J'accuse le libertarians

simplistic2 · 05-07-2011 01:51PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

Well, since this type of behaviour happens all the time, will you now answer my hypothetical question as to why any person should feel compelled to follow the ruling of a private court which has no real authority over them?

Violence is very costly, so you can assume the court as a business will try not to resort to this but the individual that has suffered a loss has every right to claim back that loss through force. Much the same way as if your car was stolen you should morally be able to hire a third party to retrive it.

More importantly, I think ostrasim will play a vital role in deterring criminals. All of society will be private property. This means all the court has to do is release a database with the names of those who are evading retribution payments and the entire community will know who the ciminals are. They can literally be thrown out of society because there is no public property.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Is an employer not a master?

I meant in the slave/master involuntary sense not the voluntary one.

Permabear · 05-07-2011 02:11PM

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova · 05-07-2011 02:36PM

20Cent wrote: »

Finance regulations have been stripped away for decades making the crash and Bernie Madoff possible. Regulation of the financial markets is pathetic witness the lack of prosecutions. You then go from high finance to small business to argue against regulation totally different things.

Finance regulations or removal of them did not make the crash possible. Our monetary system, its monopoly control of money supply and interest rates will lead to boom busts whether there is no regulation or super tight regulation.

Our monetary system is fraudulent. Governments support it because they need it to print what they can't raise through taxation to fund wars, welfare, line their own pockets, whatever else.

The hard working middle class will always be the victims of the system. The system supposedly taxes the rich to pay for the poor but the rich know how to shift their wealth between different assets and protect themselves from governments inflating.

RussellTuring · 05-07-2011 03:16PM

simplistic2 wrote: »

Violence is very costly, so you can assume the court as a business will try not to resort to this but the individual that has suffered a loss has every right to claim back that loss through force. Much the same way as if your car was stolen you should morally be able to hire a third party to retrive it.

Well if it's that costly, the court can't use it as a threat so your point is moot and you have still to answer my question.

More importantly, I think ostrasim will play a vital role in deterring criminals. All of society will be private property. This means all the court has to do is release a database with the names of those who are evading retribution payments and the entire community will know who the ciminals are. They can literally be thrown out of society because there is no public property.

So why doesn't the State do something like this now, since it owns so much property and it would be cheaper than using force? And can't you always just hire someone else with more muscle than the court if it costs less to do this than pay what you owe?

I also find it funny that you object to the idea of a corporation but see no problem with that of a "community" in a world without any communal property.

I meant in the slave/master involuntary sense not the voluntary one.

What's the difference? Why would someone volunteer to be subjugated by someone else and have them make money off of their labour if it truly is a free society?

simplistic2 · 05-07-2011 04:25PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

Well if it's that costly, the court can't use it as a threat so your point is moot and you have still to answer my question.

What your claiming is that because a business incurrs a high cost for doing business it will not do it. What!?

RussellTuring wrote: »

So why doesn't the State do something like this now, since it owns so much property and it would be cheaper than using force? And can't you always just hire someone else with more muscle than the court if it costs less to do this than pay what you owe?

The state is a criminal organistion, no different to a petty mafia and I only have one desire for it. I have no idea why the state doesn't do that but the less it does the better for society.

Sure, you could try and raise a private army, nothing stopping you from trying, succeding is a different story.

RussellTuring wrote: »

I also find it funny that you object to the idea of a corporation but see no problem with that of a "community" in a world without any communal property.

What's the difference? Why would someone volunteer to be subjugated by someone else and have them make money off of their labour if it truly is a free society?

