To libertarians and anarchists

sin_city

I have 100% moved to the belief of these groups.

I just thought it would be interesting to see what was it that made people that hold similar views on government arrive at their respective beliefs.

For me, I came across Peter Schiff and Ron Paul making predictions and ever since I've just seen government as more of a hinderance than a help.

Also, is there any point in arguing with people that don't have the same opinion as you? I've come to the conclusion that no one here on boards.ie for example has ever been swayed to a different opinion by someone else on the politics boards.

oscarBravo

sin_city wrote: »

Also, is there any point in arguing with people that don't have the same opinion as you? I've come to the conclusion that no one here on boards.ie for example has ever been swayed to a different opinion by someone else on the politics boards.

I have. It was a compelling, well-reasoned argument, and - on reflection - my arguments against it were shown up to be less convincing. So I changed my mind.

KyussBishop

If people are willing to put ideology aside and debate civilly - using logical fallacies as something to point-out/avoid rather than as a guide to argument - then you see people face up to evidence/credible-sources earnestly, and change their views over time.

You never learn anything deeply if you don't debate with others holding different opinions - I've learned the most about economics by debating with (Right-)Libertarians (I'd put myself as potentially a Left-Libertarian), by refining my disagreements with them, and (bizarrely) some Libertarians hold views closer to my own than almost any other posters.


The problem with a lot of political/social groups, and forums, is that the feeling of belonging to a particular group is pretty powerful, at holding you within that group - and this can turn forums or groups into echo-chambers, reinforcing the current consensus views, pushing away views outside of the consensus, and making it so they are not really open to changing their views.

If you fall into identifying personally with a group, to the point that you look past their flaws (whatever those flaws might be), then it's possible for you to lose your ability to have your opinion swayed by others, unless you are ruthless in your learning/application of critical thinking, and are willing to disagree with your own 'side' (even if it means losing friends/acquaintances).

sin_city

I have become more convinced about what I believe through trying to get others to see it.

That is a positive for me but I think it's better to give your opinion and leave it like that.

Anyway to those that are of this mindset…how did you arrive at that point?

20Cent

sin_city wrote: »

I have 100% moved to the belief of these groups.

I just thought it would be interesting to see what was it that made people that hold similar views on government arrive at their respective beliefs.

For me, I came across Peter Schiff and Ron Paul making predictions and ever since I've just seen government as more of a hinderance than a help.

Also, is there any point in arguing with people that don't have the same opinion as you? I've come to the conclusion that no one here on boards.ie for example has ever been swayed to a different opinion by someone else on the politics boards.

How can one be 100% libertarian AND anarchist?

laoch na mona

are you an anarchist or a crazy libertarian capitalist

sin_city

laoch na mona wrote: »

are you an anarchist or a crazy libertarian capitalist

Don't know for sure...I'm in the general direction of not liking government

20Cent wrote: »

How can one be 100% libertarian AND anarchist?

I used to think socialism was the answer...now I have 100% moved away from this.

That's what I meant.

laoch na mona

sin_city wrote: »

I used to think socialism was the answer...now I have 100% moved away from this.

.

so you aren't an anarchist

sin_city

I don't know.

I don't want to say I am one thing...I am a believer in small government/no rulers.

I’m still learning about this stuff…I just found out that JRR Tolkien had strong leanings towards Anarchism and I’ve heard that the ring in The Lord of the Ring represented government.

I think most people would understand the beliefs of people that I am talking about.

Back on the thread….what led you to become libertarian or anarchist?

laoch na mona

I'm neither but I have anarchist sympathies tendencies, but I don't thinks its workable unless socialism was first achieved for anarchist theory to be implemented or you go full hippy and set up a collectivist commune (not a bad idea, but it won't overthrow capitalism) libretarian ideology is just silly

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Speaking as an old-school conservative, one libertarian quote that stuck with me and might be of use to the OP in the context of board's debates.
"
I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
" by the SciFi writer Heinlein.

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Obviously free markets with regulation and control

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Karl Stein

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In theory. Libertarian theory.

You'll note that countries with strong social safety nets and where there's often a robust sense of collectivism consistently top the league when they are measured for happiness and safety:

1. Norway
2. Switzerland
3. Canada
4. Sweden
5. New Zealand
6. Denmark
7. Australia
8. Finland
9. Netherlands
10. Luxembourg

forbes.com

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We do.. you don't want to leave your salary, your mortgage, your savings and your livelihood up to uninhibited speculators, traders and powerful financial forces

We need regulation - the only question that faces every system in the world is how much, that's where all the fine-tuning comes in - devil is in the details

How did I come to call myself a libertarian? I began from an abstract conviction: that individual liberty within broader society is an absolute must. I knew nothing of libertarianism, but I had come to believe strongly in the philosophy of individual liberty. One day on Boards, then, I began reading posts by members such as Permabear and discovered libertarianism as a modern incarnation of classical liberalism, which I was familiar with. I couldn't reconcile the concept of individual liberty with other political ideologies, so libertarianism naturally was of interest. From then on I became more and more interested in the economic side of it all and found libertarianism to be in line with my preexisting beliefs.

