Holes in my bucket! Feudalism and Child Labor?

This post has been deleted.

Honestly, can we avoid dismissing peoples posts based upon labelling them as "anti-Libertarian" etc., and throwing these accusations around?

Seriously, could there be some mod intervention to force people to address peoples arguments, instead of dismissing their posts?
It is totally inevitable, that threads will spin into the usual ideological arguments, without them getting anywhere, if honest arguments aren't enforced; it seems totally counterproductive to wait for that to happen, and then just lock the threads.

Maybe this is better suited to Feedback, but three times lately, discussion on Libertarianisms core issues in a topic has been shut down, which is very counterproductive; you can't have any discussion on Libertarianism without it immediately focusing on its core issues, so shutting down discussion like that basically helps limit criticism of Libertarianism.

Maybe I'm wrong on that point, and excuse me for criticizing mod actions (I understand how sick of these threads some mods are), that just is increasingly my impression of how these topics have been going lately; it would be good to see a different tack taken.



Addressing the topic at hand:
The single core fault in Libertarian arguments right now, is the lack of demonstrated empirical testing (emphasis on testing) of the economics.

It is the difference between saying "Libertarian economics will work" (which is what most Libertarian supporters seem to state right now) and "Libertarian economics might work", and getting people to acknowledge that is the very first step needed to be able to have a non-ideological debate on the topic.
Getting people to acknowledge that though, is (fascinatingly and frustratingly) incredibly difficult to do; many Libertarian supporters have acknowledged some level of uncertainty on the economics though, to their credit.

If you can not start a debate on this topic from empirical principals, how can you have anything other than an ideological debate which will go around in circles endlessly?


Excuse the ranty nature of this post; I can just see this easily spinning into another ideological debate, and getting shut down at some stage.

This post has been deleted.

benway wrote: »

I don't see that many of the so-called "anti libertarian" posters are necessarily set against libertarian ideals. It's just a question of their practical application.

It seems to me that there's a bunch of people with varying outlooks, who like to explore ideas, who are all being lumped together as the "usual suspects", out to get the libertarians. Speaking for myself, that simply isn't the case.

The biggest problem is that these threads tend to get quite frustrating, because it seems that certain topics are out of bounds - by engaging with them, you can improve your own understandings, as well as ours.

It's not about "winning" or "losing", it's about learning. Some of you seem to have lost sight of that.

Yes this is it exactly; I actually agree with a wide swathe of Libertarian principals when it comes to social things, but the core economic faults really stand out to me, and that economic part of the debate does seem to be treated in an untouchable manner.

Libertarian supporters seem to focus almost exclusively on the theory; on first glance, the theory does have some parts that look distasteful, but which make more sense as you read up on it more, so I can totally see where people are coming from there.

Lets assume (assume because I haven't read up on it enough yet) the theory (while controversial) is completely fine, and the world it would in theory implement seems like it may well be far better, but when you start examining the core economics from a pragmatic/practical sense, i.e. actually implemented it and deliberately seeking out potential problems (i.e. applying falsifiability), a lot of holes start to appear.


There are a lot of Libertarian supporters that I can't even get to agree that it has not been empirically tested, and as a consequence, who I can't get to agree that it should be examined empirically rather than ideologically/theoretically.

I can't even get some people to discuss this stuff, so I can't even determine if they do or do not reject testing Libertarianism in a scientific way, which (from my point of view) is bizarre.

Expanding more on my previous posts, relating to empiricism of 'Libertarian economics' (which I've defined before, as free market with no regulation or central bank, though that's open to change in definition):

All sweeping claims that "capitalism solves this" or "the free market solves that" all depend upon the premise that the theories backing Libertarian economics have been empirically shown to hold up in practice.

As I've said a lot before, it is the difference between "the free market does solve that" and "the free market might solve that", which is a very important distinction.

Basically, people are stating things as a certainty that they can not logically state are certain; this doesn't invalidate what they say, but if people don't qualify their statements with "might" and highlight the uncertainty (and that they are discussing theory), then it more easily leads to a black/white ideological discussion.


