theyeti

My previous statement of "no control over anything" was meant to be a brief contrast between the extremes of libertarianism and socialism. I think any intelligent person could have read it in context and seen this, and realized that it was not meant to be an accurate or complete description of all libertarian thought. It's not unusual for someone not to define his terms at the end of a long post, and instead to let people read earlier posts to understand the context. Nevertheless, "no govenrment control over anything" is an accurate description of anarcho-capitialism, which is one of the most popular forms -- if not the most popular -- of libertarianism.

Total Bullshit. I stated quite clearly in my first post on this thread that the comments I made applied only to certain libertarians and not others. Here's what I said:

Oh gee, what a horrible pigeon-holer I am! I really deserve to be likened to fundamentalists, don't I? FYI, in that first post I wasn't dealing with anarcho-capitalism either. I was addressing two libertarian tendancies: absolute property rights yet no taxation, and solving all problems through privatization. Then 99% and I struck up a conversation that mostly vereed off into subject matter concerning anarcho-capitalism. If you can't be bothered to read the full thread and place given posts in their proper contexts, then you don't deserve to participate in this discussion.

I learned them through the Libertarian Party, of which I used to be a member. I also used to receive a great deal of information and literature from libertarian groups, and I used to receive a weekly email from http://www.self-gov.org , complete with Ask Dr. Ruwart. Furthermore, I have been participating on this forum for about two years and my use of the term "libertarian" is perfectly consistent with how many people here use it.

But none of that really matters, because I have no interest in getting into a pissing contest with you over what "True Libertarianism" is. That has got to be the most boring discussion on Earth. You seem to be the one obsessed with labels here, not me. I have been addressing arguments on this thread and nothing more, arguments that are put forth by people who call themselves libertarians, and therefore I have found it convienient to refer to them simply as "libertarians". I didn't find it necessary to qualify every reference to them with a "well, some libertarians of the Freidman-Rand persuasion..." or something dumb like that. I figured that the caveat I placed at the end of my first post was sufficient to keep anyone from wetting their pants at being misrepresented. If any specifc arguments don't apply to you, then simply ignore them and put forth your own arugments about how you think things should be. Please don't chastise me for calling people libertarians who are widely known as libertarians; it's very annoying.

WTF? You were the one who said, "For the most part, mainstream Libertarians believe..." after whining to me that I was misreprenting libertarians. I'm not interested in defining what "mainstream libertarianism" is, because it's like nailing jello to the wall. I was simply pointing out that many, if not most libertarians do not share your views at all. Dr. Ruwart, for example, advocates returing to the gold standard. I don't remember if the LP does, but they probably do too.

Libertarians generally differ from Republicans in that the former believes that the government doesn't have a right to regulate the market as a matter of ideology. Republicans tend to maintain that the government shouldn't regulate the market as a matter of practical politics. This is what I see as the distinctive feature between the two, and if you're advocating regulation at all, you're closer to the Republican way of handling the economy. I was not referring to their stances on civil liberties at all. (As a quick aside, I strongly agree with most libertarians when it comes to civil liberties. But these tend to get short shrift from a lot of libertarians who are active in politics; these people tend to align themselves with the conservatives.)

How very charming. The problem is that you haven't put forth any specific argument about how the Constitution is a libertarian document, or whatever it is you believe. You simply insinuated that I am as dumb as those who deny that the Constitution expouses separation of church and state without further qualification and without backing up your assertion. I was being generous by referring to you as "cryptic". Pehaps I should have come up with a nastier word.

I listed several things that are strongly held convictions by most libertarians, and they're not in the Constitution at all (in fact, the Constitution specifically negates these "rights" in many cases, such as with eminent domain). Aside from civil liberties, which I specifically said are in the Constitution, which economic libertarian ideals are expoused? I don't have Hayek's book and I don't regard him as a trustworthy authority anyway, so perhaps you could list some of these libertarian clauses and we can discuss them in a civil manner.

theyeti

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

Crow

Greetings Thomas...thank you for the link to your essay, it was a good read. If you don't mind I'd like to answer your questions as best I can, however the answer to your question about transaction costs will be a bit involved, so if I may ask your indulgence to allow me post something a bit later in the day as I put my thoughts together (and go to see LOTR-TT ).

