J'accuse le libertarians

whatstherush · 27-06-2011 12:27PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

I suppose you could argue that case. The thing is though, politicians enacting laws stops the free market from working. The previous example was an example of free market solution to the problem. In the previous example people were able to decide that burning rubbish imposed a cost on them and decided to get compensation or that burning the rubbish and paying compensation was still cheaper than disposing of it in another way. If there was a government law neither option would have been available. This would have had negligible effects on the victim but the person burning rubbish would now have to choose a less efficient way of burning rubbish.

Its more efficient if both parties can afford the cost of litigation. If the victim of a property right abuse cant afford to bring their case to arbitration, there up shít creek.

RussellTuring · 27-06-2011 12:57PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The law itself isn't racist though even if the application of it is.

If you say so. You're the one who brought up race anyway. I was talking about wealth, as I thought was clear from the start.

No I don't have a problem with people assuming these positions without a popular mandate. I believe electing judges will have a detrimental effect on their ability to enforce the law. If you run out of courts then you will have to accept that you have no case.

How are they appointed then? And how would a popular vote threaten their abilities?

If your property rights are affected then you will receive compensation, if not you won't and the other party will be allowed to develop their property. whoever has the most property shouldn't matter.

Does "affected" just mean the value of said property?

Of course it's ok for people to renounce their rights. One of the most important aspects of libertarianism is responsibility and self determination. If they wish to give up rights that is entirely their decision and theirs alone.

And do people never do things out of desperation that they otherwise wouldn't? The more I learn of you version of "libertarianism", the more it seems like a justification for oppression.

silverharp wrote: »

I dont mind democracy, just in limited amounts. btw I am probably subject to higher taxes and more limitations on my freedom then in feudal times so be careful of the examples you pick :pac: .

Democracy for those who can afford it, no doubt. And I would agree that you are subject to more taxes, but compared to the vast majority of the great unwashed at the time, you shouldn't underestimate your freedom.

Suryavarman · 27-06-2011 01:32PM

whatstherush wrote: »

Its more efficient if both parties can afford the cost of litigation. If the victim of a property right abuse cant afford to bring their case to arbitration, there up shít creek.

If the case was important enough, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to to find the money to pay for it.

RussellTuring wrote: »

How are they appointed then? And how would a popular vote threaten their abilities?

By the politicians. It would affect their ability to make decisions because they might choose politically expedient decisions instead of the correct ones in order to get re-elected.

Does "affected" just mean the value of said property?

The value of the property or any adverse health risks.

And do people never do things out of desperation that they otherwise wouldn't? The more I learn of you version of "libertarianism", the more it seems like a justification for oppression.

Yes they do, but if they sign away their freedom that's their problem not mine and it's up to them to live with that decision. How on earth is it a justification for oppression? If anything it's the exact opposite. Although as free as the system is it doesn't give people freedom from their own stupidity, short-sightedness and bad decisions. It seems to me your solution to people signing themselves into serfdom of their own free will is to put a gun to the head of every other single person and force them to become slaves to save others from their own inability the be responsible adults. The more I learn of your vision for society, the more it seems like a justification for oppression.

whatstherush · 27-06-2011 02:29PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If the case was important enough, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to to find the money to pay for it.

As oscarBravo said before there is no recognition of the edge case there. My property rights are infringed on a daily basis and I cannot (in anyway) pay for the litigation to resolve the issue. Am I living in a libertarian society?

RussellTuring · 27-06-2011 04:49PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

By the politicians. It would affect their ability to make decisions because they might choose politically expedient decisions instead of the correct ones in order to get re-elected.

And the exact same can be said of the politicians you trust to appoint them. So you believe electing the judiciary would compromise their objectivity but apparently not the politicians.

The value of the property or any adverse health risks.

So if someone decides to build a facility that will release known carcinogens into the local area, I'll at last be compensated for my cancer. How do you compensate people for building beside their homes something they simply don't want?

Yes they do, but if they sign away their freedom that's their problem not mine and it's up to them to live with that decision. How on earth is it a justification for oppression? If anything it's the exact opposite. Although as free as the system is it doesn't give people freedom from their own stupidity, short-sightedness and bad decisions.

Of course. As is the usual refrain of the right-libertarian: "that's not my problem". It's a justification for oppression in that a society which does not have any prohibitions against voluntary slavery would be much more likely to tolerate it. I'm not in favour of protecting people from their own decisions either, but sometimes they feel compelled to do things they would not in different circumstances. Suicide would be an obvious example.

