Why the Left Fears Libertarianism

[hugolp]

One of those articles that will inspire you. Very recommnded for the Leftists of this forum (Left with uppercase L = statist left).

http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory217.html

Leftist criticisms of libertarianism have surged lately, a phenomenon warranting explanation. We libertarians could justifiably find it all quite confusing. For decades we have thought our battle a largely losing one, at least in the short term. We are a tiny, relatively powerless minority. The state has raged on, expanding in virtually every direction, for my entire lifetime and that of my parents’. Yet nearly every week our beloved philosophy of non-aggression is subject to some progressive’s relatively widely read hatchet job. On the surface, it appears at least as misdirected as the rightwing hysteria about Marxists during the Cold War. But at least Marxism was the supposed tenet of the Soviet Union, a regime with thousands of nukes ready to launch. Why all this concern about little ol’ us?

We could go through all these critiques line by line and expose the many factual errors and gross misinterpretations, whether disingenuous or unintentional. But it might be more worthwhile to ask, Why all this focus on the supposed demonic threat of libertarianism in the first place?

It was not too long ago that the Slate’s Jacob Weisberg declared the end of libertarianism. Time of death? The financial collapse, which proved our "ideology makes no sense." Not three years later, the same web publication is exposing "the liberty scam": "With libertarianism everywhere, it's hard to remember that as recently as the 1970s, it was nowhere to be found."

Funny, I thought libertarianism was dead. Now it is an insidious scam worthy of multiple articles exposing the danger that lurks beneath the façade. In 28 months our defunct ideology has resurrected into a ubiquitous threat.

If only. Despite the leftists’ hysteria that libertarianism is permeating the Tea Parties, defining Republican politics, and central to the message espoused by Glenn Beck, this is so far from the truth, so paranoid a delusion, that it makes Beck’s most incoherent sketches upon his notorious chalkboard appear like plausible, sensible political analysis by comparison.

The government grows bigger every day and every year, no matter how you measure it. There are more laws, more police, and more prisoners than ever. The empire and presidential power have been on the rise for decades. Spending has increased at all levels. New bureaucracies, edicts, social programs, and prohibitions crop up continually. Almost no regulations are ever repealed – yes, back in the late 1990s, Clinton signed a partial deregulation of certain bank practices (opposed by Ron Paul, as it was phony to begin with), which had nothing to do with the financial meltdown and yet is blamed for every economic problem that unfolded in the last decade. Yes, back in the early 1980s, Reagan cut marginal tax rates while increasing other taxes and positioning himself to double the federal government, and, according to the left-liberals, we’ve been in a laissez-faire tailspin ever since. But anyone who really thinks libertarianism has been dominant in this country clearly has very little understanding of what libertarianism is – or is utterly detached from reality.

Weisberg was wrong in 2008 when he predicted the demise of our philosophy after an era of major influence, and his fellow-traveling writer at Slate is wrong now when he thinks he sees it everywhere. It is telling, however, that when they choose to go after the Tea Party conservatives, the beltway think tanks, and the GOP rightwing, they do not generally attack these people for their many unlibertarian views (views that the left claims to oppose as well): Their love of the police state, their support for the drug war, their disregard for the Fourth Amendment, their comfort with torture, their demonization of immigrants and foreigners, and, above all, their unwavering penchant for warmongering. No, you see, these positions, while unfashionable in some liberal circles, are at least within the respectable parameters of debate. But if some conservative ever mentioned the Tenth Amendment favorably, questioned the legitimacy of the welfare state, or said perhaps the budget deficit should be cut by at least a third this year – horror upon horrors! This is far beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion. And, as it so happens, these are positions that libertarians would find somewhat agreeable, and so we see the real problem with Glenn Beck isn’t his flirtations with fascism and militarism; it’s the quirky way he wonders aloud if government has gotten a bit too big and might pose a threat to freedom. The populist conservatives are not exposed for being protectionists – that much is tolerable – but rather for clinging to their guns and localism. The neolibertarian policy wonks are attacked not for being soft on war but for being too hard on the state.

The fact is, most left-liberals do hate and fear libertarianism more than they oppose modern conservatism. It makes sense. For one thing, the conservatives and liberals seemingly agree on 90% of the issues, certainly when compared to the views of principled libertarians. They all favor having a strong military. We tend to want to abolish standing armies. They all think the police need more power – to crack down on guns, if you’re a liberal, and to crack down on drugs, if you’re a conservative. We libertarians think police have way too much power and flirt with the idea of doing away with them altogether. The conservatives and liberals all want to keep Medicare, Social Security, and public schools intact, if tweaked around the edges. We see these programs for what they are: the parasitic class’s authoritarian and regressive programs to control the youth and foment intergenerational conflict.