KyussBishop

Regulations = Laws.
Deregulation = Removal of laws, decriminalization of fraud.

When you allow unchecked fraud in the markets, you don't get 'spontaneous order', you get a greshams dynamic, where the more fraudulent you are, the more of a competitive advantage you gain, and the more honest business is pushed out of the markets - until the markets are filled with the (more competitive) fraudsters.


The solution to a bad law/regulation, such as laws/regulations on theft with a technicality allowing some to get away with robbery, is to fix the law/regulation, not to eliminate/deregulate it altogether, so that anyone can rob one another.

The reason financial deregulation is pushed so hard, is that it basically allows the banking/financial industry to gain huge power over and strip assets from entire countries (e.g. by using deregulation to blow a huge asset bubble, requiring a bailout when it pops which cripples a countries finances, and then buying up that countries public assets as they are sold off to stabilize finances) - that's why the people advocating it most unwaveringly, come from finance - like that Upton Sinclair quote:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Regulations = Laws, so the question might as well be posed as "Who actually benefits from laws?".

It's a questioned designed to allow soapboxing by creating a false dichotomy, which is used to lead people into black and white thinking, and to pan regulations laws targeted at finance/business/banking as 'bad'.

It's another way of arguing, that business/finance should be made completely free from the law as much as possible, and/or to be above it - which they pretty much are today already, in lots of respects (thanks to deregulation removal of laws, and non-enforcement of regulations laws).

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Relatively speaking, it's worked out very well

However the recent global financial crash has given a new lease of life to fringe ideas

Ironically that crash happened because the rules and regulations became too lax, from the sub prime, to out of control lending, borrowing, risky credit and so on

Since the crash - the banks have tightened up dramatically - but this in itself stifles growth

Obviously you can't have one without the other - and due to the thousands of variables and factors we have this endless balancing act

The current system isn't perfect, far from it, but we are living better and are more prosperous than ever before

Personally I'd love to see a pure free market in action - but it would be like a country without road rules; no traffic lights, no markings, no stop signs, no speed limits - it'd be carnage

Surely eventually it would magically sort itself out and everyone would be happier than before? no, no it wouldn't, human nature plays a huge part of that, and is the single greatest enemy of all paper theories out there

The only thing that comes close is Bitcoin, which is a form of a pure free market in a petri dish - which actually I am quite into - but it's governed by human greed, speculators, market whims, huge risk.. great fun for a rollercoaster of profit-making, but not something suitable for a stable structured life or society

edit: I am only discussing a pure free market here

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes because regulation laws (good and bad) and deregulation removal of laws is a black and white situation, where you either have loads of burdensome laws, or none at all?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sin_city

Karl Stein wrote: »

In theory. Libertarian theory.

You'll note that countries with strong social safety nets and where there's often a robust sense of collectivism consistently top the league when they are measured for happiness and safety:

1. Norway
2. Switzerland
3. Canada
4. Sweden
5. New Zealand
6. Denmark
7. Australia
8. Finland
9. Netherlands
10. Luxembourg

forbes.com

I have no doubt that people are happy when they feel like they have a safety net but in theory all ponzi schemes end....You can't keep putting the unborn in debt for the sake of today's luxuries but of course...you've been hearing about a collapse for years...and we're off to the races again with an argument about how I'm wrong and you are right. Fine, this thread was intended to find out what got people into having similar beliefs as the ones I hold. I didn't want to have to justify what I believe as in other threads but alas.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Obviously free markets with regulation and control

I don't think you are libertarian or anarchist as both believe that the market regulates itself.

Lockstep

Manach wrote: »

Speaking as an old-school conservative, one libertarian quote that stuck with me and might be of use to the OP in the context of board's debates.
"
I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
" by the SciFi writer Heinlein.

This is a good point. I strongly disagree with libertarians on a lot of things but I've learned a lot from debating with libertarians on this forum.

SupaNova2

Jonny7 wrote: »

We do.. you don't want to leave your salary, your mortgage, your savings and your livelihood up to uninhibited speculators, traders and powerful financial forces.