Your latter question though is a good one:

Personally, I do not feel that corporate welfare is a positive market influence. It only bolsters inefficient companies that should be allowed to die so that their resources may be applied to more efficient companies. However, I do give to charities of my preference. As a sidebar, note that "of my preference" is an important distinction, which is lost if government is allowed to be the clearinghouse for all charity.

However, I do not think it is correct to push my morality on to another individual. For example, I do not believe that abortion is morally correct, but I'm not about to vote for its abolition as I am not one who will have to live with the consequences of that choice being removed.

If I may quote part of your essay:

I believe August Spies had some good arguments regarding objective morality earlier in this thread. And I even agree with theyeti regarding "natural rights".

The problem arises when you consider two conflicting moralities: If I were to choose not to give $500 to a homeless beggar and instead choose to buy a tee shirt, is it morally correct to steal that money from me because you feel it is morally correct that a homeless person should have shelter? Which is the greater of the moralities? Thou shall not steal or every person should have food and shelter.

Now, I will be honest and tell you that I have argued the other side of the fence on this issue, but more specifically on healthcare issues. And I've taken quite a tongue lashing from my fellow Libertarians for my non-mainstream views (I want to highlight that point). However, two of the roles of government are to provide for the common defense and protect the rights of the individual. Defense can be narrowly described a purely defense from other nations. Or it can be defined as defense against external threats to the rights of each individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, disease is a threat to my right to live. Just as mainstream Libertarians agree that some level of police force is a necessary government function to protect against those who would choose to murder me, I can see that some level of heathcare should be provided to protect against diseases that would murder me. Perhaps this argument can be further construed that starvation and exposure to the elements are also threats to that right to live. Food for thought...

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

Kip

I appreciated your post, managalar, colorful metaphors and all. Allow me to defend my criticism of government expenditure.

You say that you hate people whining about "their money being taken away" and I realize that these complaints can become tedious and annoying. That does not make them unjustified, however, and I think you have failed entirely to demonstrate that the claims are unjustified.

The arguments I see in your post is this:

1. Hi-tech military spending is "already earmarked" and would be spent on conventional military anyway.
2. NASA does important research.
3. If citizens were not forced to pay for NASA, private industry would fail to produce something like the Hubble telescope.

In response to 1, you are right that the problem is with the voters and not the government. Big military spending is popular, people vote for the spending, but EVERYONE is taxed for the spending, even those who voted against the spending (as I would).

My point about 1 and 3, while I recognize that the voters themselves may cause the problem, is that people are spending money for essentially a "gee wiz" factor. The "gee wiz" factor applies to the Space Station, billion dollar bombers, the Lunar Landings, and Missions to Mars, among other things. People look at the results, which are very dramatic and glamorous (oh look... footprints on the moon!) and justify the economic sacrifice because their contribution is only one penny a day. That is the secret power of taxes, the cost is distributed so thinly and evenly that the cost appears to be small. But that is an illusion not unlike the Gambler's Fallacy. One penny a day from the American public for a year is absolutely gigantic sum, money that could be spent feeding and sheltering the poor. I remain very skeptical of these extremely high cost endeavors, which are only possible because of the illusion of cheap taxes, especially considering the program's benefits, which do not seem to be much more than the "gee wiz" factor. The "gee wiz" factor says "wow, this is humanly possible if only we could get together enough money we could accomplish this", the money is taxed away and the economic sacrifice is felt to be small, and then we have a billion dollar "stealth" airplane and footprints and flags on the moon. So we can put pictures of the airplane, which looks so cool, and the footprints on calendars and posters and watch videos about what our tax dollars have created and say "gee wiz, isn't that neato" and the entire time millions of people could have kept billions of dollars that could have bought them medicine, food, shelter, or something they felt was more important than realizing the outermost limits of what is possible in military technology and space exploration.

