Libertarians or Nanny State Conservatives?

Chuck Stone

From reading through the views of the so-called 'libertarians' on this site I couldn't help but be bemused by how they tend to focus their libertarian magnifying glass on, primarily, social security (welfare) and also state education and state health provision.

What is glaringly absent from these 'libertarian' critiques of the state in their posts is how the conservative nanny state cosets the wealthy and insulates them from the actual free market.

How is this is achieved is laid out in the introduction of the book

THE CONSERVATIVE NANNY STATE
How the Wealthy Use the Government
to Stay Rich and Get Richer
By Dean Baker

INTRODUCTION

The Government vs. the Market: A Useful Political Parable for Conservatives

Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living. This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.

Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect. First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages).

This issue is very much at the center of determining who wins and who loses in the modern economy. If government policies ensure that specific types of workers (e.g. doctors, lawyers, economists) are in relatively short supply, then they ensure that these workers will do better than the types of workers who are plentiful. It is also essential to understand that there is direct redistribution involved in this story. If restricting the supply of doctors raises the wages of doctors, then all the non-doctors in the country are worse off, just as if the government taxed all non-doctors in order to pay a tax credit to doctors. Higher wages for doctors mean that everyone in the country will be forced to pay more for health care. As conservatives fully understand when they promote policies that push down wages for large segments of the country’s work force, lower wages for others means higher living standards for those who have their wages or other income protected.

Conservatives don’t only rely on the nanny state to keep the wages of professionals high, they want the nanny state to intervene through many
different channels to make sure that income is distributed upward. For example, conservatives want the government to outlaw some types of contracts, such as restricting the sort of contingency-fee arrangements that lawyers make with clients when suing major corporations (conservatives call this “tort reform”). This nanny state restriction would make it more difficult for people to get legal compensation from corporations that have damaged their health or property.

Conservatives also think that a wide variety of businesses, from makers of vaccines to operators of nuclear power plants, can’t afford the insurance they would have to buy in the private market to cover the damage they may cause to life and property. Instead, they want the nanny state to protect them from lawsuits resulting from this damage. Conservatives even think that the government should work as a bill collector for creditors who lack good judgment and make loans to people who are bad credit risks (conservatives call this “bankruptcy reform”).

In these areas of public policy, and other areas discussed in this book, conservatives are enthusiastic promoters of big government. They are happy to have the government intervene into the inner workings of the economy to makesure that money flows in the direction they like – upward. It is accurate to saythat conservatives don’t like big government social programs, but not because they don’t like big government. The problem with big government social programs is that they tend to distribute money downward, or provide benefits to large numbers of people. That is not the conservative agenda - the agenda is getting the money flowing upward, and for this, big government is just fine.

Of course, conservatives don’t own up to the fact that the policies they favor are forms of government intervention. Conservatives do their best to portray the forms of government intervention that they favor, for example, patent and copyright protection, as simply part of the natural order of things. This makes these policies much harder to challenge politically. The public rightfully fears replacing the natural workings of the market with the intervention of government bureaucrats. This stems in part from a predisposition not to have the government meddle in their lives. In addition, the public recognizes that in many cases the market will be more efficient than the government in providing goods and services.

It is not surprising that conservatives would fashion their agenda in a way that makes it more palatable to the bulk of the population, most of whom are not wealthy and therefore do not benefit from policies that distribute income upward. However, it is surprising that so many liberals and progressives, who oppose conservative policies, eagerly accept the conservatives’ framing of the national debate over economic and social policy. This is comparable to playing a football game where one side gets to determine the defense that the other side will play. This would be a huge advantage in a football game, and it is a huge advantage in politics. As long as liberals allow conservatives to write the script from which liberals argue, they will be at a major disadvantage in policy debates and politics.

The conservative framing of issues is so deeply embedded that it has been widely accepted by ostensibly neutral actors, such as policy professionals or the news media that report on national politics. For example, news reports routinely refer to bilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA or CAFTA, as “free trade” agreements. This is in spite of the fact that one of the main purposes of these agreements is to increase patent protection in developing countries, effectively increasing the length and force of government-imposed monopolies. Whether or not increasing patent protection is desirable policy, it clearly is not “free trade.”

It is clever policy for proponents of these agreements to label them as “free trade” agreements (everyone likes freedom), but that is not an excuse for neutral commentators to accept this definition. Back in the 1980s, President Reagan named the controversial MX missile system the “Peacekeeper” to make it more palatable to the public. Thankfully, the media continued to use the neutral “MX” name to describe the missile system. However, when it comes to trade agreements, the media have been every bit as anxious to use the term “peacekeeper” as the proponents of the agreements, using the expression “free trade” almost exclusively to describe these agreements. (In using this term, reporters disregard their normal concern about saving space, since “trade agreement” takes less space than “free-trade agreement.”)