Because it is a truly free society where you can choose to be "subjugated" if you like. Unlike now were if you choose not to be you will be murdered by the state.

cynical · 05-07-2011 04:58PM

There are several problems with many "privatisations" that occur:

A government monopoly is handed over to a private monopoly(usually a politically connected corporation).
Regulations, licenses, etc. are then implemented to shield them from competition.
Taxes are never reduced to reflect the fact that the service no longer needs to be funded by the government.
The government service is funded by the taxpayer, yet the revenue from the sale is never returned to its rightful owner-the taxpayer.
The service is often privatised because it's in disarray and the government can no longer handle it. If you privatise something crappy it's not suddenly going to become world class overnight(especially if all the things mentioned above are done).

Just to address the privatisation in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Here's an extract from wikipedia:

To ensure the legality of the privatization the Bolivian government passed law 2029, which verified the contract with Aguas del Tunari. To many the law appeared to give a monopoly to Aguas del Tunari over all water resources. Many feared that this included water used for irrigation by peasant campesino farmers, and community-based resources that had previously been independent of regulation.[7] The law was seen as "enabling the sale of water resources that had never really been a part of SEMAPA in the first place."[7] Many became worried that independent communal water systems which had yet to be connected with SEMAPA would be "summarily appropriated by the new concession."[7] By Law 2029, if Aguas del Tunari had wanted to, not only could it have installed meters and begin charging at independently built communal water systems, but it could have also charged residents for the installation of those meters.[1] The broad nature of Law 2029 led many to claim that the government would require a license be obtained for people to collect rainwater from their roofs.[2] The first to raise concerns over the scope of the law was the new Federación Departamental Cochabambina de Regantes (FEDECOR) and its leader Omar Fernandez.[7] FEDECOR was made up of local professionals, including engineers and environmentalists.[1] They were joined by a federation of peasant farmers who relied on irrigation, and a confederation of factory workers' unions led by Oscar Olivera.[1] Together these groups formed Coördinator for the Defense of Water and Life, or La Coordinadora which became the core of the opposition to the policy.

Also, the company that bought the water supply also inherited the debts that the state agency had accumulated. The state agency was able to provide water at artificially low prices. Once it was privatised the company had no choice but to increase prices as private companies, unlike the government, don't have the luxury of running perpetual debts. Also I highly doubt taxpayers received any of the revenue from the sale of the water supply, or had their taxes reduced. If they did, it would be a lot easier for them to pay the company for water, get water from other sources(they could install large tanks and tank wagons would compete to sell them water, this actually happens in several countries), or even move to another city with cheaper water(privatisation actually worked fine in Santa Cruz).

I do agree that so-called privatisation can go very wrong, but if it's done in the right way it has a much higher chance of being successful(at least in comparison to the government system that preceded it).

20Cent · 05-07-2011 07:28PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Pretty much every economist and expert says deregulation was a route cause of the financial crisis. Don't know about regulations from the 1950's anyway it not the number but what institutions are free to do that is to blame.

Here is a list of bills that deregulated the financial markets giving more freedom and resulting in the mess we have today.

http://www.openthegovernment.org/sites/default/files/otg/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