If a level of uncertainty is added to these statements, it opens them up to being challenged by looking at past economies which have had similar components to Libertarian economics (even if those past economies did not implement the whole of the components associated with Libertarian economics).

It also opens up the arguments to being challenged by pragmatic arguments, looking at the logical conclusion of implementing them in practice, and instead of people saying "capitalism solves that" and that being an argument, they have to provide greater documentation and proof showing that to back it up.

That would be a more empirical and interesting discussion, because people could use actual historical events and hard-research to back up their points, and ideological statements could not be arguments in themselves, because the burden of proof would be on you to back those statements up.

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova wrote: »

I get genuinely excited when someone claims they can show Libertarianism be more full of holes than Swiss cheese. I was left disappointed though, as said poster starting singing from the usual anti-libertarian hymsheet, in doing so exposing his/her own ignorance or dishonesty, while chalking up unfounded victories for government intervention.

Snap. I too get genuinely excited when someone puts forward claims in the OP that those who poke holes in Libertarianism are exposing their own ignorance or dishonesty.
Anyhoo to the rest of the OP.

It's interesting that you've used selective quotes from Sachs and Krugman to back up the Libertarian position of completely free markets when they are in fact diametrically opposed to the ideology.

They are both well known for being against Libertarianism policies:
no child labour laws, unfettered and unregulated capitalism, low or no corporate taxation, ending all foreign aid, etc.

However, my reading of their views on this is that they are not against any forms of globalisation that allow foreign companies to manufacture abroad, but of course aiming for or working towards a strict regulatory framework that seeks to protect workers rights, environmental rights and so on and extracts high taxation from corporate interests.

They took a pragmatic view about it, that globalisation as it exists currently is exploitative, but in some cases is at least better than starvation. Not exactly cause for celebration or for claiming vindication.

They're not in any way endorsing these practices, nor in my view do they see them as evidence that unfettered unregulated Libertarian policies would work or eventually solve these problems of poverty and inequality.

Valmont wrote: »

Immoral? How so? When I was younger, my father would occasionally keep me from school and let me help him make his deliveries around Dublin in his van. Was this immoral from your point of view? What about farm kids mucking in and doing their bit around the fields? This is par for the course even nowadays from what I understand.

Granted, I wasn't sewing Nikes for forty hours a week but would you say child labour is always immoral?

The definition of child labour commonly excludes minor work with family business; there are probably cases where it (child labour) isn't immoral, but generally speaking it is.

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Alright, "Libertarian economics" is more a catch-all term than having an absolute definition, but my principal arguments behind it still stand:
Libertarian supporters themselves contend that a truly free market has not been tried (i.e. not been empirically tested), and that this is an essential component of Libertarianism.

It would help more if individual posters outlined their specific economic views though, instead of having to rely on that catch-all term.

Suryavarman wrote:

Secondly, both I and the other libertarians on this forum have often held up many western countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as examples of what a libertarian economy would resemble. Modern Singapore and Hong Kong have also been mentioned as examples. There are also various places around the world where there are examples of how a libertarian economy could work, from the private provision of education to the masses in third world countries to the abolition of farm subsidies in New Zealand to companies voluntarily having their products tested for safety by Underwriters Laboratory.

Many of those are partial examples of the implementation of components of Libertarian economics (lets say that means "Libertarian-compatible economics"); are any of those (e.g. Singapore or Hong Kong) a complete example of a desired Libertarian economic system, or are they all incomplete in some way?

If any of them are an ideal implementation of economics for a Libertarian government, they will be very useful in the discussion, for sake of research and examination.

Suryavarman wrote:

Even leaving aside successes of libertarianism it's much easier to point out the abysmal failures of government. It's not exactly utopian to argue that going back to when a failed government policy was enacted and going with more freedom instead of more government control might have been a better policy. It's clear to everyone that the status quo isn't working but yet anyone that proposes more freedom is shouted down and ridiculed as the "pragmatists" discuss about what the Government should do to fix the problem. Any time a libertarian proposes a libertarian solution to a problem they are immediately reminded by somebody of how government "fixed" a problem, while at the same time that somebody ignores that the market was already solving that problem. Then it is the libertarian that is accused of being intellectually dishonest, dogmatic, utopian, evil, greedy and/or heartless. Maybe it's time to drop the name calling and leave the talk about Charles Dickens novels to the literature forum and start discussing libertarianism without all the hyperbole.