In fact, the media have even gone one step further – they routinely denounce the opponents of these trade agreements as “protectionists.” This would be like having the New York Times refer to the opponents of the MX missile as “warmongers” in a standard news story covering the debate over the new missile. You’re doing pretty well in a public debate when you get the media to completely accept your language and framing of issues. It’s not easy winning the argument over the MX, when the media and policy experts describe opponents of the missile as “warmongers.”

Unfortunately, the state of the current debate on economic policy is even worse from the standpoint of progressives. Not only have the conservatives been successful in getting the media and the experts to accept their framing and language, they have been largely successful in getting their liberal opponents to accept this framing and language, as well. In the case of trade policy, opponents of NAFTA-type trade deals usually have to explain how they would ordinarily support “free trade,” but not this particular deal. Virtually no one in the public debate stands up and says that these trade deals have nothing to do with free trade.

Remarkably, the public has enough good sense to recognize that these trade agreements do not in general advance their interests (unless they are in the protected minority), so that NAFTA-type trade deals remain unpopular. If the public voices in the debate would ever stop accepting the conservative framing of the argument, it is very likely that these protectionist pacts could no longer be slipped through Congress. Even with a debate that largely accepts the conservative framing, it is getting increasingly difficult to pass these agreements.

While trade policy has been the topic of many heated public debates in
recent years, it is just one of the areas in which the nanny-state conservatives have been able to tilt the framing of the debate to favor their goals. In nearly every important area of economic policy, conservatives have set the terms of debate in ways that make the liberal/progressive opinion unpalatable to the bulk of the population. Unless the debate is reframed in a way that more closely corresponds to reality, conservatives will continue to be successful in their agenda of using government intervention to distribute income upward. This book examines the areas in which the hand of the nanny state is most visible in pushing income to those at the top.

The full eBook is free to download below but it is only fair that this guy gets paid for his work (note how he doesn't use the nanny state to enforce this)

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

I think this is a great book to help expose people who claim to libertarians but who's attitudes and musings are actually pro government and state.

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What is glaringly absent from these 'libertarian' critiques of the state in their posts is how the conservative nanny state cosets the wealthy and insulates them from the actual free market.

In fairness, a lot of them will - on here at least - "object" to the actions of the state in protecting them from the consequences of their ways.

The bigger objection is the fact that recent years have shown us what happens when there is zero regulation.

Unfortunately, this being Ireland, the regulation and nanny state is aimed at the little guys, while those on silly money get off scot-free regardless of their actions.

Chuck Stone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Unfortunately, this being Ireland, the regulation and nanny state is aimed at the little guys, while those on silly money get off scot-free regardless of their actions.

Yes and are able to accumulate 'silly money' with the aid of the nanny state and not in spite of it.

See Chapter 3, The Secret of High CEO Pay and Other Mysteries of the Corporation.

Suryavarman

Chuck Stone wrote: »

From reading through the views of the so-called 'libertarians' on this site I couldn't help but be bemused by how they tend to focus their libertarian magnifying glass on, primarily, social security (welfare) and also state education and state health provision.

The reason the "magnifying glass" focuses on these issues is because this is what other people focus on. I've never heard somebody say Libertarianism is bad because it would bring an end to corporate welfare. That is why it doesn't come up very often.

What is glaringly absent from these 'libertarian' critiques of the state in their posts is how the conservative nanny state cosets the wealthy and insulates them from the actual free market.

I've never heard of a Libertarian argue for anyone to be sheltered from the free market.

I think this is a great book to help expose people who claim to libertarians but who's attitudes and musings are actually pro government and state.

You're really just talking nonsense here.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The bigger objection is the fact that recent years have shown us what happens when there is zero regulation.

The recent years do not show us what happens when there is zero regulation (there is in fact hundreds of pages of banking regulation). The last few years us what happens when central banks lend money at artificially low interest rates. The last few years show us what happens when the government encourages people to buy houses they can't afford with tax breaks. The last few years shows us what happens when banks know if they make a mess they won't have to pay to clean it up.

SeanW

I should point out that there's something of a difference between conservative and libertarian.

The conservative has no problem abusing the power of the state to protect and enrich the wealthy and elite classes. The libertarian objects to this utterly and without reservation. Ron Paul once described the carry on in Washington D.C. as "Crony Capitalism."
In a social sense, conservatives also favour much more severe restrictions on personal freedom, the "family values" types are the ones that most ardently support the "drug war" despite the obscene level of harm that policy has caused, they favour religious influence on legislation and public life etc. They're also among the first to look for more state authority to abuse people at airports, on the street, spy on telecomms etc in the name of "safety" etc. In short, Authoritarian Conservatives and as bad, if not worse, than Authoritarian Liberals.