Second of all, conservatism is a much better foil for liberals to attack than libertarianism is. They can deal with the friendly rivalry between red-state fascism and blue-state socialism. With the central state as their common ground, the two camps enjoy hurling insults at each other, playing culture war games, vying over power, doing what they can to expand government knowing that even should they lose control, it will eventually come back to them. This might explain why when leftists condemn conservatism for its hypocritical claims to libertarianism, they seldom follow up by saying true libertarianism would in fact be preferable. To the contrary, the argument is usually that since the conservatives are collectivists after all, they should warm up to the liberal flavor of collectivism espoused by Democrats. The left correctly says the right does not embrace genuine free enterprise, but socialism for the rich, and that the right is not really for small government, not when it comes to imposing its values. But then does the left conclude that libertarianism is not so bad, after all? Not usually. For in the end, the more anti-government the right is, the more a menace it is to the left’s project of social democracy and humanitarian militarism.

But libertarianism, however weak its influence today, is a much greater long-term threat to the left than is any form of conservatism, and the leftist intellectuals sense this even if they can’t articulate why. Leftism, whether they know it or not, is a distorted permutation of the classical liberal tradition. The statist left did their deal with the devil – the nation-state, centralized authority of the most rapacious kind – supposedly with the goal of expediting the liberation of the common man and leveling the playing field. More than a century since the progressives and socialists twisted liberalism into an anti-liberty, pro-state ideology, they see that they have made a huge mess of the world, that, as they themselves complain, social inequality persists, corporatism flourishes, and wars rage on. As the chief political architects of the 20th century in the West, they have no one to blame but themselves, and so they target us – the true liberals, the ones who never let go of authentic liberal idealism, love of the individual dignity and rights of every man, woman and child, regardless of nationality or class, and hatred of state violence and coercive authoritarianism in all its forms.

But Barack Obama is really what has made the left-liberal illusion fold under the weight of its own absurdity. Here we had the perfect paragon of left-liberal social democracy. He beat the centrist Hillary Clinton then won the national election. He had a Democratic Congress for two years. He had loads of political capital by virtue of following a completely failed and unpopular Republican administration. The world welcomed him. The center cheered him. And what did he do?

He shoveled money toward corporate America, banks and car manufacturers. He championed the bailouts of the same Wall Street firms his very partisans blamed for the financial collapse. He picked the CEO of General Electric to oversee the unemployment problem. He appointed corporate state regulars for every major role in financial central planning. After guaranteeing a new era of transparency, he conducted all his regulatory business behind a shroud of unprecedented secrecy. He planned his health care scheme, the crown jewel of his domestic agenda, in league with the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

He continued the war in Iraq, even extending Bush’s schedule with a goal of staying longer than the last administration planned. He tripled the U.S. presence in Afghanistan then took over two years to announce the eventual drawdown to bring it back to only double the Bush presence. He widened the war in Pakistan, launching drone attacks at a dizzying pace. He started a war on false pretenses with Libya, shifting the goal posts and doing it all without Congressional approval. He bombed Yemen and lied about it.

He enthusiastically signed on to warrantless wiretapping, renditioning, the Patriot Act, prison abuse, detention without trial, violations of habeas corpus, and disgustingly invasive airport security measures. He deported immigrants more than Bush did. He increased funding for the drug war in Mexico. He invoked the Espionage Act more than all previous presidents combined, tortured a whistleblower, and claimed the right to unilaterally kill any U.S. citizen on Earth without even a nod from Congress or a shrug from the courts.

The left-liberals who stand by this war criminal and Wall Street shill have made their choice: better to have the militarism and police state, so long as it means a little more influence over domestic politics, even if that too is compromised by corporate interference, than it is to embrace a radical antiwar agenda that might complicate their domestic aspirations.

Our critics complain that America has "moved to the right" in the last three decades, and that would supposedly include Obama’s record so far, which appears in most part like a third Bush term. Yet not a single one of the egregious policies above passes libertarian muster. They are all anathema to the libertarian. And so are almost all policies embarked upon in the last three generations. And surely, this is true most of all for the wars. The few honest folks on the left recognize this. As the iconoclast Thad Russell puts it:

    I’m a man of the left. I was raised by socialists in Berkeley. I’ve always been on the left. I stumbled upon Antiwar.com about three years ago. . . . This is what the left should be doing. This is what the left should be saying. . . . Libertarians like Antiwar.com, like Ron Paul, have been the leading voices of the antiwar movement. They’ve been the most principled, the most consistent, no matter who’s president. They’ve been saying again and again and again: "These wars are disasters. The empire must end." And the left shuns them because they either think they’re shills for corporations or their racists or they don’t care about people. How could they not care about people if they’re the leading voices against killing people in our name?

Indeed, if we truly did not care about people, why would we libertarians waste so much time fighting what often seems to be a Sisyphean battle? Why not just lobby for federal contracts in Washington? Why not get government jobs and live off the taxpayer? Why not just ignore politics altogether, instead of fretting day and night about oppressive policies whose direct effects are most often borne by other people? The fact is, libertarianism is an ethical system whose discovery tends to compel its adherents to fight – and not mostly for themselves, but for the freedom of their fellow man, for perfect strangers.