1978, Marquette vs. First of Omaha – Supreme Court allows banks to export the usury laws of their home state nationwide and sets off a competitive wave of deregulation, resulting in the complete elimination of usury rate ceilings in South Dakota and Delaware, among others.
• 1980, Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act – Legislation increases deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000, authorizes new authority to thrift institutions, and calls for the complete phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts.
• 1982, Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act – Bill deregulates thrifts almost entirely, allowing commercial lending and providing for a new account to compete with money market mutual funds. This was a Reagan dministration initiative that passed with strong bi-partisan support.
• 1987, FSLIC Insolvency – GAO declares the deposit insurance fund of the savings and loan industry to be insolvent as a result of mounting institutional failures.
• 1989, Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Act – Act abolishes the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC, transferring them to OTS and the FDIC, respectively. The plan also creates the Resolution Trust Corporation to resolve failed thrifts.
• 1994, Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act – This bill eliminated previous restrictions on interstate banking and branching. It passed with broad bipartisan support.
• 1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall – Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-Steagall Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of their revenues in investment banking.
• 1998, Citicorp-Travelers Merger – Citigroup, Inc. merges a commercial bank with an insurance company that owns an investment bank to form the world’s largest financial services company.
• 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – With support from Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Rubin and his successor Lawrence Summers, the bill repeals the Glass-Steagall Act completely.
• 2000, Commodity Futures Modernization Act – Passed with support from the Clinton Administration, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bi-partisan support in Congress. The bill prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps.
• 2004, Voluntary Regulation – The SEC proposes a system of voluntary regulation under the Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowing investment banks to hold less capital in reserve and increase leverage.
• 2007, Subprime Mortgage Crisis – Defaults on subprime loans send shockwaves throughout the secondary mortgage market and the entire financial system.
• December 2007, Term Auction Facility – Special liquidity facility of the Federal Reserve lends to depository institutions. Unlike lending through the discount window, there is no public disclosure on loans made through this facility.
• March 2008, Bear Stearns Collapse – The investment bank is sold to JP Morgan Chase with assistance from the Federal Reserve.
• March 2008, Primary Dealer Facilities – Special lending facilities open the discount window to investment banks, accepting a broad range of asset-backed securities as collateral.
• July 2008, Housing and Economic Recovery Act – Provides guarantees on new mortgages to subprime borrowers and authorizes a new federal agency, the FHFA, which eventually places Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.
• September 2008, Lehman Brothers Collapse – Investment bank files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
• October 2008, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – Bill authorizes the Treasury to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase distressed mortgage-backed securities and inject capital into the nation’s banking system. Also increases deposit insurance from $100,000 to $250,000.
• Late 2008, Money Market Liquidity Facilities – Federal Reserve facilities created to facilitate the purchase of various money market instruments.
• March 2009, Public-Private Investment Program – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduces his plan to subsidize the purchase of toxic assets with government guarantees.

Permabear wrote: »

Bernie Madoff's actions didn't become possible because financial regulation had been stripped away. They came about because Bernie Madoff decided to disregard regulation and commit fraud. There's a huge difference there.

The regulations were not adhered to or enforced. In libertarian land there would be no regulations for him to break.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again picking an example of something not working rather than address the libertarian position and say how it would be better.

20Cent · 05-07-2011 07:30PM

simplistic2 wrote: »

Because it is a truly free society where you can choose to be "subjugated" if you like. Unlike now were if you choose not to be you will be murdered by the state.

Ya what???????????

SupaNova · 06-07-2011 01:56AM

Pretty much every economist and expert says deregulation was a route cause of the financial crisis. Don't know about regulations from the 1950's anyway it not the number but what institutions are free to do that is to blame.

I've tried to point out that regulations or lack there of are not the cause of the boom bust. Meddling with interest rates and money supply are the root cause.

Name the economists that predicted the crises and how it would happen before it happened that said the root cause of the crisis is deregulation?

SupaNova · 06-07-2011 02:14AM

"Imagine Allen Greenspan is the bartender and he is liquoring up everyone in the tavern, and before the inebriated patrons leave the saloon his making sure that the each do a couple of shots for the road, and then when they get into traffic accidents his blaming it on a failure of the police to due their jobs, and by the way the police were in the bar and Greenspan liquored them up to." - Peter Schiff

"There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved" - Ludwig Von Mises

What's the root cause, Central banks fueling an unsustainable credit expansion or everyone losing the run of themselves with access to the cheap credit?

20Cent · 06-07-2011 10:00AM

17 pages in this thread so far and only two "libertarians" have done what the op asked which was to

What I'm asking for is for a libertarian to describe what the society they would like to see. I don't mean wishy washy stuff like well we would be free to do whatever we want so long as it does not harm others, but a bit of detail . Pretty much everything we do affects others what is meant by harm? Smoking in public harms others so would that be allowed? If someone gets sick or injured in a libertarian society and they don't have insurance what happens to them?

