly hard be forced to accept the potentially lowest common denominator of these things just because there are people who don't work hard but still need it to be available to them?

I don't have a problem with people who work incredibly hard being able to raise their own standard of living, but I don't agree with education and health being categories that they can affect. Healthcare shouldn't be distributed based on who has the most money, it should be distributed based on who has the most need. As for education, I don't believe a child should have a better chance in the education system because they were lucky enough to be born to a rich family.

Comforts such as house size and furbishment, car type, clothes, televisions, computers, I have no problem with people getting through hard work. I just don't believe that the current system rewards effort and skill proportionately.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

Where did I do that?

When you said:

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

So what if before democracy first came about, they decided they needed to have seen democracy in action working well for the society before they might implement it?

The only similarity is that both scenarios involve new, untested systems. By saying that a previous untested system worked, therefore a new untested system deserves a chance, you imply that every new system deserves a chance.

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

Nope. But I wouldn't use 'show me where that has worked before, oh wait you can't' as an argument as to why I wouldn't want to.

No, you wouldn't want to try it because it is intuitively a bad idea to you. I consider libertarianism to be intuitively a bad idea, and so I wouldn't want it tested.

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

I think he was more claiming there are examples where moving towards libertarianism on the spectrum (i.e. more free market policies and less authoritarianism/central planning) have shown a great increase in wealth/happiness/some measure of success, and that is therefore suggestive that maybe going further in that direction will have even more success.

Well, that's a vague reasonable but particularly reductionist claim. I would claim that free market ideas themselves have relied on a large amount of regulation as well as nationalised systems of education, health etc to achieve the successes in the areas above. I would also argue that GDP per capita is not a perfect measure of success, because it does not take into account the extent of top-weighting driving the average up without dragging the median up to such an extent. It can also be argued that some of the increase was due to technological advancement, which could have been achieved regardless.

Furthermore, there are also plenty of examples where free market ideas in largely socialist countries have not only hurt the economy and massively spiked unemployment, there are also many (often the same) examples of free market ideas accompanying oppressive regimes, widespread executions, torture etc. Chile, argentina, brazil, uruguay, bolivia and indonesia being some of the more striking examples, though the free market ideas imposed during the asian financial crisis also resulted in 24 million more unemployed.

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

I think the whole disagreement there stemmed from the use of the term 'central planning' which generally means a very communistic society, whereas you meant 'any sort of centralised govt that controls certain spheres of society. Again talking in absolutes rather than degrees causes more problems than it is worth on both sides here.

Well, if you have another term for it i'm all ears, but yes, that is what I meant.

[megaresp]

Originally Posted by stevea

I don't think a libertarian states lack of regulation would improve this situation, but perhaos it wouldn't be any worse.

Why do you assume a libertarian state would lack regulation?

[megaresp]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I don't know but certainly the examples Piggy cited plus numerous others suggest self-regulation has serious problems. Your example merely shows that a regulatory system is imperfect as well.

I agree.

TV ads in the UK are submitted to a private organisation owned jointly by ITV, Channel 4, Five and Sky. This private organisation can and does veto advertising, and the system works just fine (unless the buggers are vetoing your ad of course :-).

In the same way, some government organisations work well and others are a mess.

Examples of this or that thing failing demonstrate nothing more than human imperfection.

I suppose a person might just as easily find examples of food poisoning resulting from corruption within the very government agency tasked to prevent it.

I recall a case of personal data being sold to criminals by a New Zealand Inland Revenue employee. Does this prove government is evil? Or that it's tax collectors are evil?

No sane person would say so.

It merely proves that some human beings are corruptible. This will be true regardless of the political system in place.

[megaresp]

Originally Posted by Delscottio

To take the restaurant scenario further what would happen if someone was killed and the management knew the food was unsafe i.e it was a criminal act, who would arrest the managers?

As far as I know, nobody in this thread has proposed zero government.

[megaresp]

Originally Posted by lomiller

another entrepreneur starts a publication called restaurant inspector. They charge half the price and always give good marks unless you refuse to pay. Since the consumers themselves have no way to know which is actually reliable they assume they are about the same so restaurants all pay the reduced price the real company goes out of business.

Some government inspector accepts bribes to pass a restaurant that ought to be closed down. Since the consumer has no way to know which restaurant has been vetted by a reliable inspector, they assume all restaurants bribe inspectors and stop eating out. All restaurants close down.

My strawman is, of course, nonsense. As is yours.

[DreadNiK]

Originally Posted by stokes234

No, i'm not advocating everybody earning x amount per hour or per year. I'm advocating a narrower gap, not a removal of said gap. It's a grey area, but if I were in charge I would want to impose a cap of roughly $300-350k per year, or perhaps a ben-and-jerrys type system that made the maximum hourly wage ~8-10 times the minimum hourly wage, and I would want doctors, surgeons etc to be at the top of the band.

You still haven't explained what you'd do in the scenario I gave where people have made themselves poor through free exercise of rights.

Secondly, if it could be shown that raising or removing your cap would lead to a higher standard of living for the poor even though the standard of living for the rich rose far more (the gap widens but the bottom rung is higher than before), would you do so?

Originally Posted by stokes234

I don't have a problem with people who work incredibly hard being able to raise their own standard of living, but I don't agree with education and health being categories that they can affect. Healthcare shouldn't be distributed based on who has the most money, it should be distributed based on who has the most need. As for education, I don't believe a child should have a better chance in the education system because they were lucky enough to be born to a rich family.