Unfortunately, most of the left would rather not focus on the 98% of the Obama agenda that mirrors that of George W. Bush, including all the war on terror excesses they condemned for seven years. Or they comically attribute Obama’s Bush-like record as being part of the "culture of individualism" that we libertarians are somehow responsible for. Libertarianism, you see, can be found in the Obama White House as much as it lurks behind every Bush. You can expand government in every area but if you say something nice about the market or cut taxes by a couple percent, everything bad that happens on your watch is to be blamed on libertarianism.

Whether a willful misdirection or not, these leftists target their animus upon those who dare think that a nearly four-trillion-dollar federal government is too big, blaming Republicans for being too libertarian and blaming libertarians for being too idealistic or selfish. They even go after Ron Paul, who has always promised to scale back the warfare state and drug war immediately, while being more gradualist on welfare. They’ll even attack him for his heroic stand on legalizing heroin. Why? They have to challenge the very idea of libertarianism, even if it means bashing us for positions we thought they shared, such as on drug reform.

During the Bush years, many libertarians, myself included, said we would happily tolerate, for the time being anyway, the Democrats’ welfare state if it actually meant the end of the neocon war machine and police state. Of course, now we have all three in fuller force than in many decades. While for the sake of peace, many of us would tolerate welfare, the liberals are different: For the sake of welfare, they will tolerate war or at least the emperor waging it. Karl Hess was right: "Whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you wind up an apologist for mass murder."

Everyone who votes for Barack Obama, a man with the blood of thousands of innocents on his hands, all to avoid another Republican administration that will presumably (but unlikely) slash back the domestic state, would seem to have some sorry priorities. You really care about the poorest, most innocent people? Throw your party, your president, your social democratic dreams under the bus – threaten to withhold your votes from any Democrat who lends his support to any war ever again.

Such talk about withdrawing consent from the state frightens the statist left, who may also be quite embarrassed that the most principled opponents of empire and oppression are obviously not the economic interventionists, but those whose philosophy lies somewhere on the spectrum between anarchism and anti-Federalism. Aside from their sheer embarrassment there is another explanation for their deflection, for their attacks on libertarianism while their president shreds the Bill of Rights, bankrupts the country, and slaughters in their name: The left knows that in the very long run, libertarianism really is the great philosophical adversary it must contend with. Conservatism is categorically the ideology of the past. The future clash will be between those who seek freedom from the state and those who seek salvation through the state, those who see the state as the enemy and those who somehow think the state can protect the masses from the ruling class. As libertarians, our dream is more utopian and our ideals are loftier, but our understanding of reality is also much more grounded and justified. Voluntarism and the market are far more humane and productive than any coercive alternative. The state is the enemy of the little guy. This is an immutable truth of the human condition. Obama, like Bush before him, only demonstrates the impossibility of divorcing the party of power from the party of privilege. Eventually the young, the idealistic, and those who hope for real change will retreat from the lying promises of leftist statism and embrace the radical and realistic program of individual liberty. It has already begun to happen, which is why the other side is frantic and scared.

June 30, 2011

Anthony Gregory [send him mail] is research editor at the Independent Institute. He lives in Oakland, California. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.

[1715185408]

1715185408

[1715185408]

1715185408

[1715185408]

1715185408

[1715185408]

1715185408

[1715185408]

1715185408

[Jaime Frontero]

yes.  well.

the Independent Institute.

a bunch of global warming deniers (not skeptics), partially funded by exxon (from what we know in the open), who 'find' that the warming we've bought ourselves will probably be a good thing.  mmmph.

just as they (the Independent Institute) were significantly funded in the 90s by the folks who taught the global warming deniers everything they know:  the tobaccos.

we are judged by the company we keep.

as for their view on the current US president (which was really the point of the article - not libertarianism), i would defy anyone to point out a better choice available at the time of the 2008 election.  or now, for that matter - despite the man's obvious shortcomings.

at least he's a grownup.

[LastBattle]

yes.  well.

the Independent Institute.

a bunch of global warming deniers (not skeptics), partially funded by exxon (from what we know in the open), who 'find' that the warming we've bought ourselves will probably be a good thing.  mmmph.

just as they (the Independent Institute) were significantly funded in the 90s by the folks who taught the global warming deniers everything they know:  the tobaccos.

we are judged by the company we keep.

as for their view on the current US president (which was really the point of the article - not libertarianism), i would defy anyone to point out a better choice available at the time of the 2008 election.  or now, for that matter - despite the man's obvious shortcomings.

at least he's a grownup.

RON PAUL LOLOLOL

[Jaime Frontero]

RON PAUL LOLOLOL

well put.