For these reasons, I - as a (left-leaning) libertarian - find Conservatism to beneath contempt, an ideology that, taken to its logical conclusion, is little short of pure evil.

As bad as far lefties are (and their ideology is rather suspect too) at least they do care about people.

The bigger objection is the fact that recent years have shown us what happens when there is zero regulation.

No, the last few years have shown us what happens when you have bad regulation, a currency with too low interest rates - which tend to form bubbles - and Crony Capitalist politicians working to enrich their developer friends, all combined with a messed up banking policy of "we'll never let your bank fail, no matter how irresponsible you are" that was understood both before and after the crash.

Everything that happened was nothing to do with libertarianism.

1. An inflating currency with artificially low interest rates (libertarians generally prefer commodity-backed currency (usually gold or silver) with interest rates determined by savings.)
2. A crony capitalist government only interested in getting re-elected and helping its developer friends in their tent at the Galway Races.
3. A banking policy that is severely FUBAR.

All of the above I would expect from conservatives, not libertarians.

Chuck Stone

Suryavarman wrote: »

I've never heard somebody say Libertarianism is bad because it would bring an end to corporate welfare.

Corporate welfare is a no brainer. A true libertarian would not only seek an end to corporate welfare but an end to corporations too. Corporations are fictional entities which are granted their corporate status by governments and have laws skewed in their favour (limited liability for example) which insulate them from corporate failures.

You're really just talking nonsense here.

That ^^ isn't a reply of any substance.

Chuck Stone

SeanW wrote: »

For these reasons, I - as a (left-leaning) libertarian - find Conservatism to beneath contempt, an ideology that, taken to its logical conclusion, is little short of pure evil.

SeanW wrote: »

All of the above I would expect from conservatives, not libertarians.

I agree whole-heartedly. The thing is many people who are actually nanny state conservatives imagine themselves to be libertarians.

That's the point.

Suryavarman

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Corporate welfare is a no brainer. A true libertarian would not only seek an end to corporate welfare but an end to corporations too. Corporations are fictional entities which are granted their corporate status by governments and have laws skewed in their favour (limited liability for example) which insulate them from corporate failures.

I really don't know enough on this subject or the pro's and con's to give a reply of substance so I won't try.

That ^^ isn't a reply of any substance.

Well when you try to paint a group of people that are anti government or in some cases people who call for the complete abolition of government, as statists or pro government there isn't really much to say on the subject.

dvpower

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A true libertarian would not only seek an end to corporate welfare but an end to corporations too.

Is there such thing as a 'true libertarian'? This is a bit like saying that a true democrat would seek a vote by every citizen on every proposal.

Manach

This tome seems to create a fictional straw man of Soviet-caricature of a conservative, as denoted by the rehashing over the old MX debate.
It ignores that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and that the pursuit of freemarket makes the best utilisation of resources. It also simplifies the conservative/liberal divide by taking into account social matters, for instance in US terms Blue-dog democrats ie libertarians/conversatives are not interchangeable terms.

Chuck Stone

Suryavarman wrote: »

I really don't know enough on this subject or the pro's and con's to give a reply of substance so I won't try.

Fair enough. I wouldn't claim to know a huge amount about it myself.

Well when you try to paint a group of people that are anti government or in some cases people who call for the complete abolition of government, as statists or pro government there isn't really much to say on the subject.

The goal of this thread was not to paint libertarians (I presume you mean) as statist or pro government. The goal of this thread is to draw attention to people who exalt libertarian ideals but who are, perhaps inadvertently, in fact nanny state conservatives.

That's the point.

Chuck Stone

Manach wrote: »

It ignores that the economy is not a zero-sum game,

Please expand. Are you saying that in any economic transaction one person gains more than the other?

and that the pursuit of freemarket makes the best utilisation of resources.

Again what are you saying? The free market does or the free market does not allocate resources most efficiently?

It also simplifies the conservative/liberal divide by taking into account social matters,

Maybe but this is perhaps more true than it isn't.

for instance in US terms Blue-dog democrats ie libertarians/conversatives are not interchangeable terms.

What?

Chuck Stone

dvpower wrote: »

Is there such thing as a 'true libertarian'? This is a bit like saying that a true democrat would seek a vote by every citizen on every proposal.

It depends what you mean by 'true'. If I say 'Ireland is a country of white people' it is more true than it isn't.

There are certainly libertarians who are closer to the libertarian ideals than conservatives who imo are closer to socialists in that they want the state to work for them.

Nanny state conservatives want to use the monopoloy of force that the state is to work for their aspirations. True libertarians would not sek to leverage the state to enforce their ideals.. unlike conservatives and socialists.

matthew8

Libertarians can distinguish their economic policies from conservatives on bank bailouts. As far as I'm concerned no one who supports bank bailouts is a libertarian, or a tea partyer.