Fair enough. In reality the problem with this is that the rich people will move elsewhere (maybe) but I can accept it as a fundamental philosophical position.

Again, what if this means that the actual standards of health and education available to the poor would be lower than under a less equal system?

[DreadNiK]

Originally Posted by stokes234

When you said:


The only similarity is that both scenarios involve new, untested systems. By saying that a previous untested system worked, therefore a new untested system deserves a chance, you imply that every new system deserves a chance.

Nope. I was merely countering your argument that the untestedness of a system was an argument in favour of not adopting it.

Originally Posted by stokes234

No, you wouldn't want to try it because it is intuitively a bad idea to you. I consider libertarianism to be intuitively a bad idea, and so I wouldn't want it tested.

Nope. You can find non-intuitive arguments against a system, but saying 'it is untested' is neither an argument for or against such a test, you seemed to be suggesting it was an argument against.

Originally Posted by stokes234

Well, that's a vague reasonable but particularly reductionist claim. I would claim that free market ideas themselves have relied on a large amount of regulation as well as nationalised systems of education, health etc to achieve the successes in the areas above. I would also argue that GDP per capita is not a perfect measure of success, because it does not take into account the extent of top-weighting driving the average up without dragging the median up to such an extent. It can also be argued that some of the increase was due to technological advancement, which could have been achieved regardless.

Fair enough. Lots to go into there

Originally Posted by stokes234

Furthermore, there are also plenty of examples where free market ideas in largely socialist countries have not only hurt the economy and massively spiked unemployment, there are also many (often the same) examples of free market ideas accompanying oppressive regimes, widespread executions, torture etc. Chile, argentina, brazil, uruguay, bolivia and indonesia being some of the more striking examples, though the free market ideas imposed during the asian financial crisis also resulted in 24 million more unemployed.

Which is why I think any change needs to happen carefully, rather than radically (however, this doesn't mean take it slowly, necessarily, or not have a radical end goal, just being prepared to take it slowly if necessary, and be prepared not to get all the way to the end goal)

Originally Posted by stokes234

Well, if you have another term for it i'm all ears, but yes, that is what I meant.

Not really I was just suggesting the disagreement was more a semantic issue than anything else on this point.

[DreadNiK]

Originally Posted by megaresp

Some government inspector accepts bribes to pass a restaurant that ought to be closed down. Since the consumer has no way to know which restaurant has been vetted by a reliable inspector, they assume all restaurants bribe inspectors and stop eating out. All restaurants close down.

My strawman is, of course, nonsense. As is yours.

Yup. In both of your examples, the actions are illegitimate and can/would attempt to be enforced against under both systems. In his, for fraud (but also it is obvious that the inaccurate reporting of the cheaper one will become apparent to the market, even if there wasn't fraud enforcement of this type, which there might not be) and in your for corruption.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

You still haven't explained what you'd do in the scenario I gave where people have made themselves poor through free exercise of rights.

People who gamble away all their money even with a family relying on them are a small minority, and I don't propose to take the average earnigns as low as physically possible, I propose to use the money stacked at the top to bring up the median. In the case of someone gambling away all their money and leaving their children destitute, I would consider them unfit to be raising children. There would be a grey area, but it would be small enough to be insignificant in scale compared to the number of people who would, in my estimation, benefit. On the other hand, libertarianism would provide literally no parachute for children of bad parents.

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

Secondly, if it could be shown that raising or removing your cap would lead to a higher standard of living for the poor even though the standard of living for the rich rose far more (the gap widens but the bottom rung is higher than before), would you do so?

Admittedly this is a difficult question. Firstly i'll say that I don't accept a libertarian society would have a higher standard of living for the poor than a leftist society that left essential services to the state and comforts/luxuries to the market. But in your scenario, I would first judge whether or not the gains to the poor outweighed the gains of an equal society. For example, there is, I believe, a fairly strong correlation between crime rates and equality, the theory being that envy of people much richer than you is a powerful encouragement to get what they've earned by theft, drugs etc.

There's also a part of me that just prefers the cultural aspect of a society where everyone pitches in and everyone has a safety net, rather than an "every-man-for-himself" culture that libertarianism would inspire.

If the gains to the poor in the free market scenario could be shown to be higher than both other factors I cited combined, then I would consider it, but I don't believe they would be.

Originally Posted by DreadNiK

Fair enough. In reality the problem with this is that the rich people will move elsewhere (maybe) but I can accept it as a fundamental philosophical position.

Again, what if this means that the actual standards of health and education available to the poor would be lower than under a less equal system?

Again, I refer to my position on the benefits of equality itself and of a co-operative rather than cutthroat culture.

[quixotecoyote]

When I first saw this thread title, I read it as "Libertarianism and other natural disasters"

[Drachasor]

The problem with libertarianism is that it is just as idealistic and unrealistic as (a Marxist) communism. It's just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

It isn't like we haven't tried less regulated economies. Bad stuff happens.

[Phrost]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

The problem with libertarianism is that it is just as idealistic and unrealistic as (a Marxist) communism. It's just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

It isn't like we haven't tried less regulated economies. Bad stuff happens.

Libertarianism isn't some magical polar opposite of Marxism. If anything, it's the polar opposite of Authoritarianism. You're confusing Economics and Politics.