[rafval]

Libertarianism  - great idea taken over by nutters

[hugolp]

yes.  well.

the Independent Institute.

a bunch of global warming deniers (not skeptics), partially funded by exxon (from what we know in the open), who 'find' that the warming we've bought ourselves will probably be a good thing.  mmmph.

just as they (the Independent Institute) were significantly funded in the 90s by the folks who taught the global warming deniers everything they know:  the tobaccos.

we are judged by the company we keep.

as for their view on the current US president (which was really the point of the article - not libertarianism), i would defy anyone to point out a better choice available at the time of the 2008 election.  or now, for that matter - despite the man's obvious shortcomings.

at least he's a grownup.

Indeed, we are judged by the company we keep.

Honestly, I would much preffer to be seen in the company of people who deny global warming (I am not convinced of global warming myself) than be seen in the company of mass muderers. But since you dont I guess you have other moral priorities.

EDIT: Yesterday I quoted a whole article from a socialist blog. I guess that tells a lot about what companies I keep as well.

[hugolp]

Btw, the text is perfect for the reactions it has gotten: Not one response has questioned or attacked the ideas. The responses have been personal attacks for causes not related to the text or directly ad-hominems.

The text is spot on.

[Jaime Frontero]

Btw, the text is perfect for the reactions it has gotten: Not one response has questioned or attacked the ideas. The responses have been personal attacks for causes not related to the text or directly ad-hominems.

The text is spot on.

my reply to the 'text' was based on the realities of the causes the Institute has chosen to support - and the apparent reasons (purely financial and political, without regard to truth) for that.  my reply was also quite factual as to whom the Institute lays down with.

as for your accusation of ad hominem:

than be seen in the company of mass muderers. But since you dont I guess you have other moral priorities.

really...

EDIT:  and i should also point out that my response was to the article.

EDIT: Yesterday I quoted a whole article from a socialist blog. I guess that tells a lot about what companies I keep as well.

i had nothing to say about you, the OP.

[smellyBobby]

 company of mass muderers.

Who are these mass-murderers you speak of?

[Jaime Frontero]

 company of mass muderers.

Who are these mass-murderers you speak of?

the folks i hang out with, according to a site moderator...

[smellyBobby]

Ahh the non-believers in his religion?

[hugolp]

my reply to the 'text' was based on the realities of the causes the Institute has chosen to support - and the apparent reasons (purely financial and political, without regard to truth) for that.  my reply was also quite factual as to whom the Institute lays down with.

My contact with the Independent Insitute is by reading Robert Higgs blog. Robert Higgs is a great economists with an undoubted honesty.

as for your accusation of ad hominem:

than be seen in the company of mass muderers. But since you dont I guess you have other moral priorities.

really...

Thats not an ad-hominem. These are ad-hominem:

Libertarianism  - great idea taken over by nutters

RON PAUL LOLOLOL

And, btw, yes really. As the article points out, a lot of people have decided to look the other way in the mass murdering the USA government is doing in Irak, Afghanistan, etc... just so they could keep believing in "change and hope" (TM). That says a lot about the morality of those people.

EDIT:  and i should also point out that my response was to the article.

Climate change is not cited once in the article.

EDIT: Yesterday I quoted a whole article from a socialist blog. I guess that tells a lot about what companies I keep as well.

i had nothing to say about you, the OP.

But the thread has been succesfully derailed.

[myrkul]

But the thread has been succesfully derailed.

Hey! That's my Job!

[Jaime Frontero]

i had nothing to say about you, the OP.

But the thread has been succesfully derailed.

ah.  but by whom?

you attacked me.

as i said - i responded to the article.  not to you.  you may disagree with the thrust of my response - to which i can only say that i do judge people by the company they keep - and by all of their actions.  i find such things quite illuminating.  would you propose that a psychotic killer should be judged by how sweetly he pets his kitty - without looking at the entirety of his life?

frankly, i'm offended by your personal attack.  it was uncalled for and unnecessary.  immoderate, if you will.

good night.

[Anonymous]

i had nothing to say about you, the OP.

But the thread has been succesfully derailed.

...psychotic killer should be judged by how sweetly he pets his kitty...

Poorest. Most Inaccurate. Analogy. Today.

[bonker]

Librarians are nothing to be feared, they always look puny to me, sitting on their asses all day. We can all agree that socialists are dicks though. Lying, hypocritical bastards
that disregard the truth for the sake of their twisted ideology.

[hugolp]

you attacked me.

Yes I did, and maybe I shoul have not, but:

as i said - i responded to the article.  not to you.

No, you didnt, you did not answer to the article (neither attacked me). Climate change is not mentioned in the article.

You know you only attacked the source of the article without attacking the ideas on it, so lets not go over this more.

frankly, i'm offended by your personal attack.  it was uncalled for and unnecessary.  immoderate, if you will.

As long as it makes you think about moral priorities it will be fine. Why has the statist left, the Left, shut up about the wars? Why? People is still dying.

[benjamindees]

at least he's a grownup.

For anyone who missed it, this is basically the reason that Leftists with no skills or experience inevitably turn into Republicans once they are given any power.  They have absolutely zero frame of reference for how responsible people behave and thus latch onto the most ridiculously authoritarian statists as substitute parental figures in order to satisfy their own vain need for self-validation and to feel that they are indeed "grown-ups".