It seems to me your solution to people signing themselves into serfdom of their own free will is to put a gun to the head of every other single person and force them to become slaves to save others from their own inability the be responsible adults. The more I learn of your vision for society, the more it seems like a justification for oppression.

That would be a good example of a strawman.

20Cent · 29-06-2011 04:53PM

Back to the op

Could any libertarians give a brief description of an imaginary libertarian country or what Ireland would be like if it was libertarian?

Two seem to have given it a shot so far anyone else?

Permabear · 29-06-2011 06:56PM

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 29-06-2011 11:09PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So we're agreed that governments, which are run by people (many of whom are asshats) are capable of stupid and corrupt behaviour for short-term gain, in the same way that corporations, which are run by people (many of whom are asshats) are capable of stupid and corrupt behaviour for short-term gain.

This is not a compelling argument for replacing government with corporations. This thread has served as adequate evidence (to my mind) that many of those who believe that a free market will address all the problems inherent in a state are pinning that belief in a quasi-religious fundamentalism, rather than basing it on sound reason.

By its very monopolistic nature, the institution of government itself is profoundly and thoroughly corrupt.

And yet, you yourself are one of the relatively few libertarians on this forum who would argue that it's appropriate that the state should hold a monopoly on the adjudication and enforcement of property rights.

What's interesting is that yours is a vision of libertarianism that starts to address some of the edge case concerns that I've expressed. I've pointed out how a system of completely privatised law is more open to abuse than one administered by government; in other words, there's a balance to be found between private enterprise and government that's synergistic and productive. That balance will ideally find a tension that allows each to act as a check on the worst excesses of the other.

Very true... But that argument applies to both sides.

Yes, it does - but much less so to the middle.

When the U.S. government was introducing an official dietary guide in the form of a food pyramid in 1991, powerful industry lobbyists fought to defend the place of sugar, potatoes, bread, and other refined carbs in the recommendations. Ignoring the advice of many top nutritionists (such as vocal Harvard professor Walter Willett) the government promoted a diet filled with grains and carbohydrates and low in fats — which people followed because they believed that the government was an impartial institution that had the public's best interest at heart. Over the following ten years, the number of obese Americans increased by over 60 percent. Studies from Columbia University now calculate that Americans lose more years of life to obesity than to smoking.

So ... when it comes to your health, government is good for you?

I've highlighted three words in that little diatribe. It's an anecdote that's designed to lay all the blame at the feet of government, while glossing over the fact that the good intentions of the government were laid to waste by corruption from business.

You argue that government is bad because it's corruptible. Hard to argue with that. What amazes me is that you seem to think there's nothing wrong with the fact that it's private enterprise that's doing the corrupting.

Soldie · 29-06-2011 11:20PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You argue that government is bad because it's corruptible. Hard to argue with that. What amazes me is that you seem to think there's nothing wrong with the fact that it's private enterprise that's doing the corrupting.

Corporations try to harness and exploit the power of government in much the same way that trade unions do (and countless other lobby groups). They do so because that power exists to be exploited. Curtail the power of government and there's not much to be gained from lobbying it.

Permabear · 30-06-2011 12:39AM

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 30-06-2011 09:56AM

Soldie wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll come back to this point towards the end of this post.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK, but you picked up the discussion with me at the point where I had already highlighted the absurdity of the absence of a state to some of the more extreme libertarian faction (who don't seem to believe they are anarchists - or maybe they do? I find it hard to keep up sometimes).

I can't speak for others, but most libertarians are happy to assign core functions such as the enforcement of property rights and administration of justice to the state. They don't believe that the public is best served when the government tries to run everything from banks to bus services to telecommunications firms to electricity companies to airlines (which they generally do inefficiently and at great expense to the taxpayer and consumer alike) but they are alive to the problems outlined on this thread with private protection services, private courts, and so on.

Fair enough - but (as we've seen) there are those who believe that it's a mistake to let government handle something as important as the administration and protection of property rights; equally there are those who believe it would be a mistake to entrust private enterprise with (say) the safe disposal of sewage.