And we don't/shouldn't want to leave our savings in the hands of governments and regulators either. I wonder who has a better record at managing savings? Would you give your savings to government or a fund manager? I know which one I'd pick. What people actually do with their own money tells a lot more about what they really believe.

Not so long ago Krugman switched to a fixed rate mortgage fearing rising interest rates, government solvency and inflation. You wouldn't think it today with the way he refers to anyone with such fears today.

Originally posted by Krugman

With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.

[...]

Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.

[...]

But what's really scary -- what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea -- is the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.

That may sound alarmist: right now the deficit, while huge in absolute terms, is only 2 -- make that 3, O.K., maybe 4 -- percent of G.D.P. But that misses the point. ''Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company (with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security), which does its accounting on a cash basis, only counting premiums and payouts as they go in and out the door. An insurance company with cash accounting . . . is an accident waiting to happen.'' So says the Treasury under secretary Peter Fisher; his point is that because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the true budget picture is much worse than the conventional deficit numbers suggest.

[...]

How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.

And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won't happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.

oscarBravo

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Would you give your savings to government or a fund manager?

I'd rather give mine to a fund manager regulated by a government.

SupaNova2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd rather give mine to a fund manager regulated by a government.

I would rather not. If hedge funds were allowed to exist complying with regulation or not, funds complying with regulation could use it as a selling point but funds without regulation compliance would have a competitive advantage and be able to offer lower fees. In some countries you even have governments regulating that pension funds must invest in 'safe' government bonds. No thanks.

sin_city

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd rather give mine to a fund manager regulated by a government.

Good for you mate....Keep singing that tune.

I knew someone that had to pay protection money to these guys for his bar. They said if he didn't it would be bad for business but it was all good cause the guys were kept in line by a sort of mafia crew that made the rules for everyone.

Karl Stein

sin_city wrote: »

I have no doubt that people are happy when they feel like they have a safety net but in theory all ponzi schemes end

That's quite the non sequitur.

sin_city

Karl Stein wrote: »

That's quite the non sequitur.

I was hoping libertarians and anarchists would be here so we wouldn't have this problem.

Karl Stein

sin_city wrote: »

I was hoping libertarians and anarchists would be here so we wouldn't have this problem.

What? Pointing out reality?

Sounds about right.

oscarBravo

SupaNova2 wrote: »

If hedge funds were allowed to exist complying with regulation or not...

Why would a hedge fund be allowed not to comply with regulation?

sin_city wrote: »

Good for you mate....Keep singing that tune.

You think a hedge fund that doesn't have to obey any laws is a better investment than a hedge fund that does?

I knew someone that had to pay protection money to these guys for his bar. They said if he didn't it would be bad for business but it was all good cause the guys were kept in line by a sort of mafia crew that made the rules for everyone.

You think regulation is a protection racket? I'm not seeing the parallel. Care to explain it?

SupaNova2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why would a hedge fund be allowed not to comply with regulation?

They wouldn't today, but since it is the theory thread, I thought I would think out loud as to what that might look like.

sin_city

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why would a hedge fund be allowed not to comply with regulation?

You think a hedge fund that doesn't have to obey any laws is a better investment than a hedge fund that does? You think regulation is a protection racket? I'm not seeing the parallel. Care to explain it?

I was talking about a guy I know that owns a bar....He pays money to these guys and no problems....they are kept in line by a higher crew who take their cut.....it's all good...no one gets hurt...perfect regulated

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, generally our standards of living are constantly rising, our real income is rising, our purchasing power and so on

Financial crashes, boom and bust, cyclic effects and so on, are a part of the thousands of factors we can and cannot control

If you take a purely free market it's many times worse - and that's just in theory, in reality it would be a catastrophe

, despite regular pronouncements that "This must never be allowed to happen again."

Sorry there isn't a magic button they can press to "make bad things go away" - its an enormously complex set of hundreds of different systems governed in dozens of different ways - no two financial systems are the same

Theres no "they". It's just a form of macro-management on a state level to e.g. tighten up regulation

I doubt we'll ever have a crash like 1929 due to the lessons learned, likewise it's unlikely we'll have another crash like 2008 unless we let the regulations and ruled applied since slide

Governments and state-run central banks are often heavily implicated in causing financial crisis, even if they play the knight in shining armor role after the fact.

That's just personifying them, and yes they share guilt, esp. the gov in relation to regulatation, and certain banks in relation to lax internal controls - but it goes to a deeper level than that.. 2007 was great, everyone was buying houses they couldn't afford, huge salaries, and so on

Just another lesson learned, we'll be learning many more

Many of these countries would have greatly benefited from a peer-to-peer crypto-currency like Bitcoin that would have made it impossible for national governments to wipe out wealth by running the printing presses.

