J'accuse le libertarians

20Cent · 20-06-2011 01:43PM

SupaNova wrote: »

The world wide credit crunch is a result of monetary intervention in the form of artificially low interest rates. Wall Street got particularly creative this time with its financial products fueling an even more spectacular boom. When credit could no longer be expanded the bust set in. The boom bust is a result of monetary policy. Artificially low interests discourage savings and encourage speculation through cheap credit, when there is not enough real savings left to fuel the credit expansion the bust sets in.

That is totally different to saving and investing, the credit crunch was a result of an assault on saving in favor of credit whilst forgetting that you need savings to have credit, as soon as there is no savings to back credit, credit cannot expand further.

Less regulation let Wallstreet run riot, when it went tits up the country was facing another great depression. Those responsible are able to kick back with their ill gotten gains while the rest of us suffer. With no regulation this would even be worse.
Tax rates on the wealthiest have been going down with republican presidents since Raygun poverty and unemployment increased. There is empirical evidence that trickle down does not work.

SupaNova wrote: »

I know there is plenty of in between. Taking every penny from those who invest and redistributing it to people who likely don't save and invest but mostly consume, all the savings would be consumed and end all further investment. A government who wipes out savers and investors, is obviously a government who thinks it can 100% run an economy. So if you've done that you would be ready for your first taste of the realities of socialism.

You say there is plenty in between then proceed to describe the worst case socialist scenario

SupaNova · 20-06-2011 02:02PM

Less regulation let Wallstreet run riot, when it went tits up the country was facing another great depression. Those responsible are able to kick back with their ill gotten gains while the rest of us suffer. With no regulation this would even be worse.

Yes they did run riot but they were not the cause of the boom and bust. As for illgotten gains they should be confiscated and people should be arrested.

Tax rates on the wealthiest have been going down with republican presidents since Raygun poverty and unemployment increased.

Poverty and unemployment have not increased as a result of tax cuts, but as a result of the bust.

There is empirical evidence that trickle down does not work.

What evidence where? Reagan seems to be a favorite to bring up and i guess this is what your basing your claim on. At the time they claimed that tax cuts for the rich might actually increase tax revenues, and as matter of fact tax revenues didn't change much up or down, i think they went up minimally i will have to check. People will say the debt grew under Reagen, and try and relate that to tax cuts, when in fact tax revenues barely moved. A massive growth in government and spending is what actually lead to increase in debt under Reagen. People love to bring up Friedman and Reagen as there example of the economics Friedman promoted not working, when in fact a massive growth in government and spending is not a Friedman policy or a staple of free market economics.

Where Friedman's economics will be dangerous is his view of the Great Depression, and what Ben Bernanke will do in his name.

20Cent · 20-06-2011 02:02PM

Some questions so far:

Libertarians say that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but doesn’t that happen very easily. If my neighbour likes to take drugs and owns an assault rifle in the comfort of his home that is his business. But what about my right to be able to sleep at night without worrying he's going to get all paranoid and start firing through the walls. If everything is privatised including roads then what happens if someone is banned from using the roads? Surely they should have freedom to travel around?

Which has precedence property rights or human rights?

Education
Would education be compulsory? Should kids be allowed work?
What happens to those who cannot afford any education?
In a libertarian society everyone could afford education is not an answer imo bit Utopian.

Healthcare
There is no profit to be made insuring old people, handicapped, disabled, even people with dangerous jobs. What happens to them? What happens if your insurance company goes bust?

20Cent · 20-06-2011 02:08PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Yes they did run riot but they were not the cause of the boom and bust. As for illgotten gains they should be confiscated and a people should be arrested.

Why would they be arrested. Sub prime property can be rated triple A and sold on no problems. Bernie Madoff wouldn't be doing anything wrong in libertarian land.

SupaNova wrote: »

Poverty and unemployment have not increased as a result of tax cuts, but as a result of the bust.

I'm referring to data since the 80's. Tax decreases for the richest have fallen dramatically still lower and middle incomes have stayed relatively the same. No trickle down there.

SupaNova · 20-06-2011 02:19PM

I'm referring to data since the 80's. Tax decreases for the richest have fallen dramatically still lower and middle incomes have stayed relatively the same. No trickle down there.

You are trying to correlate tax cuts with increasing poverty, explain how you think that can happen, remember tax revenues didn't decrease despite tax cuts. The 'tax cuts equal increasing poverty' political propaganda has no basis in reality. Think about it if leaving people keep their income correlated with poverty should we not tax 100% of peoples income.