[Anonymous]

at least he's a grownup.

For anyone who missed it, this is basically the reason that Leftists with no skills or experience inevitably turn into Republicans once they are given any power.  They have absolutely zero frame of reference for how responsible people behave and thus latch onto the most ridiculously authoritarian statists as substitute parental figures in order to satisfy their own vain need for self-validation and to feel that they are indeed "grown-ups".

It makes sense. Atom and I's age were certainly criticized and scrutinized by Wagner's social-democratic audience. I was told to quit podcasting and Bitcoins and go work at McDonald's. Apparently my mother is a failure for not encouraging me to do so.

[em3rgentOrdr]

as for their view on the current US president (which was really the point of the article - not libertarianism), i would defy anyone to point out a betterb choice available at the time of the 2008 election.  or now, for that matter - despite the man's obvious shortcomings.

It seems to me that not voting in 2008 would have been the best choice.  Politicians depend on an aura of legitimacy in order to excercise power.  By refusing to check any boxes next to their names, you are denying them the ability to claim that they received the consent of the governed.

[em3rgentOrdr]

at least he's a grownup.

For anyone who missed it, this is basically the reason that Leftists with no skills or experience inevitably turn into Republicans once they are given any power.  They have absolutely zero frame of reference for how responsible people behave and thus latch onto the most ridiculously authoritarian statists as substitute parental figures in order to satisfy their own vain need for self-validation and to feel that they are indeed "grown-ups".

+1.  Wow, that's some deep insight.

[Anonymous]

at least he's a grownup.

For anyone who missed it, this is basically the reason that Leftists with no skills or experience inevitably turn into Republicans once they are given any power.  They have absolutely zero frame of reference for how responsible people behave and thus latch onto the most ridiculously authoritarian statists as substitute parental figures in order to satisfy their own vain need for self-validation and to feel that they are indeed "grown-ups".

+1.  Wow, that's some deep insight.

All we can blame in the end is the parents.

[caveden]

Great text, OP.

Another good text, explaining why so many people, particularly leftists, have a wrong understanding of economics: http://mises.org/daily/4700

[bonker]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

[Anonymous]

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

A society based on fear and death will naturally collapse as it always has over the past centuries.

[hugolp]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

[myrkul]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

Seconded. Bonker, Feel like explaining this 'natural' progression?

[bonker]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

[Anonymous]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

Human behaviour is not subject to pure mathematics. In addition, no such societies have hardly existed including anarchy.

[myrkul]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

Hmm... Yup. It is 4:20

[hugolp]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

I proppose this post as the hand waving of the day.

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

Human behaviour is not subject to pure mathematics. In addition, no such societies have hardly existed including anarchy.

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

[caveden]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

[bonker]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note. 
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

[Anonymous]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

[bonker]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

That's a fair point well made.

However, I maintain that the society you describe is not stable and will collapse into decadent nihilism.

[Anonymous]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

That's a fair point well made.

However, I maintain that the society you describe is not stable and will collapse into decadent nihilism.

A society with no set standard of subjective values. How is this terrible?

[firefox]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note. 
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

umm the vikings are of note.  the great sea faring anarchists
or how about the Polynesian islands settlers... the most advanced sea faring people of ancient times who built Easter island
or maybe some native American societies who survived mostly in peace.

[hugolp]

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

There was a better blog post by Tabarok but I can not find it: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/11/the-art-of-not-being-governed.html

[bonker]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

That's a fair point well made.

However, I maintain that the society you describe is not stable and will collapse into decadent nihilism.

A society with no set standard of subjective values. How is this terrible?

"Standard of subjective values" - this is an oxymoron. If I am to entertain your absurd philosophy, please make your argument coherent.

Regardless, I would propose that a state of decadent nihilism is bad as it ultimately destroys individual liberty.

[Anonymous]

Actually there are good examples of market anarchy in Iceland during the middle ages (as David Friedman explains) and in the south of Asia for 300 hundred years. A anarchic society that lived, prospered and defended themselves from invarsors for 300 years... thats hardly the "inevitably collapse" that bonker is talking about. Most democracies dont last half that time.

There's medieval Ireland too, which stood for almost a thousand years with no concept of state justice.
I'm not aware of this Asian example. How was it called? Do you have a good text about it?

And what did these societies produce? What is their legacy? Nothing of note.  
To progress, a society requires a mix of constraint and liberty. Libertarianism is not stable as a stand
 alone system, it will fall into decadent nihilism.

If Libertarians were being honest, a lot of them would admit its just an excuse to take drugs
and suck cock guilt free.

It's not a matter of production. It's a matter of an individual deriving value from their own life whether it be taking drugs or sexual pleasure. How one derives value in their life should not be subject to the whims of another, plain and simple.

That's a fair point well made.

However, I maintain that the society you describe is not stable and will collapse into decadent nihilism.

A society with no set standard of subjective values. How is this terrible?