Chuck Stone

matthew8 wrote: »

Libertarians can distinguish their economic policies from conservatives on bank bailouts. As far as I'm concerned no one who supports bank bailouts is a libertarian, or a tea partyer.

Rejecting the bank bailouts does not qualify one as a libertarian.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Rejecting the bank bailouts does not qualify one as a libertarian.

He said if you support them you're not one, not that you are one if you don't support them...

Chuck Stone

matthew8 wrote: »

Libertarians can distinguish their economic policies from conservatives on bank bailouts.

I say that libertarians can not use the rejection of bank bail outs to claim that they are libertarians.

bluewolf wrote: »

He said if you support them you're not one, not that you are one if you don't support them...

See above.

SeanW

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Rejecting the bank bailouts does not qualify one as a libertarian.

True, but it's a good start.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

This tome seems to create a fictional straw man of Soviet-caricature of a conservative, as denoted by the rehashing over the old MX debate.
It ignores that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and that the pursuit of freemarket makes the best utilisation of resources.

Isn't one of the main differences between libertarians and people who believe in democracy and capitalism is that libertarians believe dogmatically that the free market makes the best use of resources whereas the democrats (for want of a better word) believe that certain aspects of the free market should be regulated or interfered with because in certain situations e.g. monopolies, credit bubbles a completely free market does not necessarily result in the best use of resources?

Leaving arguments about whether it is or is not aside, surely in a debate about libertarianism you can't simply state that the free market makes the best utilisation of resources as though it were axiomatic.

Valmont

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Leaving arguments about whether it is or is not aside, surely in a debate about libertarianism you can't simply state that the free market makes the best utilisation of resources as though it were axiomatic.

Of course not-- it wouldn't be much fun here if we did. The entire thrust of libertarian argumentation here on boards.ie is to demonstrate, in one area or another, that the market does make the most rational allocation of resources.

Chuck Stone

*Disclaimer below

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's fine but if you read the book in the OP you will find that union protection (which you seem to be focussing upon) is but a small matter compared to CEO pay in the so-called private sector (corporate sector bolstered by the state).

They have been critical of the evident collusion among bankers, politicians, and developers, who have circled the wagons to shelter one another from the repercussions of their collective monumental stupidity.

When you say 'they' I presume you mean actual libertarians rather than faux libertarians. Again, I urge people to read the book in the OP to see the difference.

They are critical of the fact that powerful multinationals have a direct line to the Taoiseach's office, whereas small businesses and entrepreneurs have their efforts strangled with regulations and taxes.

So too are socialists (critical of the direct line). The difference between libertarians and conservatives/socialists is that they don't want any monopoly of force enforcing their views (patent and copyright laws for example).

Libertarians believe in affording everybody the greatest possible degree of individual and economic freedom. The current system of crony capitalism only protects the vested interests — the wealthy, the powerful, the unionized — at the expense of the young, the poor, and the struggling. As a lifelong committed libertarian, I have no hesitation in saying that this is absolutely, insanely wrong.

I couldn't agree more Sir.

I have no desire whatsoever to be protected from the free market. I love the free market — everything I have and everything I am I owe to it, and I want nothing but to see the fruits of liberty, prosperity, and self-fulfilment extended to everyone from Boston to Bangladesh to Ethiopia. To accomplish that goal requires waging a constant economic and ideological war against the forces of statism — and at the moment, the Misesians have the upper hand.

Again, I agree. I would describe myself as a (somewhat confused) left leaning libertarian and I have to say that I would much rather take my chances in a libertarian society (be it the left or right version) than the one we have now.

I genuinely feel that the state uses welfare to perpetuate itself (both corporate, institutional, and social welfare).

I look forward to the day (probably not in my lifetime) when there is a level playing feild for every individual. I suppose I am an anti-priveledge type more than anything.

*I'm quite drunk so I may look at this reply and punch myself in the head a few times.

Valmont

There is already an established left-libertarian movement. With the growth of the Austro-libertarian tradition, I have a feeling that it will be this faction (if you could call it that) that will appeal most to disillusioned-soon-to-be-bankrupt social democrats.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote: »

Of course not-- it wouldn't be much fun here if we did. The entire thrust of libertarian argumentation here on boards.ie is to demonstrate, in one area or another, that the market does make the most rational allocation of resources.

Ah. I did wonder. It might work better, perhaps, if the libertarians accepted that that's never going to be true in all cases (due to issues like information asymmetry, for example), and very much better if it weren't quite so obvious that they're starting from that premise as an axiom and arguing back towards it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your infatuation has led you to incorrectly ascribe character formation to the free market rather than your genes. What you are now and what you have is a consequence of your birth. Libertarians have embraced the concept of a blank slate and believe humans can carve out their own destiny. Unfortunately our understanding of psychology and biology have moved on from Lockean equality and we are not all born with equal abilities or opportunities. (see Pinker). A statist wants to intervene to try and level the playing field - because they've failed so far (and in most cases gone very awry) does not mean the intention of fair redistribution of resources is wrong. A libertarian would not subscribe to such a concept.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I look forward to the day (probably not in my lifetime) when there is a level playing feild for every individual. I suppose I am an anti-priveledge type more than anything.