I do think it's possible for such a synergistic, productive balance to emerge. At present, though, unions, large companies, and politicians have banded together in a corporatist cartel, with the rest of the private sector being forced to pay for their demands and mistakes at the barrel of a gun. It's not so simple as saying that government is on one side while the corporations are on the other. More often, the politicians, bankers, and corporate tycoons are on the golf course, in the country club, and at the horse races together. They understand each other, and they speak each other's language. At bottom is the unwritten rule: "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

The unstated corollary is that it's OK to have corporatist cartels that consist only of large companies, with the rest of the private sector being squeezed out and the customers being forced to pay inflated prices until the market finally gets around to correcting itself.

Once again: I'm not someone who's going to claim that we've done a good job of finding the balance. My role in this thread has been to argue against those who claim that when government and business conspire to do bad things, the answer is to eliminate the government and trust that business will suddenly develop a conscience.

Free-market advocates understand that curbing the power of government would make lobbying pointless — simply, there's no point in lobbying a weak, restrained government for favours that it cannot grant.

Equally, it can be argued that in the absence of government (or effective government), there's little point in lobbying because corporations can and will do whatever they please - or at least, whatever they feel they can get away with. Which, in the absence of regulation, will be a hell of a lot.

Under a truly free market, companies could increase profits only by delivering better services and products.

Or by obtaining a monopoly, raising barriers to entry, and milking it for what it's worth until, eventually, someone else manages to overcome those barriers and starts competing again. And then forms a cartel and raises prices once more.

Is private enterprise corrupting government? Is government corrupting private enterprise? Or are they corrupting one another in a nefarious downward spiral that leads to an unholy cartel of politicians, union bosses, and corporate leaders in league against the rest of us who don't have power within the system? I tend to believe the latter case.

You might be right. The problem is that, while it's theoretically possible to remove power from governments (who derive that power from popular mandate), it's nigh impossible to remove it from corporations (who derive it from money). Sudden shifts in balance tend not to have the beneficial outcomes their proponents predict.

Permabear · 30-06-2011 01:20PM

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova · 30-06-2011 02:47PM

Or by obtaining a monopoly, raising barriers to entry, and milking it for what it's worth until, eventually, someone else manages to overcome those barriers and starts competing again. And then forms a cartel and raises prices once more.

Obtaining a monopoly, raising barriers to entry, and milking it for what it's worth is best done through government passing laws and regulations to secure a monopoly position. It costs small businesses a much larger percentage of their revenue to comply with regulations than established big business. Regulations are a pretty good way to limit competition.

Where are the examples of monopolies that haven't been secured through government laws and regulations?

My role in this thread has been to argue against those who claim that when government and business conspire to do bad things, the answer is to eliminate the government and trust that business will suddenly develop a conscience.

No one is arguing business will suddenly develop a conscience. But with limiting government options so as not to give industries tax breaks, subsidies, or favorable loans etc those businesses looking to gain unfair advantage would have a harder time doing so.

20Cent · 01-07-2011 09:53AM

SupaNova wrote: »

Obtaining a monopoly, raising barriers to entry, and milking it for what it's worth is best done through government passing laws and regulations to secure a monopoly position. It costs small businesses a much larger percentage of their revenue to comply with regulations than established big business. Regulations are a pretty good way to limit competition.

Where are the examples of monopolies that haven't been secured through government laws and regulations?

In the absence of there ever being a libertarian society then it can be argued that pretty much everything that has happened in human history good and bad is due to laws and regulations.

Which rules and regulations are you talking about? Get rid of them all?
What about health and safety information, do you trust business not to sell dangerous products?

SupaNova wrote: »

No one is arguing business will suddenly develop a conscience. But with limiting government options so as not to give industries tax breaks, subsidies, or favorable loans etc those businesses looking to gain unfair advantage would have a harder time doing so.

Monopolies and unfair advantage do not just come from the things you listed. I think libertarians underestimate the power some corporations have and how they can abuse it. If someone owns the Phoenix park for example they have a monopoly on the Phoenix park. If I own a road I have a monopoly on that and can also get money from every business on that road. Look at Enron in California, pay up or we cut the power, people can be held hostage to services or do they have to wait until someone decides to build an alternative electricity structure which might not ever be economically viable. Again in California the motor industry bought the tram system and then dug it up to sell more cars. See how supermarkets squeeze their suppliers once they get big enough. Companies with the advantage of economies of scale could run shops at a loss just to get rid of the opposition, once gone they can start milking all they like. You have heard of the robber barons?