Is this because when a light is shone on libertarianism it is so abhorent to the average decent person they dismiss it immediatly? If libertarianism is such a good idea then surely it would have happened somewhere, pretty much every type of state has been tried throughout history!

The libertarian likes to tell others to "educate" themselves about it as if only you could understand it would make perfect sense. Well most people have considered such systems but then they grew pubic hair and realised what nonsense it is. As seen in this thread any success of deregulation/privatisation is hailed as a victory (despite whatever the other circumstances are) any failures are dismissed because it wasn't "free" enough. It is impossible to have an honest debate with a libertarian as they are so fanatical pointing out facts and truths to them doesn't work.

There is a reason the Chicago and Austrian schools are widely dismissed. Its not because its difficult to understand or some conspiracy its because its bull**** that is only taken seriously by a handfull of loons. Who are the prominent libertarians in Ireland or even Europe? Ron Paul is the only one most people can name or his idiot son Rand.

All this is fine as an academic exercise but the problem is that this stupidity is leaking away from where is should stay. A dream for a particular type of nerd on the internet. It is influencing the republican party in the US which are looking to implement some libertarian ideas. This is highly dangerous as even a libertarian can tell you its an all or nothing deal if you get rid of social welfare then corporate welfare has to go as well otherwise it doesn't work. Unfortunately the tea party clowns don't even uderstand that much of it. In Europe there is the rise in disaster capitalim where the weak and poor are being hammered while the rich and powerful bailed out.

In conclusion as this thread shows the only discernable use for libertarianism is to allow one to be a pompous smartarse on the internet. It has no practical use in real life but unfortunatly some of its ideas are being implemented to the detriment of society.

simplistic2 · 06-07-2011 10:18AM

20Cent wrote: »

17 pages in this thread so far and only two "libertarians" have done what the op asked which was to

What I'm asking for is for a libertarian to describe what the society they would like to see. I don't mean wishy washy stuff like well we would be free to do whatever we want so long as it does not harm others, but a bit of detail . Pretty much everything we do affects others what is meant by harm? Smoking in public harms others so would that be allowed? If someone gets sick or injured in a libertarian society and they don't have insurance what happens to them?

Is this because when a light is shone on libertarianism it is so abhorent to the average decent person they dismiss it immediatly? If libertarianism is such a good idea then surely it would have happened somewhere, pretty much every type of state has been tried throughout history!

The libertarian likes to tell others to "educate" themselves about it as if only you could understand it would make perfect sense. Well most people have considered such systems but then they grew pubic hair and realised what nonsense it is. As seen in this thread any success of deregulation/privatisation is hailed as a victory (despite whatever the other circumstances are) any failures are dismissed because it wasn't "free" enough. It is impossible to have an honest debate with a libertarian as they are so fanatical pointing out facts and truths to them doesn't work.

There is a reason the Chicago and Austrian schools are widely dismissed. Its not because its difficult to understand or some conspiracy its because its bull**** that is only taken seriously by a handfull of loons. Who are the prominent libertarians in Ireland or even Europe? Ron Paul is the only one most people can name or his idiot son Rand.

All this is fine as an academic exercise but the problem is that this stupidity is leaking away from where is should stay. A dream for a particular type of nerd on the internet. It is influencing the republican party in the US which are looking to implement some libertarian ideas. This is highly dangerous as even a libertarian can tell you its an all or nothing deal if you get rid of social welfare then corporate welfare has to go as well otherwise it doesn't work. Unfortunately the tea party clowns don't even uderstand that much of it. In Europe there is the rise in disaster capitalim where the weak and poor are being hammered while the rich and powerful bailed out.

In conclusion as this thread shows the only discernable use for libertarianism is to allow one to be a pompous smartarse on the internet. It has no practical use in real life but unfortunatly some of its ideas are being implemented to the detriment of society.