Like I said above, it's a fallacy that libertarianism provides a level playing field, it basically leaves people to their own devices, devices which were not equal from birth.

The free Market determines worth. The problem with allowing it free reign is that there seems little worth in human 'being', it would value abilities, abilities that would overlap id imagine with our construct of academic intelligence. Id do fine, as you would and Permabear, pitted against others in a free Market. I'm quite confident I'm in the top 5%. however being there doesn't make me forget that there are 50% of the population who by construction are below average. How would the free Market deal with them? Or the sick? Or elderly? Or disabled? Determining worth through the free Market is very appropriate and advantageous in many circumstances - but not in all. And that's what disqualifies me from being a 'true' libertarian.

Also I agree that libertarianism cannot be blamed for the current recession and bailouts, because well, libertarianism doesn't exist, it is a fairyfale, untested in it's pure form, yet it still has it's believers.

Laminations

Oh and I'm very much against the bank bailouts so that criterion isn't a great start to defining who is or isn't libertarian

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

Laminations wrote: »

Oh and I'm very much against the bank bailouts so that criterion isn't a great start to defining who is or isn't libertarian

It's a pre-requisite and a good way of distinguishing between libertarians and fiscal conservatives.

Hayte

The HSE is also one of the biggest employers, if not the biggest employer in the state. So when you think about what it costs directly, you should offset it against what it provides. Aside from healthcare (obviously), it provides over 100,000 employees with disposable income who can then go on to spend it on private goods and services thus making private employers richer.

So yeah you can slash the HSE and trash public worker's abilities to unionize in order to save a buck. You could even privatize the whole industry in a gigantic market led race to the bottom with Ayn Rand and the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse leading the charge. But we are talking about cost right? You'll save a buck here but you'll pay for it somewhere else, whether its flattening consumer spending ability with mass layoffs or mass paycuts amongst the biggest employers of the state or whether its contributing to a decline in public health.

Ain't s**t for free right?

Look at what Royal Dutch Shell is costing Nigeria and specifically the Niger Delta. But thats not something you can measure in euros, which is the only thing that matters when it comes to markets.

SeanW

Hayte wrote: »

The HSE is also one of the biggest employers

But where does the HSE get its money? Are you suggesting that government just gets its money from thin air, or from a vortex? Because in order for a public service job to be paid for, someone in the productive sector of the economy has to have the fruits of their labour taken from them in the form of taxes. That makes private sector employers and workers poorer, and reduces their ability to buy goods and services, invest in their businesses etc.

Or, you expand the currency supply to supplement government funding for its spending on public jobs - but that's more theft of wealth, this time from savers and other holders of that depreciating currency to the recipients of newly printed money. The destruction of savings is rarely good policy, despite the various pronouncements of Keynesian "economists."

Since having healthcare for the poor isn't a fundamentally bad idea, I am not necessarily saying "fire them all" but I just wanted to remind you that the so called 'benefits' of spending on public sector employment come at a cost - in terms of money taken from the productive side of the economy - a cost which libertarians believe outweighs the benefit.

All you're defending, is the practice of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Overheal

Also I agree that libertarianism cannot be blamed for the current recession and bailouts, because well, libertarianism doesn't exist, it is a fairyfale, untested in it's pure form, yet it still has it's believers.

True and False. Libertarian 'push' is a healthy thing to have. Not every market should be unregulated but then not all markets require regulation either.

Libertarians and Libertarianism exist, but their pure forms aren't seen inside of Democratic Societies, and/or not 'on the grid'. Even self-professed Libertarians like Ron Paul I am sure profess to be Libertarian but still agree to many social norms, obey traffic laws, and pay taxes, and are content to let the government protect the sovereignty of the Nation. But that is not to say they don't have an agenda in exerting a pull on the government from getting to large or overbearing. And currently I am leaning more Libertarian because on the US side of things anyway, a little more Libertarianism is what is needed. But then so too are more taxes. AND fiscal conservatism. Wild times.

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

True and False. Libertarian 'push' is a healthy thing to have. Not every market should be unregulated but then not all markets require regulation either.

Libertarians and Libertarianism exist, but their pure forms aren't seen inside of Democratic Societies, and/or not 'on the grid'. Even self-professed Libertarians like Ron Paul I am sure profess to be Libertarian but still agree to many social norms, obey traffic laws, and pay taxes, and are content to let the government protect the sovereignty of the Nation. But that is not to say they don't have an agenda in exerting a pull on the government from getting to large or overbearing. And currently I am leaning more Libertarian because on the US side of things anyway, a little more Libertarianism is what is needed. But then so too are more taxes. AND fiscal conservatism. Wild times.