"Standard of subjective values" - this is an oxymoron. If I am to entertain your absurd philosophy, please make your argument coherent.

Regardless, I would propose that a state of decadent nihilism is bad as it ultimately destroys individual liberty.

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.

[bonker]

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.

Explain

[Anonymous]

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.

Explain

A standard is only based on the whims and desires of men.

[bonker]

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.

Explain

A standard is only based on the whims and desires of men.

To be a standard requires consensus.
To be subjective requires the rejection of consensus.

Hence the term "standard of subjective values" is an oxymoron.

Your libertarian philosophy suffers the same problem as your writing. It's incoherent, fundamentally flawed and
indefensible to any rigorous inspection.

[Anonymous]

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.

Explain

A standard is only based on the whims and desires of men.

To be a standard requires consensus.
To be subjective requires the rejection of consensus.

Hence the term "standard of subjective values" is an oxymoron.

Your libertarian philosophy suffers the same problem as your writing. It's incoherent, fundamentally flawed and
indefensible to any rigorous inspection.

There is not a single consensus. There is not one society.

Anyways, you have offered no sound rebuttal but only hollow claims.

[bonker]

There is not a single consensus. There is not one society.

Anyways, you have offered no sound rebuttal but only hollow claims.

"There is not a single consensus" - Jesus Christ! That's another oxymoron.. or even worse! Are you high?
Are you sitting there tripping your balls off writing this gibberish?

A consensus is singular by definition, if you have a collection of many differing consensus (s)
then that is a new thing.

[Tawsix]

bonker:  I'd like to know what is wrong with Libertarianism from your point of view, and how it is an oxymoron.  Libertarianism is simply strict adherence to the non-aggression pact, where no man has ownership or rights over another man, and coercion or aggression against him is morally wrong (unless he is coercing or aggressing you.)  I don't see how the logical conclusion of such a system is nihilistic decadence.  Are you saying that men will not collude for their betterment unless they are forced to? 

[The Script]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

All societies collapse, eventually.  The length of a society's duration does not always equate with the quality of that society.  I would rather have a prosperous, moral society based on the non-aggression principle for a hundred years, than two thousand years of a repressive dictator or police state. 

[smellyBobby]

To be a standard requires consensus.
To be subjective requires the rejection of consensus.

Hence the term "standard of subjective values" is an oxymoron.

Your libertarian philosophy suffers the same problem as your writing. It's incoherent, fundamentally flawed and
indefensible to any rigorous inspection.

+1

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

++1

[The Script]

To be a standard requires consensus.
To be subjective requires the rejection of consensus.

Hence the term "standard of subjective values" is an oxymoron.

Your libertarian philosophy suffers the same problem as your writing. It's incoherent, fundamentally flawed and
indefensible to any rigorous inspection.

+1

Libertarian philosophy is fairly well defined and actually quite rigorous.  Perhaps you have not done enough reading on it?

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

++1
[/quote]


Can you explain what you mean by "at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy"?  Those are completely opposite and conflicting ideologies.  Most great societies collapse from decadence.  Societies are transient institutions in the long scheme of things.   

[NghtRppr]

A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

I've heard all these claims about how libertarianism can't happen and would fail. So why fight so hard against it? If I say that I plan on blowing up the Earth with my mind, which obviously isn't going to happen, would people spend countless hours arguing about why it can't happen and would fail? I think all the noise about libertarianism is precisely because it's not such an obviously doomed idea.

[em3rgentOrdr]

A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

I've heard all these claims about how libertarianism can't happen and would fail. So why fight so hard against it? If I say that I plan on blowing up the Earth with my mind, which obviously isn't going to happen, would people spend countless hours arguing about why it can't happen and would fail? I think all the noise about libertarianism is precisely because it's not such an obviously doomed idea.

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

[myrkul]

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

Afraid of losing their meal ticket?

[The Script]

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

Afraid of losing their meal ticket?

Ahahaha! 

[NghtRppr]

A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

I've heard all these claims about how libertarianism can't happen and would fail. So why fight so hard against it? If I say that I plan on blowing up the Earth with my mind, which obviously isn't going to happen, would people spend countless hours arguing about why it can't happen and would fail? I think all the noise about libertarianism is precisely because it's not such an obviously doomed idea.

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

I can read, thanks. I was trying to make a point to bonker.

[freespirit]

I did not read that looong article but I can answer this question concisely:

"the Left" is essentially a totalitarian/fascist (and also expansionist, see below) ideology as it gives you no choice even in its mild form like modern "socialist states" (think Scandinavian and other European countries) as you either pay their high taxes to support "welfare state", contribute to "redistribution of wealth" etc. or go to jail. (or at least get your property confiscated)
They fear libertarianism because for them to sustain their model of society they need to COERCE a LOT of people to give up some of their property (and their lives) to them (remember USSR's "dream" of worldwide communism?) and libertarianism is a totally anti-coercion idea.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Robert Wenzel points out some glaringly obvious flaws in Stephen Metcalf's Slate attack article on libertarianism.  Primarly, Metcalf incorrectly thinks that Nozick is "the philosophical father of libertarianism".