SupaNova · 01-07-2011 11:05AM

20Cent wrote: »

Monopolies and unfair advantage do not just come from the things you listed.

Please share examples of business gaining unfair advantage for a long period of time, a period of greater than 5 years without using the state.

I think libertarians underestimate the power some corporations have and how they can abuse it. If someone owns the Phoenix park for example they have a monopoly on the Phoenix park.

I have a monopoly on my possessions too, so what?

If I own a road I have a monopoly on that and can also get money from every business on that road.

Yes so what?

Look at Enron in California, pay up or we cut the power

They wouldn't last very long if they didn't charge for their service? How do you suppose company's charging for a service pay for their employees and the upkeep of the service they provide???

Again in California the motor industry bought the tram system and then dug it up to sell more cars.

Never heard of the story but as far as i know California still has a rail system, bus system, you can walk and cycle, as well as drive a car.

Companies with the advantage of economies of scale could run shops at a loss just to get rid of the opposition, once gone they can start milking all they like.

Examples of companies running at a loss to get rid of opposition, and then managing to obtain their desired monopoly?

You have heard of the robber barons?

If you are talking about 19th century America, and private business attempting to gain monopolies on railroads, banking etc, i have heard of them. Do you know the most successful ones were the ones that used the state to pass laws to legalize monopoly? The banking monopoly was eventually established through the state in 1913. I am yet to find any private monopoly that lasted even a fraction of the length of state monopolies.

Monopolies are probably the worst argument you could come up with in criticizing libertarianism, you might have better success tackling Libertarians on something else.

20Cent · 01-07-2011 12:40PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Please share examples of business gaining unfair advantage for a long period of time, a period of greater than 5 years without using the state.

Like I already said there is no example of a modern country without a state so the point is mute.

SupaNova wrote: »

I have a monopoly on my possessions too, so what?

You asked for an example of a monopoly that was not due to gov laws and regulations that is one.

SupaNova wrote: »

Yes so what?

So by owning property one can obtain more easily and use it as leverage against others. There is no reason to believe that money would not all just flow in one direction leaving us with some kind of ruling class. If I can't travel freely in libertarian land how can it claim to be free?

SupaNova wrote: »

They wouldn't last very long if they didn't charge for their service? How do you suppose company's charging for a service pay for their employees and the upkeep of the service they provide???

Not saying they can't charge for their services just that by having control of the power grid they were able to charge extortionate rates and threaten cutting people off. Not much of a free market there.

SupaNova wrote: »

Examples of companies running at a loss to get rid of opposition, and then managing to obtain their desired monopoly?

You see it with Wallmart, Starbucks lots of companies. Starbucks will open up a few shops close to each other to cut out the competition. None have a full monopoly but it is an example of a large company using its power to get rid of competition.

SupaNova wrote: »

Monopolies are probably the worst argument you could come up with in criticizing libertarianism, you might have better success tackling Libertarians on something else.

Only if one refuses to see how they would develop more easily and would run riot in an unregulated market.

Permabear · 01-07-2011 01:02PM

This post has been deleted.

whatstherush · 01-07-2011 01:06PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Please share examples of business gaining unfair advantage for a long period of time, a period of greater than 5 years without using the state.

Standard oil
www.linfo.org/standardoil.html

20Cent · 01-07-2011 01:10PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not the ideologue here I can see both sides of the coin. Holding the public to ransom can come from both public and private. At least if its public something can be done about it.

simplistic2 · 01-07-2011 01:19PM

There's a big elephant drifting around this thread.

Corporations have NOTHINGto do with the free market. They are state created and supported entities. They are essentially used by the cronies to shield themsleves from any destructive actions that they otherwise would be held personally liable for. The state absorbs the cost of their immoral behavour in return for slimy bribes and back scratching.

In an individualistic society if you were operating a business and caused damage YOU would be held personally and criminally liable. If your defence was " No,no you can't blame me it was my business," you would be laughed out of the private court. It would be like burning down a house and blaming it on your boards.ie avatar.

For this reason, businesses will act in a far more ethical manner when they can't hide behind muscle of the state mob.

Permabear · 01-07-2011 01:52PM

This post has been deleted.

RussellTuring · 02-07-2011 08:49PM

simplistic2 wrote: »

There's a big elephant drifting around this thread.