Who knew? A little of everything > any one doctrine.

amused,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Or suit what libertarians think they should be

The understand that the same powerful state that allegedly ensures "fairness" can ... order your children off to die in foreign wars.

and just seconds later

Obeying road traffic laws is (mostly) consistent with the libertarian principle of limiting freedoms when not to do so would endanger the safety of others. The idea that the government should protect the sovereignty of the nation is also consistent with libertarian principles.

So that'd involve sending kids off to die i'd imagine?
The 'principle of limiting freedoms when not to do so would endanger the safety of others' is subjective and what emerges is that libertarians just disagree with where government have drawn the line. Better democratic input and national debate would address this rather than letting unelected libertarians decide what is and isn't essential liberty. One could argue that the governments interventionist strategy in the drugs Market (outlawing certain substances) is wrong but few would agree that heroin should be sold in tesco. You'll find most people agree with intervening in the drugs trade, they just differ in terms of how to intervene.

People on both sides of the political spectrum have come to realize that while a powerful state can do some things of which they approve, it can also do many things of which they disapprove.

This can be addressed with better democracy and a limiting of the states influence in some areas. Libertarians often argue with a bogeyman statist (or should I say interventionist) as if they believe the state should balloon perpetually and gain more and more influence and control - that is more like a nanny state conservative and arguments against such a person don't transfer well to debating a social capitalist (which I am).

As for taxes, most libertarians do pay them, even if they object to them -- because they understand that the individual is ultimately helpless against the coercive tyranny of the state. Naturally, they agitate against the idea that the government has an inherent right to confiscate as much of people's income and wealth as it wishes.

It's not an inherent right, it's a right bestowed on the state by a democratic electorate. Taxes should be used to redistribute wealth in a way that equalises opportunity. So the people with less ability/intelligence etc (some innate qualities that can't so easily be redistributed) get more resources and help. The problem as I see it is that the state has moved to much towards a welfare state encouraging dependence rather than motivating people to capitalise on opportunities. Social capitalists would deal with this without dismantling the state to the same levels as libertarians - levels that I believe would jeopardise the opportunities for the least well off.

whatstherush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In relation to this what are your thoughts on the smoking ban. for me as a non smoker if you asked me before the ban whether it should go ahead, I wouldn't have been pushed one way or the other. Now after living with ban for so many years I would never go back. Every non smoker I know feels the same. From my point of view, government legislation delivered a positive outcome that the market never delivered.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well aside from single mothers allowance and concepts like child benefit you have the health and civic centre, playgrounds, public swimming pool, before and after school clubs, government subsidised summer camps, and well the Ballymun regeneration project which aims/aimed to rehouse families from unsociable crime ridden and decaying flats into new (though cheap) accommodation. And access programmes to universities. They are just some examples of how wealth can be redistributed to better equalise opportunity.

This is all good but where the state has been generous with the carrot I think it has been too reserved with the stick. Some parents are unfit to raise kids, some parents are so string out on drugs they are unfit to be out free in society. Facilities are vandalised. Littering and dumping seems to go unpunished. The problem is that the states onfluence into equalising opportunities has created an entitlement culture where welfare dependants feel they deserve help without displaying any good will or civic pride themselves. But just because I believe the state has become too lenient on crime and generous on gifts, I'm still not a libertarian

matthew8

whatstherush wrote: »

In relation to this what are your thoughts on the smoking ban. for me as a non smoker if you asked me before the ban whether it should go ahead, I wouldn't have been pushed one way or the other. Now after living with ban for so many years I would never go back. Every non smoker I know feels the same. From my point of view, government legislation delivered a positive outcome that the market never delivered.

I believe I heard some data recently stating the smoking ban made little to no difference. Also, Laminations, sending your kids off to die in foreign wars isn't protecting your sovereignity. Infact very often sending people off to die in foreign wars is a danger to your sovereignity because it invites agressors.

Laminations

matthew8 wrote: »

I believe I heard some data recently stating the smoking ban made little to no difference. Also, Laminations, sending your kids off to die in foreign wars isn't protecting your sovereignity. Infact very often sending people off to die in foreign wars is a danger to your sovereignity because it invites agressors.

So libertarian foreign policy would be non interventionist and purely defensive in times of war?

My point was, everyone's interpretation of when freedoms should be limited to prevent the endangerment of others differs. And I'd rather subscribe to the delineation as defined in a democratically constructed constitution.

whatstherush

matthew8 wrote: »

I believe I heard some data recently stating the smoking ban made little to no difference.

Made little or no difference to what?

matthew8

whatstherush wrote: »

Made little or no difference to what?