20Cent · 20-06-2011 02:25PM

SupaNova wrote: »

You are trying to correlate tax cuts with increasing poverty, explain how you think that can happen, remember tax revenues didn't decrease despite tax cuts. The 'tax cuts equal increasing poverty' political propaganda has no basis in reality. Think about it if leaving people keep their income correlated with poverty should we not tax 100% of peoples income.

I was referring to the trickle down argument. Stating that tax cuts do not trickle down resulting in better pay or more jobs. Another silly example, how about this one why not have no tax then.

SupaNova · 20-06-2011 02:38PM

Another silly example, how about this one why not have no tax then.

No tax sounds good.

20Cent · 20-06-2011 03:18PM

SupaNova wrote: »

No tax sounds good.

So your the anarchist branch then?

SupaNova · 20-06-2011 03:23PM

So your the anarchist branch then?

No.

20Cent · 20-06-2011 03:43PM

SupaNova wrote: »

No.

Its like pulling feckin teeth with you lot!!

If you can't be bothered answering any questions why take part in the thread!!

Permabear · 20-06-2011 05:38PM

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 20-06-2011 07:51PM

20Cent wrote: »

Libertarians say that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but doesn’t that happen very easily. If my neighbour likes to take drugs and owns an assault rifle in the comfort of his home that is his business. But what about my right to be able to sleep at night without worrying he's going to get all paranoid and start firing through the walls.

What if he uses his lawnmower to try and kill you? What if he constructs a bomb using everyday household products? What if he tries stabbing through the walls to get at you? What if he tries to burgle your house with a crowbar?

These examples show that your point is logically inconsistent, unless of course you propose banning anything, including, behaviour, that could potentially hurt you.

One question for you:

Would you propose to regulate and control where there is a higher risk of offence against an innocent individual?

Permabear · 20-06-2011 08:34PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 20-06-2011 08:48PM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 21-06-2011 12:52AM

Valmont wrote: »

What if he uses his lawnmower to try and kill you? What if he constructs a bomb using everyday household products? What if he tries stabbing through the walls to get at you? What if he tries to burgle your house with a crowbar?

These examples show that your point is logically inconsistent, unless of course you propose banning anything, including, behaviour, that could potentially hurt you.

One question for you:

Would you propose to regulate and control where there is a higher risk of offence against an innocent individual?

Haven't heard of someone murdering another person with a lawnmower or someone stabbing you through a wall. Doubt either scenario is possible. Suppose constructing a bomb out of everyday household products and burgling with a crowbar is possible but so is being hit by a meteor.

The question I asked was regarding where is the line between doing whatever you want to yourself and in your property and where it harms others. Maybe you are taking it too literally.

What does this mean?
Would you propose to regulate and control where there is a higher risk of offence against an innocent individual?

20Cent · 21-06-2011 01:01AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What point are you trying to make?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If roads are privately owned then the owner could ban whoever they wanted from using them.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do you know why air fares have dropped so much? It is due to advances in technology which come from investment in military aircraft and government subsidies. You don't really believe Ryanair can fly you to Paris for twenty quid without the 10's of million they receive from taxpayers do you? It is of course a good thing for society that travel is cheaper but pretending that it is all due to michael o leary being v smart and his entrepreneurial skills is dishonest. It is a mixture of public and private.

Permabear · 21-06-2011 05:48AM

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 21-06-2011 12:15PM

20Cent wrote: »

Haven't heard of someone murdering another person with a lawnmower or someone stabbing you through a wall. Doubt either scenario is possible. Suppose constructing a bomb out of everyday household products and burgling with a crowbar is possible but so is being hit by a meteor.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that being burgled with a crowbar has the same chances of occurence as being hit by a meteor? Face it, when you start banning anything with the potentiality to hurt someone, it's a slippery, inconsistent slope to madness. Eg banning bleach and crowbars.

20Cent wrote: »

The question I asked was regarding where is the line between doing whatever you want to yourself and in your property and where it harms others. Maybe you are taking it too literally.

This is very simple. You can do whatever the hell you want to yourself or on your own property as long as you don't infringe on the property rights of another, and that includes their person. For example if I was a property developer in a stateless society and wanted to encourage people to buy houses in my estate, I would ensure that everyone sign a contract whereby reneging would result in the cancellation of said contract. Shooting through walls included. I've lived in a small community where many people smoked marijuana and owned semi-automatic centre fire "assault" rifles and funnily enough, after a year there, nobody was shot through a wall by a stoned up junkie.

20Cent wrote: »

What does this mean?
Would you propose to regulate and control where there is a higher risk of offence against an innocent individual?