Okey, I agree with this generally and yes, I'd like the discussion to take a much more dispassionate/rational look at Libertarianism, while avoiding the ideological arguments it's gotten trapped in a lot lately.

One thing I do disagree with a bit though, is that I don't think many people are against more economic Libertarianism, people just are against absolute economic Libertarianism.

Permabear wrote:

Most economists today accept that economic liberalization is a necessary precursor to economic growth. The case of India is just one example. Until the mid-1970s, India had one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world. Over the past three and a half decades, the economy has been opened up to private sector entrepreneurship and foreign investment to an unprecedented degree, and has seen robust sustained growth rates of between 6 and 9 percent annually as a consequence. A recent report by Edelweiss Capital anticipates that India's GDP will quadruple by 2020.

Okey, I agree with that generally and free markets are a very good economic setup for economic growth; too much regulation can be harmful, though taking it to the other extreme and having little to no regulation is also harmful.
A balance, with minimal regulation where absolutely necessary is (in my opinion) the best way; the details of such regulation are a big topic in themselves.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Interesting, though I don't think both sides are mutually exclusive; in a cold-rational sense, child labour does provide countries with an unfair advantage competitively, when it comes to cheap labour.

It's an interesting situation, where consumers in developed nations have the advantage of these cheap goods, at the expense of a well-maintained manufacturing industry and associated jobs; it's seems in the interest of the general population of a developed country, not only to oppose child labour on moral grounds, but also exploitative cheap labour in general where it makes them uncompetitive and costs them jobs.

I don't think there's a way to completely resolve that short term; customers demanding that producers, e.g. Apple, ensure these workers get a fair wage and have decent rights (despite the increase in price), is a start though (and may alleviate child labour, with increased wages of parents).

A blanket-ban isn't the way to go, but public awareness of the issue and customers pressuring the producers/corporations to improve the workers lot, does seem better; as the situation improves, it can be gradually more strictly controlled, until a ban can then be enforced.

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

If it doesn't affect their development (educational, social or otherwise), then sure, that'd be acceptable. I don't have a hard-set definition of child labour to be honest; I'm only just reading up on the topic a little now.

Valmont wrote: »

An entire economic system imposed (who will do the imposing?) on society cannot be empirically tested. The very idea doesn't make any sense -- are you aware of the debate surrounding historicism? In short, the issue is more complex than simply "testing libertarian economics".

It gives you solid data with which to empirically examine the economic system, and the problems therein.

The claim that economics can not be empirically tested would actually bolster my wider arguments; you can not claim with certainty that "free markets will solve 'x', 'y'", or that any particular Libertarian economic system will "work as advertised".

So, this opens up wider comparisons of components of Libertarian economics to components of past economic systems; most particularly, components of the economic systems which western countries have implemented in the last 30 years (which is where I see the "oh but that was not a true free market" argument a lot, because of how much the economic crisis impacts its credibility).

Permabear wrote:

What do you mean by "unfair advantage"? Who determines which labor market advantages are fair and which are unfair? By the standards of some theocratic Middle Eastern nations, we in the West have an "unfair" advantage because we "allow" women to work. Maybe we should shuttle women back into the kitchen so as to be on a level playing field with our Muslim brethren.

If country 'A' uses child labour, and as a result is more competitive than country 'B', which does not, then that is an unfair advantage.

Most countries in the world have principally agreed child labour is wrong, so that anyway, is not an example of some countries imposing their morals on others.