The amount of smokers.

whatstherush

matthew8 wrote: »

The amount of smokers.

So what, thats not what it was implemented for. Its was implemented to protect the health of workers and non smoking patrons. And my original point still stands that the market never delivered this outcome.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

View

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is? Shouldn't it be up to the free market to do this?

I really think you may be a nanny state conservative at heart...

matthew8

View wrote: »

It is? Shouldn't it be up to the free market to do this?

I really think you may be a nanny state conservative at heart...

We're not anarchists, we do not believe the free market can do everything.

invinciblePRSTV

The thing with Libertarianism is that it is the wacky, fringe element of the destructive ideology which has permeated western political culture over the past 4 or so decades, so in the time period, Libertarianism soundbytes have become part of the political main stream, and a significant degree of cross pollination across the centre right.

What does this then mean in practice? despite the protestations i'm sure of some, invariably Libertarians tend to throw their lot in with centre/far right regimes of questionable merit.

This leads to the classic hypocrisy associated with Libertarians where they'll support aspects of a regime like say in Chile, where they'll talk up the economic policies of General Pinochet, but move onto the subject of Pinochet overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing himself as dictator of a murderous regime, and Libertarians turn a hypocritical blind eye and will in the next breath bemoan the evils of regimes like the USSR.

Wherever you find political regimes which have bought into this 'government = bad, free market = good' viewpoint you'll tend to find countries which have subsequently suffered severe economic trauma as is epitomised by Eastern european and asian countries throughout the 1990s.

Most importantly of all, behind each regime you'll find libertarian cheerleaders who support 100% situations where whole nations national wealth has been expropriated by a few individuals or corporations in the name of the "Free Market", it doesn't matter how it came to be, Lib's will just blame the state when the regimes they support engage in some nasty, destructive practices.

In the USA, which is ground zero for this wacky ideology, Libertarians have entered into an unholy alliance with religious fundamentalists, business interests and conservatives to provide the bedrock for the 'government is bad' lobby which has pushed the USA into terminal decline and debt over the past few decades. Remember American Libertarians will howl and howl about things like welfare spending being unsustainable, but when it comes to other aspects of public spending, namely the US' enormous public spend on weapons and security, and Lib's will, after offering token opposition, go back to their favourite past time fo shouting for low taxes, no regulation and no welfare.

Let's not forget that Alan Greenspan himself was someone who has drank the Libertarian kool-aid. Let's remember him as the man in command at the US Fed whilst the US entered the final period of deregulation in the late 1990s. He was the man who, along with politicians of a similar Libertarian inspired predisposition of less government intervention , pushed successfully as the US repealed the last of the great depression era legislation which was put in place to prevent exactly the kind of financial chicanery which led to the present crisis.

Here in Ireland, we have the spectacle of Libertarians bemoaning the demise of the PDs and publicly citing that they wish to see a new incarnation. Let's think about this for a second, the party which provided the impetus for the minimal regulatory regime in the Irish financial sector which ultimately sank this country, the party which actively played it's part in stoking the Irish housing bubble to unimaginable levels as it didn't believe in the state curbing it, and here are Libertarians pining for it?

Of course, as always, it is the endless hypocrisy of the Libertarians, they throw their lot in with whatever nasty right wing political grouping is flavour of the month, be it the PD's, Ronald Reagan, Thatcher or Pinochet, or they'll back whatever mental policies designed to promote the "free market" (whatever that is) like in Russia or throughout South America.

When the damage is done they'll squirm out of accepting that their ideology has contributed in anyway to the damage done, they move on, blame "statists" for everything, coalesce around the next right winger who has a few nice soundbites about the evils of big government, and it begins again....

Chuck Stone

The reduction of the power of the state would probably return benefits in reduced capacity for one state to declare war on another.

Weber defined the state as an entity which successfully claims a "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence".
Wiki.

It's the fact that the state enjoys a monopoly in the legitimate use of force that allows it's military to be co-opted by powerful interest groups.

Like those fantasist necons did in the US.

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah. I did wonder. It might work better, perhaps, if the libertarians accepted that that's never going to be true in all cases (due to issues like information asymmetry, for example), and very much better if it weren't quite so obvious that they're starting from that premise as an axiom and arguing back towards it.

Ah information asymmetry - the idea that some people don't know as much other people therefore government intervention. A robust argument, flawless even.

You assume that we start from an axiomatic position of market superiority while seeming blissfully unaware of the history and tradition of the austro-libertarian movement that has come to this conclusion, from the bottom up, no doubt. Our respective knowledge of this area must be asymmetrical - perhaps we should give Enda Kenny a call to straighten it out.

matthew8

The thing with Libertarianism is that it is the wacky, fringe element of the destructive ideology which has permeated western political culture over the past 4 or so decades, so in the time period, Libertarianism soundbytes have become part of the political main stream, and a significant degree of cross pollination across the centre right.