In response to 2, I agree that NASA does much important research. This is a question of degree and not kind. How much research is enough? Wouldn't a free market better identify the demands for technologies and produce more efficient and elegant solutions than the government? How much of the benefit of NASA is explained by these advances in aerospace engineering, and how much is the "gee wiz" factor?

Finally, in response to question:

The answer is probably none. The conclusion does not follow, however, that we should therefore tax people to produce the Hubble telescope. I think this is a classic example of the "gee wiz" factor. Look at how pretty that picture is! You ask me if the private sector would produce something such as that picture, as if I am supposed to stand in awe of how pretty the picture is and say "Yes, tax away, we need that picture!"

What you do not seem to remember is that there are economic consequences for Hubble. Those photographs cost people money. Now, you argue that "I don�t think most people know enough to care, and I�d love to be shown otherwise". So you criticize the market for being ignorant, but you are willing to trust government spending to a majority vote. Do you not agree that the market would be a more efficient means of identifying demands and producing products? The conclusion you do not even seem to consider is that we should go without Hubble. If the market fails to produce Hubble - that means that there is only so much capital and there were more urgent needs than pretty pictures (I realize that Hubble is more than pretty pictures). That means that individuals needed food and shelter and medicine - or an mp3 player and motorcycle - and therefore purchased those things, because these were more important to them.

I can understand how markets fail and people can be ignorant, but I do not understand at all how you reach the conclusion that, THEREFORE, the government, which only requires a majority vote and is filled with politicians bent upon reelection, would be more informed and produce better results. It is not at all obvious that, just because Hubble has been a success and produced pretty pictures or interesting astronomical data, that this was the best way of spending that money. All of the adverse consequences of taxing for Hubble are distributed across the population so that we do not see the hidden costs. We only see the pictures.

I also want you to realize that I am a fan of space exploration. I watched the arrival of Odyssey on the Internet live. I've read the Case for Mars. I do not deny that all of these programs are fascinating. But I have grown critical of the heavy handed method by which they are produced. As neato as all of these programs are, I wish that the private sector had produced them instead - and if the private sector had not, there probably were more urgent demands for those tax dollars.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kip ]</p>

Thomas Ash

Hello Crow, thanks for the critique. I look forward to your response to my questions about transaction costs; in the mean time, enjoy LOTR-TT - by all accounts, it's great. I'm going to see it on Boxing Day (or should that be 'the 5th day after Winter Solstice' - I don't know whether it' damages your credentials to celebrate Xian holidays on this board( .) I have a friend where I work who's going back home to New Zealand over the Christmas - er, winter solstice - period, so I'm looking forward to his photos of orcs, elves and their ilk.
Well, I agree with you on this one. I have no problems saying that huge amounts of government spending are completely wasted or counter productive. For instance, the government spends large amounts of money paying companies to cut down trees in ways which would not otherwise be economically viable . The same thing goes for agricultural subsidies, bad not just because they're corporate welfare (the largest handouts go to large, rich industrial farmers) but also because they greatly harm poor farmers in Africa and the fertile developing world, which could otherwise become the breadbasket of the world, but in actual fact finds its farmers swamped by subsidized food from Europe and the US.

Quote:

However, I do give to charities of my preference. As a sidebar, note that "of my preference" is an important distinction, which is lost if government is allowed to be the clearinghouse for all charity. However, I do not think it is correct to push my morality on to another individual. For example, I do not believe that abortion is morally correct, but I'm not about to vote for its abolition as I am not one who will have to live with the consequences of that choice being removed. If I may quote part of your essay: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wouldn't most people say that charity is right? Even if money is yours, if you are faced with spending $500 dollars on a designer T-shirt or spending the same $500 dollars on providing shelter for someone who is homeless for half a year, the latter is absolutely the right choice. I'm assuming the existence of absolute morality and absolute right-or-wrong choices, rather than there being no reason to pick the shelter over the T-shirt, it simply being a personal preference. But I think absolute morality is a fair assumption - most people do acknowledge right and wrong. I believe August Spies had some good arguments regarding objective morality earlier in this thread. And I even agree with theyeti regarding "natural rights". The problem arises when you consider two conflicting moralities: If I were to choose not to give $500 to a homeless beggar and instead choose to buy a tee shirt, is it morally correct to steal that money from me because you feel it is morally correct that a homeless person should have shelter? Which is the greater of the moralities? Thou shall not steal or every person should have food and shelter.