No.

Bitcoin is for fun, but as a real currency it would need many changes.

SupaNova2

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you take a purely free market it's many times worse - and that's just in theory, in reality it would be a catastrophe

Can you summarize what you mean by a purely free market in theory? And who do you think subscribes to this theory in this thread if anyone?

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

...
I doubt we'll ever have a crash like 1929 due to the lessons learned, likewise it's unlikely we'll have another crash like 2008 unless we let the regulations and ruled applied since slide
...

I don't think there's much that has been done there? We seem primed to launch into more future crisis.

Jonny7

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Can you summarize what you mean by a purely free market in theory? And who do you think subscribes to this theory in this thread if anyone?

Yeah I'm going to need a definition because it varies from person to person

My point in these posts is that the 2008 financial crash happened to to lax market rules and less oversight

It's something that occurred on all levels from top to bottom

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't think there's much that has been done there? We seem primed to launch into more future crisis.

There's a lot - we've tightened up significantly

The main differences are within the banks themselves - any types of fin. instruments have to be properly gauged now (their true value), no more exotic instruments slipping past the radar due to their complexity

Movements have to be much more collateralised - with good safety margins..

All financial institutions from the smallest to the largest are really put under the microscope so that decisions err on the safe side rather than take risks

Any type of short-selling, or lending/borrowing when the cash/securities aren't available is pretty much completely curbed

I look back on slides and rules and procedures from 2006/2007 and it shocks me - the difference is quite significant, mostly technical/regulatory

SupaNova2

Jonny7 wrote: »

My point in these posts is that the 2008 financial crash happened to to lax market rules and less oversight.

Or government promotion of home ownership and sub prime mortgage lending aided by central banks lowering of interest rates. Also the famed Glass Steagall deregulation that is claimed as the cause is based on a single correlation, and only in the US, Canada never had Glass Steagall and never suffered a systemic crisis. And those exotic instruments were based on the sub prime lending promoted by government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Or government promotion of home ownership and sub prime mortgage lending aided by central banks lowering of interest rates. Also the famed Glass Steagall deregulation that is claimed as the cause is based on a single correlation, and only in the US, Canada never had Glass Steagall and never suffered a systemic crisis. And those exotic instruments were based on the sub prime lending promoted by government.

Yes agreed on a certain level, but people who want to e.g. blame government are extracting only those elements from the crash that blame gov

Likewise those who want to blame banks

Or certain banks, or particular countries or individuals

Looking at the whole picture, the macro picture - it was a relaxation of rules, of oversight, of controls and of regulation

.. which is why every single financial institution has tightened up since, and regulations have become much stiffer, yes, it's not the best for growth, but the priority is to stabilise and avoid any relapses

SupaNova2

Jonny7 wrote: »

Looking at the whole picture, the macro picture - it was a relaxation of rules, of oversight, of controls and of regulation

.. which is why every single financial institution has tightened up since, and regulations have become much stiffer, yes, it's not the best for growth, but the priority is to stabilise and avoid any relapses

Do you have anything you can link me to on the effect of these stiffer rules?

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You can also spend Dogecoin and a dozen other alt's

Technically they are a currency, but they are not on the same planet as established currencies

To be accepted on any broad scale, the risk needs to drop a dramatic amount, the platforms need to be much more stable, the exchanges need to more transparent and in line with laws - I mean anyone who trusts a random anonymous internet site run from Bulgaria with their savings needs their head examined

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

There's a lot - we've tightened up significantly

The main differences are within the banks themselves - any types of fin. instruments have to be properly gauged now (their true value), no more exotic instruments slipping past the radar due to their complexity

Movements have to be much more collateralised - with good safety margins..

All financial institutions from the smallest to the largest are really put under the microscope so that decisions err on the safe side rather than take risks

Any type of short-selling, or lending/borrowing when the cash/securities aren't available is pretty much completely curbed

I look back on slides and rules and procedures from 2006/2007 and it shocks me - the difference is quite significant, mostly technical/regulatory

From what I've read, there hasn't really been any significant regulatory reform - not enough to stop the same thing happening again; very little to stop debt bubbles being blown up again, and bankers being left unaccountable, or having to be bailed out.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I wouldn't see it as a "challenge", that's the wrong way of looking at it - it's an alternative - and completely in it's infancy - no use on a national level in any country

I'm a bitcoin holder, but it's more of speculative commodity than a currency at the moment, not to say it can't develop, change - but yes a lot is needed before it could replace a standard currencies and be more effective, stable, etc

Permabear

This post has been deleted.