"The real scam here is Metcalf associating Nozick with the beginning and end of libertarianism. At best, Nozick is a footnote in libertarian history that can be used to gingerly irritate the Metcalf's of the world. They are still obsessing over the guy, even though no serious libertarian thinks the guy's views are thorough or complete."

[evoorhees]

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

Answer:

A leftist can't win an economic argument against the right, because central planning fails. But, the leftist CAN win the moral argument against the right in terms of personal liberty, rights, tolerance, etc. So when the damn libertarians come around and pull that rug out from under the leftists also, they get understandably pissed.

So a leftist can't win economic NOR personal liberty arguments with a libertarian. That is why they hate them - and would much rather debate a conservative. Leftists and rightists balance each other out... they are both half wrong on the issues and thus can perpetuate arguments indefinitely against each other.

Libertarians make the leftists look like inconsistent fascists (which they are), and they also make rightists look like inconsistent socialists (which they are). It's no wonder that everyone hates a libertarian. His consistency is confounding and infuriating.

The last defense of the left, and the right?  "Libertarianism can never work," they say, and so they go back to arguing amongst each other to figure out who is more effective at enslaving humanity.

[AyeYo]

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

Answer:

A leftist can't win an economic argument against the right, because central planning fails.

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).


The real reason it's impossible to win an argument against the right is that the right has an illogically tendency to attitube all market success to the "free market" and all market failures to the market "not being free enough."

[freespirit]

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).

Are you kidding? China has "much better standards of living"? Better then where? Somali? (not to mention China is hardly socialist economically)
Sweden and the likes: in short term maybe (and at what cost?) but in long term highly unlikely. Their "standard of living" exists[ed?] just for a few decades which is nothing historically.
Check out this article for example: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

BTW, Greece is ruled by socialists and has a rather socialist economy. Look where it got them.

[AyeYo]

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).

Are you kidding? China has "much better standards of living"? Better then where? Somali? (not to mention China is hardly socialist economically)
Sweden and the likes: in short term maybe (and at what cost?) but in long term highly unlikely. Their "standard of living" exists[ed?] just for a few decades which is nothing historically.
Check out this article for example: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

BTW, Greece is ruled by socialists and has a rather socialist economy. Look where it got them.

China is not socialist, but it heavily controlled by central planners and is financially far better off, as a nation, then any "free market" nation like the US.

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.


No one cares about Greece.  The US is the most free market nation in the world and we're also the furthest in the shitter.  One case is proof of nothing.

[Anonymous]

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).

Are you kidding? China has "much better standards of living"? Better then where? Somali? (not to mention China is hardly socialist economically)
Sweden and the likes: in short term maybe (and at what cost?) but in long term highly unlikely. Their "standard of living" exists[ed?] just for a few decades which is nothing historically.
Check out this article for example: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

BTW, Greece is ruled by socialists and has a rather socialist economy. Look where it got them.

The US is the most free market nation in the world and we're also the furthest in the shitter. 

Un, no. Try Singapore and Hong Kong (not exactly China).

[evoorhees]

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).

LOL  

I guess you're right so long as you ignore these examples...

- North Korea vs South Korea
- East Germany vs West Germany post WWII
- East Germany under USSR vs. East Germany after unification
- Haiti vs. Dominican Republic
- Cuba vs. Costa Rica
- Any Chinese City vs. Hong Kong
- China vs. Taiwan
- China under communism vs. China today
- India pre-market reformations vs. India post-market reformations
- Any Malaysian City vs. Singapore
- Vietnam vs. Singapore
- UK vs. Ireland over the past 20 years
- Chile pre-Pinochet vs post-Pinochet (not that Pinochet wasn't also a violent douchebag)
- Venezuela vs Chile
- Zimbabwe vs South Africa
- Burma vs. Thailand
- Syria vs. United Arab Emirates
- Communist Estonia vs. Post-USSR Estonia
- Soviet Russia vs. Russia post 1989

And surely I needn't mention US history from 1776 up through about 1920, when it was actually a generally capitalist, free-market nation and grew from mere peasantry to the world super power in 150 years.

Every single example above compares a territory that is/was more centrally planned vs a territory that is/was more free. And you're going to tell me there's a "proven track record that centrally planned nations have much better standards of living?"  

I guess this is what government-monopolized public education gets us...

[em3rgentOrdr]

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).

LOL  

I guess you're right so long as you ignore these examples...