I'll grant that this is an important point, and not an easy one for me to just wave aside. I'm comitted to the democratic principle, and I can see that there is a real problem in explaining why some should be made to pay up taxes for things they object to just because 51% choose to spend government money on that program. As for your point on absolute morality, to avoid confusion I should say that I mean by this simply obective right and wrong as opposed to relativism or postmodernist 'equally valid'-ism (to coin a phrase .) But I don't accept 'natural rights' as absolute. Just because I see the problem with forcing other people to pay taxes on majority vote, doesn't mean there aren't equally problematic consequences for the libertarian desire for self-government. I think you and other libertarians have to admit that there is a problem with saying that even if 99% of the population wants to institute, say, a ban on sending out sensitive defense information (locations of vulnerable nuclear power plants, etc.) to Saddam Hussein, the remaining 1% should be allowed to do so because of their 'natural right' to decide what they do with their lives. But there are several 'pure libertarians' who won't even admit this. They have such a purist conception of 'natural rights' that they're perfectly happy with allowing awful consequences like not permitting the police to restrain a drunk person from committing suicide, even if the potential suicidee would be grateful to the police the next morning (assuming he or she didn't have too bad a hangover .) I'm not making that last example up by the way. Some 'pure libertarians' are on the record as saying so, and it is the logical extension of their 'absolute' belief in natural rights and self-government.

Quote:

Now, I will be honest and tell you that I have argued the other side of the fence on this issue, but more specifically on healthcare issues. And I've taken quite a tongue lashing from my fellow Libertarians for my non-mainstream views (I want to highlight that point). However, two of the roles of government are to provide for the common defense and protect the rights of the individual. Defense can be narrowly described a purely defense from other nations. Or it can be defined as defense against external threats to the rights of each individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, disease is a threat to my right to live. Just as mainstream Libertarians agree that some level of police force is a necessary government function to protect against those who would choose to murder me, I can see that some level of heathcare should be provided to protect against diseases that would murder me. Perhaps this argument can be further construed that starvation and exposure to the elements are also threats to that right to live. Food for thought...

Clearly, you're not one of those extremist libertarians I was just complaining about, and I'd be interested in hearing your response (as well as those of other libertarians, and of those non-libertarians who see the problem with forcing 49% to do 51%'s bidding) to the problems I've just raised.

e you,

Thomas

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

John Hancock

I looked T MY daughter's

thefugitivesaint

Kip:
Well, define precisely what "market" you are discussing and maybe someone will be able to present an answer. I would have to say no, the market is not the most "efficient" means of identifying any of the demands the so-called "consuming public" has. If it was providing people with what they want then the existing corporations would have no need to spend huge amounts of capital on advertising, "market research", etc.

I'll expand on this point (yet again) in a bit. I need to get back to work. I'll flesh out my position on my next break.
-theSaint

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

thefugitivesaint

A bit of an explination for the previous post...

The claim is often made by supports of so-called "free" markets that the market is itself the best regulator of resources by its distribution of said resources into areas of "consumer demand." This may have been a defensable position at one time but the claim cannot be said to be a legitimate one given the current state of said "market."

What is generally ignored by most "free" market proponents is that quality and originality are often cheaper and far more "efficient" than mass production.

The market, as we know it, offers an untold number of goods in greater and greater quantities then ever before in human history. The problem is that these goods are increasingly similar in nature. The phenomenon of competition in a sphere artificially closed by the demands of mass production and mass distribution (what we use to call an Oligoply) has eroded, to a great extent, any kind of genuine competition within the market.

After the cost of packaging and of supporting the vast corporate structures that exist to produce said products the claim that "efficiency" is being met are laughable.

The drive to create different products which compete, thanks to various qualities for public attention, has been replaced by the drive to differentiate virtually identical products in the public's eye through a competition between appearances.