I actually agree with you somewhat. I think that the belief that you will be able to minimise government and then tell it not to grow by writing it on a piece of paper is a fantasy. It is also a fantasy that you will ever be able minimise the state through politics - imagine what would happen if you took away corporate and welfare recipients subsidies.

I believe that the state will end when people in communities become more moral and reject the state as a violent organisation. This will be done organically and you will see this philosophy rapidly growing over the next few decades.

As for how society will look? I have no idea. I doubt I'll be alive to see it, getting rid of the state is a bigger project than getting rid of slavery. I don't have the arrogance to say what a society 100+ years in the future will look like. I will bet however, that it will be based on the non-aggression priniciple and full property rights.

SupaNova · 06-07-2011 01:13PM

20Cent wrote: »

There is a reason the Chicago and Austrian schools are widely dismissed. Its not because its difficult to understand or some conspiracy its because its bull**** that is only taken seriously by a handfull of loons.

They are dismissed by people in government because they are against large state intervention. You can listen to Krugman and Stiglitz because they support the Keynesian fantasy of deficit spending and an easy way out. Maybe as western governments bankrupt themselves and destroy their currencies with Keynesian policies it will be the nail in the Keynesian's coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnekzRuu8wo

Choose your Keynsians. I am sure everything i have said regarding economics has gone over your head though, since you haven't read an economics book.

20Cent · 06-07-2011 01:50PM

SupaNova wrote: »

They are dismissed by people in government because they are against large state intervention. You can listen to Krugman and Stiglitz because they support the Keynesian fantasy of deficit spending and an easy way out. Maybe as western governments bankrupt themselves and destroy their currencies with Keynesian policies it will be the nail in the Keynesian's coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnekzRuu8wo

Choose your Keynsians. I am sure everything i have said regarding economics has gone over your head though, since you haven't read an economics book.

The cry of lack of knowledge once again. They are dismissed by pretty much everyone not just governments because they a bull, not because of some conspiracy. Friedmans ideas have been proven to fail every time, didn't even work with a dictator.

20Cent · 06-07-2011 08:16PM

Checking out this Austrian school, its got more in common with a religion than anything else. Praxeology!!!!

cm2000 · 06-07-2011 11:15PM

To be fair the Austrian School has a lot more credibility than any other at the moment. How the likes of Peter Schiff was able to describe in detail, precisely how the US financial crisis would materialise before it happened, purely as a result of his understanding of Austrian Economics and the boom and bust cycle created by central banking, was extraordinary. You should have a watch of this if you have the time to spare. I think after watching it the only thing comparable to religion about it is that he could be referred to as a prophet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k

SupaNova · 07-07-2011 08:35AM

Checking out this Austrian school, its got more in common with a religion than anything else. Praxeology!!!!

Praxeology favors logical analysis and deduction to develop fundamental truths of human action. If you start looking for data without establishing fundamental economic truths you can find data to prove any truth you have in your mind through your own confirmation biases. It is because Keynesians lack established fundamental truths that they can come to the conclusion that wars and natural disasters can be good for the economy.

For the same reasons politicians can make false correlations to support their political views, such as, tax cuts for the rich caused the economy to weaken, and pea brains that lack knowledge and don't use a remote level of simple logic in their analysis are very susceptible to these illogical correlations and confirmation biases. We have a very susceptible pea brain in the thread whose research consists of digging up fallacious propaganda without ever engaging himself/herself in critical thought.

20Cent · 07-07-2011 09:25AM

SupaNova wrote: »

Praxeology favors logical analysis and deduction to develop fundamental truths of human action. If you start looking for data without establishing fundamental economic truths you can find data to prove any truth you have in your mind through your own confirmation biases. It is because Keynesians lack established fundamental truths that they can come to the conclusion that wars and natural disasters can be good for the economy.

For the same reasons politicians can make false correlations to support their political views, such as, tax cuts for the rich caused the economy to weaken, and pea brains that lack knowledge and don't use a remote level of simple logic in their analysis are very susceptible to these illogical correlations and confirmation biases. We have a very susceptible pea brain in the thread whose research consists of digging up fallacious propaganda without ever engaging himself/herself in critical thought.