Permabear wrote:

Have you asked Western consumers whether they would be willing to give up their cheap electronics and cheap clothes? A friend recently was enthusing about the cheap skirt she bought in Penney's for €10, along with €2 T-shirts for her daughter. Naturally, all had been manufactured in Asia. How much would the same skirt and T-shirts have cost if manufactured by Western unionized labor?

Western nations are not uncompetitive because some children work in the Third World. They are uncompetitive because they have priced themselves out of the market with extravagant minimum wages and organized labor. As such, we have high rates of unemployment, especially among young people, and soaring levels of debt.

How many western consumers even know the stuff they are buying is produced using child labour or other unfair working conditions?

If every product had to advertise that it was produced in these conditions, and there were competing (but more expensive) products advertising they do not, what do you think people would choose?

Remember also, that the massive majority of the profits go to the company selling the product, so mandating certain minimum working and pay conditions, actually would not affect the price that much.

Permabear wrote:

Really? I don't know anyone who has been demanding that Apple increase the price of iPhones and iPads. Do you?

Now, can you please define this extremely slippery notion of a "fair wage"? By local standards, Foxconn, which manufactures components for many technology companies, including Apple, pays significantly in excess of the average wage. How much should it pay in order to be "fair"?

Err, a lot of people are demanding that Apple examine the peoples working conditions, yes; it's rather a big (and growing) PR issue for them at the moment.

A fair wage would take into account the cost of gaining and maintaining an acceptable standard of living in a country, and various other factors; average wage is meaningless if the majority of people in a country get shít pay.

Suryavarman wrote:

Whilst libertarians generally contend that a truly free market has not been tried in the past, this shouldn't be considered a cop out. In general we don't completely reject peoples attempts to engage us on the state of 19th century America's economy and we are quite open to criticisms of that system. The problem is when people try to compare our standard of living to the standard of living back then instead of comparing to other countries of the period or what the standard of living was like in say 1890 compared to 1840. That is why these threads eventually turn into mud slinging matches. It's also worth debating why libertarians don't think these were true free markets and what difference it makes.

Oh no, not a cop out in any way; a lot of the time that problems exposed by the current economic crisis are put forward though, there is often that selective argument "but it wasn't a true free market".

Suryavarman wrote:

Personally I believe that for the most part there is no need for any regulation. I think that the environment could be preserved by the market if the government were to enforce private property rights. If that fails and the market can't protect the environment adequately then I am not against government enacting environmental regulation. I think that the only services the Government should be providing are the courts, a police force and a defence force (although I'm not sure Ireland needs a defence force). The reason I support the government providing these services is that I think that the government could provide them better than the private sector. I do support allowing areas to secede from a nation and trying to provide these services privately though.

Do you think any economic regulation is required to mitigate harmful market bubbles? Or to prevent (rather than to deter or punish after the fact) fraud or mismanagement by banks or people in other areas of the financial market?

In general, what's your view on economic regulation? (as that seems to be the big sticking point for a lot of problems in Libertarianism)

Suryavarman wrote:

Could you give a general overview of what kind of regulation you would support?

Well I'm still learning a lot about economics at the moment, and gaining a better understanding of stuff, but I think regulation to enforce near-complete transparency in the markets would be a good idea.
A public record of every transaction made, and much of the internal workings of banks, would give an extremely useful data set for detecting and preventing fraud.

Mandatory credit risk checks before giving out loans, and making it illegal to reclassify risk on loans, perhaps splitting the banking market into full-reserve banks and more risky investment banks (or at least, some way of giving customers control on how much risk their money is placed in).

I'm still learning a lot of basic stuff when it comes to economics (primarily surrounding economic crisis), but these are some things that re-occur to me, off the top of my head. Benway I think could provide a lot of better examples, through his knowledge of problems from the economic crisis.

Suryavarman wrote:

It gives these countries an unfair advantage in some industries. It doesn't give them an advantage in everything as that is impossible. The third world can't possibly produce everything. First world countries are always going to have a comparative advantage in producing something.

Ya I agree; there's nothing wrong with them having some advantage, so long as it's ethical (and before the definition of ethical gets called into question, I'm primarily talking about child labour, which almost all countries agree is wrong).