Advertising is one of the primary costs fixed in most corporations budgets. Why is this if existing needs are simply creating a demand within the market and the market provides? Maybe because this simplistic take of "supply and demand" does not account for a great deal of the "markets" current activities.

The market also only caters to those who have the money to participate in its activities. There is a world wide demand for clean water, food and housing but many who possess these demands do not possess the means by which to acquire the goods needed to satisfy their want for basic necessities. The "market" is blind and dumb towards those who have no money. The "market", however, is accomidating to the "needs" of those who do, in fact, possess money. And, since the "market" is the primary regulator of cultural behavior in this age it reshapes the actual world to provide for the needs of those who participate in it. This is, of course, a generalization of the process by which the "market" acts to meet the needs of some but not others regardless of the demand being expressed by the population. The point being that not all expressions of the population are reflected in the actual services provided by the current "market."

Many years ago Vance Packerd wrote The Waste Makers. He cited various examples of what became known as "planned obsolescence." For example, In the 1930s an enterprising engineer working for General Electric proposed increasing sales of flashlight lamps by increasing their efficiency and shortening their life. Instead of lasting through three batteries he suggested that each lamp last only as long as one battery. In 1934 speakers at the Society of Automotive Engineers meetings proposed limiting the life of automobiles.

By the 1950s planned obsolescence had become routine and engineers worried over the ethics of deliberately designing products of inferior quality. The conflict between profits and engineering objectives were apparent. The fear of market saturation seemed to require such methods to ensure a prosperous economy, yet the consumer was being sold inferior products that could have been made more durable for little extra cost.

The computer industry often makes relatively recent computer systems obsolete by discontinuing parts or accessories for them. This is an industry that promotes its own need for constant replacement or updating of products offered. It also happens to be one of the most wasteful of modern industries.

When proponents of the "market" call for us to privatize and to allow the "market" to meet all needs regardless of their ranking in social importance or impact they ignore the fact the "market" is not as all-powerful as they believe. If the "market" did do what they claimed then why is poverty such a growing problem? Why do children in one of the richest nations in the world (the U.S.) still die of nutrition and lack health care? The list goes on and on and on.

"Efficiency" is a term that does not apply in these discussions unless you narrow its claim and its scope.

Just some commentary from another "leftist idiot."
yep.
-theSaint

August Spies

"Like which ones?"

well... we do not have to go furthur than two of the most famous British political philosophers who talked about rights. Locke and Hobbes. Even they did not agree on what the true natural rights were.

theSaint
as always, very interesting post.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: August Spies ]</p>

Gurdur

No, no, no, it still leaves me and any interested lurkers without an idea as to what you mean, not your rather presumptous "you".

Wow ! How unfortunate you do not see fit to communicate with the rest of us benighted heathen.

You could have answered the question simply; you chose to play silly games instead.

Because you were simply not willing to answer a simple question.
My word, you're making such a big thing out of your refusal.
Forget it, mate; I couldn't care less why you want to post code words, but not explain to someone actually willing to talk to you.

As I said, I've now lost all desire - and I strongly suspect any discussion with you would remain unproductive in any case.

No worries; there are tons more interesting people here actually willing to talk.

Friar Bellows

That's nonsense. You have absolutely no evidence to make that presumption. All you can say with any confidence is that you didn't understand me.

</strong>

I'd be presumptuous if I claimed that everybody understood me. But I never did that. I'd be presumptuous if I claimed that only you didn't understand me. But I never did that. I merely stated that you didn't understand me. Why? Because you said so yourself!

Again with the presumptuous "us". It takes no small amount of arrogance to speak for others in this way.

Well, I'm not your personal dictionary. When I read a post and I don't understand a word, I look it up in a dictionary. I don't clutter up a thread asking someone else to do my homework.

Again, speaking for everyone else.

No, I'm merely responding to your accusations and questions. You're the one who appears to be making something big out of it.

Code words? Umm, they're English words. Found in English dictionaries if you'd care to look.

This is the second time you've claimed to have lost the desire to continue this discussion. Why don't you make up your mind?

And there are tons more interesting people willing to use dictionaries and not be so presumptuous (and actually know what that word means).