Sorry.
If certain circumstances like drink driving or drug addiction or firearms ownership, were to result in a higher risk of these individuals hurting an innocent individual, would you seek to control and regulate these risks at the expense of individual freedom? I mean in all potential cases of one person posing a statistically higher chance of hurting another.

whatstherush · 21-06-2011 02:13PM

Valmont wrote: »

This is very simple. You can do whatever the hell you want to yourself or on your own property as long as you don't infringe on the property rights of another, and that includes their person.

Is there a definitive list of property rights that Libertarians would like?

Valmont wrote: »

For example if I was a property developer in a stateless society and wanted to encourage people to buy houses in my estate, I would ensure that everyone sign a contract whereby reneging would result in the cancellation of said contract.

Who enforces contracts in a stateless society? Secondly once they have bought their house from you, is it not now their property and according to you, they can do whatever they like, as long as their not infringing on your 'property rights', so its bollix to your contract. Your contract would impose your own form of private laws on the people who bought the house off you, which I think directly contradicts your first statement.

Valmont · 21-06-2011 02:20PM

whatstherush wrote: »

Is there a definitive list of property rights that Libertarians would like?

Who enforces contracts in a stateless society?

A company paid to do so, which would be outlined in any decent contract. A contract that doesn't outline a dispute resolution procedure would be no good. If the person who is signing the contract does not like the terms then they wouldn't have to sign in the first place.

We already have private enforcement firms at work today, for when contracts are reneged upon.

whatstherush wrote: »

Is there a definitive list of property rights that Libertarians would like?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

whatstherush · 21-06-2011 02:38PM

Valmont wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Just trying to understand what exactly you mean by property rights? For example if a neighbor is affecting the air quality on my property by burning rubbish every day on theirs are they affecting my property rights. If they were what can I do about it in a stateless society.

20Cent · 22-06-2011 02:28PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are purposely misconstruing my points and misquoting them in order to avoid answering any questions about libertarianism. I listed some already. The point being made is obviously is that everything we do can harm others so one of the base tenants of libertarianism is based on an airy fairy idea that is unenforceable.

20Cent · 22-06-2011 02:30PM

Valmont wrote: »

A company paid to do so, which would be outlined in any decent contract. A contract that doesn't outline a dispute resolution procedure would be no good. If the person who is signing the contract does not like the terms then they wouldn't have to sign in the first place.

We already have private enforcement firms at work today, for when contracts are reneged upon.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Private enforcement firms!!!

20Cent · 22-06-2011 02:36PM

Valmont wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that being burgled with a crowbar has the same chances of occurence as being hit by a meteor? Face it, when you start banning anything with the potentiality to hurt someone, it's a slippery, inconsistent slope to madness. Eg banning bleach and crowbars.

The point I was making was not to do with banning anything. I was asking about the property rights idea. If someone is doing something perfectly legal in their home but it is harming me how does libertarianism deal with that situation.

Valmont wrote: »

This is very simple. You can do whatever the hell you want to yourself or on your own property as long as you don't infringe on the property rights of another, and that includes their person. For example if I was a property developer in a stateless society and wanted to encourage people to buy houses in my estate, I would ensure that everyone sign a contract whereby reneging would result in the cancellation of said contract. Shooting through walls included. I've lived in a small community where many people smoked marijuana and owned semi-automatic centre fire "assault" rifles and funnily enough, after a year there, nobody was shot through a wall by a stoned up junkie.

They could also write up a contract banning black and or gay people. Marijuana is grand. Would you like to live next door to a guy smoking crack with a machine gun?

Valmont wrote: »

Sorry.
If certain circumstances like drink driving or drug addiction or firearms ownership, were to result in a higher risk of these individuals hurting an innocent individual, would you seek to control and regulate these risks at the expense of individual freedom? I mean in all potential cases of one person posing a statistically higher chance of hurting another.

Not talking about regulating anything. I'd love if everyone could do whatever they want. But everything we do affects others so just asking how this works in a libertarian society.

Valmont · 23-06-2011 12:45PM

20Cent wrote: »

The point I was making was not to do with banning anything. I was asking about the property rights idea. If someone is doing something perfectly legal in their home but it is harming me how does libertarianism deal with that situation.

One point first - Libertarianism doesn't deal with anything, you need to jettison this reference. People deal with these situations in whatever manner they see fit. There is no central plan. Which is the whole point really.