We were there in 1776 so I don't think it's fair to say that we've permeated western political culture.

What does this then mean in practice? despite the protestations i'm sure of some, invariably Libertarians tend to throw their lot in with centre/far right regimes of questionable merit.

Libertarians don't throw their lot in with dictatorships.

This leads to the classic hypocrisy associated with Libertarians where they'll support aspects of a regime like say in Chile, where they'll talk up the economic policies of General Pinochet, but move onto the subject of Pinochet overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing himself as dictator of a murderous regime, and Libertarians turn a hypocritical blind eye and will in the next breath bemoan the evils of regimes like the USSR.

I don't see the problem in being able to point out the flaws with Pinochet's regime, what's hyporcritical?

Wherever you find political regimes which have bought into this 'government = bad, free market = good' viewpoint you'll tend to find countries which have subsequently suffered severe economic trauma as is epitomised by Eastern european and asian countries throughout the 1990s.

And the USA in the late 1800s. As you would say, one free market disaster does not a libertarian dystopia make.

Most importantly of all, behind each regime you'll find libertarian cheerleaders who support 100% situations where whole nations national wealth has been expropriated by a few individuals or corporations in the name of the "Free Market", it doesn't matter how it came to be, Lib's will just blame the state when the regimes they support engage in some nasty, destructive practices.

I don't see the problem with people who have made something of themselves.

In the USA, which is ground zero for this wacky ideology, Libertarians have entered into an unholy alliance with religious fundamentalists, business interests and conservatives to provide the bedrock for the 'government is bad' lobby which has pushed the USA into terminal decline and debt over the past few decades. Remember American Libertarians will howl and howl about things like welfare spending being unsustainable, but when it comes to other aspects of public spending, namely the US' enormous public spend on weapons and security, and Lib's will, after offering token opposition, go back to their favourite past time fo shouting for low taxes, no regulation and no welfare.

Actually libertarians believe military spending should be the first thing on the agenda to cut, but as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. Also, I'm glad to find you accept that our ideology originates in the most successful country in the world.

Let's not forget that Alan Greenspan himself was someone who has drank the Libertarian kool-aid. Let's remember him as the man in command at the US Fed whilst the US entered the final period of deregulation in the late 1990s. He was the man who, along with politicians of a similar Libertarian inspired predisposition of less government intervention , pushed successfully as the US repealed the last of the great depression era legislation which was put in place to prevent exactly the kind of financial chicanery which led to the present crisis.

A libertarian shouldn't accept a position in the fed unless they want it destroyed and are infiltrating it. Evidently, Greenspan failed, or wasn't a libertarian.

Here in Ireland, we have the spectacle of Libertarians bemoaning the demise of the PDs and publicly citing that they wish to see a new incarnation. Let's think about this for a second, the party which provided the impetus for the minimal regulatory regime in the Irish financial sector which ultimately sank this country, the party which actively played it's part in stoking the Irish housing bubble to unimaginable levels as it didn't believe in the state curbing it, and here are Libertarians pining for it?

The PDs regulated pubs, not very libertarian. The PDs were basically a blend of FG/FF, neither of which were libertarian, but they did lower tax, fair play, credit where it's due.

Of course, as always, it is the endless hypocrisy of the Libertarians, they throw their lot in with whatever nasty right wing political grouping is flavour of the month, be it the PD's, Ronald Reagan, Thatcher or Pinochet, or they'll back whatever mental policies designed to promote the "free market" (whatever that is) like in Russia or throughout South America.

Nope. You have no idea what you talk about.

When the damage is done they'll squirm out of accepting that their ideology has contributed in anyway to the damage done, they move on, blame "statists" for everything, coalesce around the next right winger who has a few nice soundbites about the evils of big government, and it begins again....

Maybe if we didn't spend so much on Quangos and the HSE and bank bailouts like libertarians advocate we wouldn't be on the verge of a financial collapse.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote: »

Ah information asymmetry - the idea that some people don't know as much other people therefore government intervention. A robust argument, flawless even.

I don't think we're thinking of the same thing. Perhaps we should clarify what we're talking about there before either of us phone Enda Kenny?

Valmont wrote: »

You assume that we start from an axiomatic position of market superiority while seeming blissfully unaware of the history and tradition of the austro-libertarian movement that has come to this conclusion, from the bottom up, no doubt. Our respective knowledge of this area must be asymmetrical - perhaps we should give Enda Kenny a call to straighten it out.

Since you're arguing here from the Austrian position, all you're doing there is agreeing with what I said, but saying you consider it justified. I didn't at any point think you didn't think it was justified.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

Also, I'm glad to find you accept that our ideology originates in the most successful country in the world.

England? the word was coined by an englishman.