Corporations have NOTHINGto do with the free market. They are state created and supported entities. They are essentially used by the cronies to shield themsleves from any destructive actions that they otherwise would be held personally liable for. The state absorbs the cost of their immoral behavour in return for slimy bribes and back scratching.

In an individualistic society if you were operating a business and caused damage YOU would be held personally and criminally liable. If your defence was " No,no you can't blame me it was my business," you would be laughed out of the private court. It would be like burning down a house and blaming it on your boards.ie avatar.

For this reason, businesses will act in a far more ethical manner when they can't hide behind muscle of the state mob.

What's to stop them from hiding behind their own hired muscle?

simplistic2 · 03-07-2011 09:15PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

What's to stop them from hiding behind their own hired muscle?

Like I said, they can't offset the cost to individuals through force, as the government does.

Business muscle has to be paid for voluntarily. This means you can stop paying for thier muscle if they abuse it.

RussellTuring · 03-07-2011 10:07PM

simplistic2 wrote: »

Like I said, they can't offset the cost to individuals through force, as the government does.

Business muscle has to be paid for voluntarily. This means you can stop paying for thier muscle if they abuse it.

I'm not sure we're on the same page here: I meant why would the business accept the ruling of the private court if they had a better-equipped security force? That is the ultimate threat of all statist legal systems.

simplistic2 · 03-07-2011 11:03PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I'm not sure we're on the same page here: I meant why would the business accept the ruling of the private court if they had a better-equipped security force? That is the ultimate threat of all statist legal systems.

Why would having a better equipped security force factor into whether or not they pay retribution?

RussellTuring · 03-07-2011 11:31PM

simplistic2 wrote: »

Why would having a better equipped security force factor into whether or not they pay retribution?

For the reason I said:

RussellTuring wrote: »

That is the ultimate threat of all statist legal systems.

20Cent · 04-07-2011 11:08AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

When does one become a statist?
You are for a gov, regulations and limited welfare so whats the difference between you and FF or FG?

Private industry does work better for most things imo, just there are certain essentials that cannot be privatised 100% as they are open to abuse. Education, healthcare, water and energy being a few. There is only one electricity grid building a few is not practical, whoever has control of the grid has a monopoly this needs to be carefully watched. As seen in Bolivia when water was privatised and in California with electricity a private company will milk their position to maximise profits. Fine when its consumer goods but not with some of the essentials like energy or water.

I'm not saying these problems don't exist now just that under a libertarian system they would be much worse.

ei.sdraob · 04-07-2011 11:37AM

I dont know where to start with the OP

Ill take on the "free market" bit, firstly we do not have a free market, far from it, in order for free markets to work failure must be allowed (as per austrian school), this is the opposite of what we have today where failure is feared and avoided at the expense of everyone else in "society"

I remember @20cent being disgusted in many threads at this socialising trend of late, does that make you libertarian? :P

20Cent · 04-07-2011 01:17PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I remember @20cent being disgusted in many threads at this socialising trend of late, does that make you libertarian? :P

It could be true maybe I am a libertarians :eek:
Its such a broad church of ideas and I agree with some of them. If permabear can be one so can I!

20Cent · 04-07-2011 01:31PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Its not mute, where are the monopolies absence of state monopolies?

Answered that one already. If I own a park I have a monopoly on that park.

SupaNova wrote: »

I seriously don't know what logic is behind your vision of people buying roads and then allowing no one to use them.

Didn't say no one could use them but since its private property they could ban some people from using them. I someone owns the road outside your house and decides to ban you from using it what happens then? If you want to start a business you'll have to pay a toll or charges to whoever owns the roads.

SupaNova wrote: »

Transferring a state monopoly into the hands of a private monopoly is not a monopoly created by the free market. And again if you don't pay your bills you get cut off, lol if you want to twist that into threats.

You seem to get the wrong end of the stick with each example. The point made was that a private company in charge of something like water or electricity supply is in a position to charge as much as possible for it. As seen in California Enron created false power cuts and supplies in order to extort more money from the state and the people there.

SupaNova wrote: »

Lol Starbucks and Wallmart open up more and more branches because they are successful and consumers choose to shop there. They only cut out the competition if the competition is not as good according to the choices of consumers

You think a small store can compete with something like Walmart? Walmart is a good example of a large company using its size to get rid of competition.

J'accuse le libertarians

Comments