Well if they are harming you or your property then you have a genuine grievance with which to seek compensation. How you approach this would be up to you. Presumably you and your neighbour live in a community which I'm sure would have asked you both to agree to certain terms and conditions before you bought property in the area. On that contract you have both agreed to defer judgement to Private Court B or something on the occasion that any property damage has occurred. There are many ways this sort of agreement could have been established in this situation.

20Cent wrote: »

They could also write up a contract banning black and or gay people..

We may not like it but does an individual not have the right to discriminate as they see fit on their own property? I'm sure the Klu Klux Klan would want their own ultra white community and I would imagine that not many Black people would want to live there anyway.

Right now, I may not like the colour of your skin and as such, could ban you from entering my property, and there isn't a thing anyone could do about it. It's my house, I don't want you here, that's the end of it regardless of my reasons, whether they be racist or bigoted or whatever.

20Cent wrote: »

Marijuana is grand. Would you like to live next door to a guy smoking crack with a machine gun?

What I would like is beside the point as long as he leaves me alone.

20Cent wrote: »

Not talking about regulating anything. I'd love if everyone could do whatever they want. But everything we do affects others so just asking how this works in a libertarian society

But you are talking about regulating things, that's what the discussion is about! My question seems a reasonable one given your preference for intervention on behalf of a government of the people (or whatever you want to call it).

whatstherush · 23-06-2011 03:04PM

Valmont wrote: »

Presumably you and your neighbour live in a community which I'm sure would have asked you both to agree to certain terms and conditions before you bought property in the area.

I live in a community called Ireland, it has certain terms and conditions called laws. What is different in the situation you describe above besides scale.

SupaNova · 23-06-2011 03:32PM

Soldie wrote: »

In your opening sentence you point out that you "really dislike libertarianism"; in the following paragraphs you then proceed to display your complete ignorance of that which you claim to dislike. You then disingenuously invite others to "discuss" libertarianism, even though it's patently obvious that you're only interested in swatting at straw men. So, in answer to your question, no, that's not what a discussion is, at all. In fact, it couldn't be much further from what a discussion is. If you were genuinely interested in discussing libertarianism then you would have the courtesy to familiarise yourself with the basics of the ideology at the very least. It's clear that you have not done so, nor do you have any intention of doing so.

Note to self, listen to Soldie.

silverharp · 23-06-2011 06:01PM

whatstherush wrote: »

I live in a community called Ireland, it has certain terms and conditions called laws. What is different in the situation you describe above besides scale.

there is a big difference between laws based on property rights and the product of a democratic process.

RussellTuring · 23-06-2011 07:12PM

silverharp wrote: »

there is a big difference between laws based on property rights and the product of a democratic process.

Democratic? Really? It seems that a system in which you vote for your new ruler every four years or so and they get to make up whatever laws they choose with no possibility of recalling them when they do something that is completely against the wishes of the majority of the population is anything but democratic.

20Cent · 23-06-2011 08:54PM

Valmont wrote: »

One point first - Libertarianism doesn't deal with anything, you need to jettison this reference. People deal with these situations in whatever manner they see fit. There is no central plan. Which is the whole point really.

Well if they are harming you or your property then you have a genuine grievance with which to seek compensation. How you approach this would be up to you. Presumably you and your neighbour live in a community which I'm sure would have asked you both to agree to certain terms and conditions before you bought property in the area. On that contract you have both agreed to defer judgement to Private Court B or something on the occasion that any property damage has occurred. There are many ways this sort of agreement could have been established in this situation.

I presume one would have to pay for this court B whatever that is. So along with education and healthcare, justice is only available to those who can afford it. If I buy a property there are terms and conditions for the area!! WTF!! Thought one could do whatever they wanted in libertarian land.

Valmont wrote: »

We may not like it but does an individual not have the right to discriminate as they see fit on their own property? I'm sure the Klu Klux Klan would want their own ultra white community and I would imagine that not many Black people would want to live there anyway.

Right now, I may not like the colour of your skin and as such, could ban you from entering my property, and there isn't a thing anyone could do about it. It's my house, I don't want you here, that's the end of it regardless of my reasons, whether they be racist or bigoted or whatever.

So KKK town is fine in libertarian land. Suppose there will be black/Jewish and whatever you want towns as well. All armed to the teeth with their own private "enforcement agencies". Throw in drugs being legal. Can't see what could go wrong there!

Your house is one thing but in libertarian land everything is private. Shops, pubs, motorways, shopping malls even towns and cities could be white/black whatever only. The right to travel around seems pretty basic to me. Not possible in libertarian land though. Will the white only areas have signs? or maybe an iphone app could help. The private enforcement agency will be there to helpfully tell people they can't walk down the street.

J'accuse le libertarians

Comments