I'm all for using logic, praxology is not logic though. Praxology also comes to conclusions which are at odds with observable reality! Sounds like a religion in that sense.

20Cent · 07-07-2011 09:57AM

SupaNova wrote: »

Lol you are proving my point, since probably just read the first source you googled that would support your view. You neither have knowledge or used your brain. I hope for the sake of mankind you are simply a troll as opposed to having **** for brains.

Why don't you explain praxology for me then?

20Cent · 07-07-2011 10:20AM

Austian economists have declared that the action axiom is true by definition, and that any attempts to disprove it are actions that result in its validation.

There is only one true God. If you don't believe you are wrong. Read the Bible more.

SupaNova · 07-07-2011 10:48AM

20Cent wrote: »

Austian economists have declared that the action axiom is true by definition, and that any attempts to disprove it are actions that result in its validation.

There is only one true God. If you don't believe you are wrong. Read the Bible more.

Lol if humans didn't act you would not be typing and posting on this forum.:)

SupaNova · 07-07-2011 10:50AM

Why don't you explain praxology for me then?

Because i couldn't be arsed and i would rather you keep throwing your weak arguments from your 5 minutes of googling at me:)

20Cent · 07-07-2011 12:36PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Because i couldn't be arsed and i would rather you keep throwing your weak arguments from your 5 minutes of googling at me:)

Since you have read all this stuff and obviously understand it then surely you could save me some time by giving a summery of it?

SupaNova · 07-07-2011 12:38PM

Its already summarized pretty well and condensed to a single chapter in Rothbard's 'Man Economy and State'. Knock yourself out.

20Cent · 07-07-2011 01:45PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Its already summarized pretty well and condensed to a single chapter in Rothbard's 'Man Economy and State'. Knock yourself out.

Bit of a circular thing going on in this thread surely you could explain it in a paragraph or two? When a question is asked the libertarian tells the questioner to go read something rather than answer. If you can't explain your position in simple language then what use is it!!

Rothbard seems like a lovely chap.

http://mises.org/daily/2568
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

SupaNova · 07-07-2011 02:21PM

20Cent wrote: »

Bit of a circular thing going on in this thread surely you could explain it in a paragraph or two? When a question is asked the libertarian tells the questioner to go read something rather than answer. If you can't explain your position in simple language then what use is it!!

Many points have already been explained in simple language. When simple minds can't understand, what use is it!!:cool:

20Cent · 07-07-2011 02:42PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Many points have already been explained in simple language. When simple minds can't understand, what use is it!!:cool:

More abuse!
Most ideologues are happy to explain and discuss their beliefs except the libertarians who want one to read tons of books before engaging! Indicates a high level of indoctrination is required.

To quote myself!
In conclusion as this thread shows the only discernable use for libertarianism is to allow one to be a pompous smartarse on the internet.

SupaNova · 07-07-2011 02:46PM

20Cent wrote: »

More abuse!
Most ideologues are happy to explain and discuss their beliefs except the libertarians who want one to read tons of books before engaging! Indicates a high level of indoctrination is required.

To quote myself!
In conclusion as this thread shows the only discernable use for libertarianism is to allow one to be a pompous smartarse on the internet.

Plenty of people have discussed their beliefs. You don't have to read tons of books, but how can you criticize something you know nothing about, which you have clearly shown to be the case on numerous occasions?

Permabear · 07-07-2011 03:05PM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 07-07-2011 03:40PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You want to take a shot at explaining praxeology?

I've already given my view.

All this superior knowledge you libertarian types have is going to waste!

Still only two replies to the op to describe a libertarian society.

Off on hols now see ye in a week or so, expect the thread to be full of useful info when I get back.

J'accuse le libertarians

Comments