- North Korea vs South Korea
- East Germany vs West Germany post WWII
- East Germany under USSR vs. East Germany after unification
- Haiti vs. Dominican Republic
- Cuba vs. Costa Rica
- Any Chinese City vs. Hong Kong
- China vs. Taiwan
- China under communism vs. China today
- India pre-market reformations vs. India post-market reformations
- Any Malaysian City vs. Singapore
- Vietnam vs. Singapore
- UK vs. Ireland over the past 20 years
- Chile pre-Pinochet vs post-Pinochet (not that Pinochet wasn't also a violent douchebag)
- Venezuela vs Chile
- Zimbabwe vs South Africa
- Burma vs. Thailand
- Syria vs. United Arab Emirates
- Communist Estonia vs. Post-USSR Estonia
- Soviet Russia vs. Russia post 1989

And surely I needn't mention US history from 1776 up through about 1920, when it was actually a generally capitalist, free-market nation and grew from mere peasantry to the world super power in 150 years.

Every single example above compares a territory that is/was more centrally planned vs a territory that is/was more free. And you're going to tell me there's a "proven track record that centrally planned nations have much better standards of living?"

+1  

[AyeYo]

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).

LOL  

I guess you're right so long as you ignore these examples...

- North Korea vs South Korea
- East Germany vs West Germany post WWII
- East Germany under USSR vs. East Germany after unification
- Haiti vs. Dominican Republic
- Cuba vs. Costa Rica
- Any Chinese City vs. Hong Kong
- China vs. Taiwan
- China under communism vs. China today
- India pre-market reformations vs. India post-market reformations
- Any Malaysian City vs. Singapore
- Vietnam vs. Singapore
- UK vs. Ireland over the past 20 years
- Chile pre-Pinochet vs post-Pinochet (not that Pinochet wasn't also a violent douchebag)
- Venezuela vs Chile
- Zimbabwe vs South Africa
- Burma vs. Thailand
- Syria vs. United Arab Emirates
- Communist Estonia vs. Post-USSR Estonia
- Soviet Russia vs. Russia post 1989

And surely I needn't mention US history from 1776 up through about 1920, when it was actually a generally capitalist, free-market nation and grew from mere peasantry to the world super power in 150 years.

Every single example above compares a territory that is/was more centrally planned vs a territory that is/was more free. And you're going to tell me there's a "proven track record that centrally planned nations have much better standards of living?"  

I guess this is what government-monopolized public education gets us...

I went to a private college, thanks.  You're probably the product of public (or no) education, hence why think it's valid to compare these countries while ignoring what other forces and historical events got them to where they are now.

[freespirit]

China is not socialist, but it heavily controlled by central planners and is financially far better off, as a nation, then any "free market" nation like the US.

Starting squirming? First you talk about "much better standards of living", now it is "financially far better off, as a nation". So, what is it?
Care to provide any figures? I can give you some: there are hundreds of millions of people living in poverty over there.

As to the problems of the US economy. It is quote the opposite: they arise (at least in part) from the obstacles in free market, not from the lack of them.

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?
Want proof? Move over there and stay for 10-15 years and see for yourself (although I personally think that Swedes are not stupid and will reform, actually they have been slowly doing it during recent years)

No one cares about Greece.

How convenient. You care about socialist-ish countries that you consider successful but ignore those whose socialist policies took them down the drain.

The US is the most free market nation in the world and we're also the furthest in the shitter.  One case is proof of nothing.

The US will be fine although it will have to compete with China and others who move towards free market all the time therefore making their economy stronger

[evoorhees]

I went to a private college, thanks.  You're probably the product of public (or no) education, hence why think it's valid to compare these countries while ignoring what other forces and historical events got them to where they are now.

Ah so you agree public education is inferior! And yet you want the same ineffective organization, with the same non-market incentives to manage the economy - a vastly more complex apparatus.  

[freespirit]

I went to a private college, thanks.  You're probably the product of public (or no) education, hence why think it's valid to compare these countries while ignoring what other forces and historical events got them to where they are now.

:lol: You contradict yourself. According to you, centrally-planned/public education should be better.

[freespirit]

The example of China as successful "centrally-planned" economy it completely off.
Chinese economy started booming after reforms that made it more free-market.

[hugolp]

I went to a private college, thanks.  You're probably the product of public (or no) education, hence why think it's valid to compare these countries while ignoring what other forces and historical events got them to where they are now.

And here we have again one of AyeYo numerous handwavings, with his typical repressed hostility.

[BitterTea]

I went to a private college, thanks.  You're probably the product of public (or no) education, hence why think it's valid to compare these countries while ignoring what other forces and historical events got them to where they are now.

And here we have again one of AyeYo numerous handwavings, with his typical repressed hostility.

Citizens can remain irrational far longer than states can remain solvent?

[AyeYo]

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?

That myth has been busted for awhile now

Enjoy...


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/29/the-truth-about-taxes-and-the

[AyeYo]

I went to a private college, thanks.  You're probably the product of public (or no) education, hence why think it's valid to compare these countries while ignoring what other forces and historical events got them to where they are now.

:lol: You contradict yourself. According to you, centrally-planned/public education should be better.

Please quote where I've said this.

According to libertarians (and I can actually back this up with proof), public education sucks.  Behold, PUBLIC schools listed in the top 50 US colleges:

UniCal - Berkley
UniCal - LA
Uni of Virginia
Uni of Michigan - Ann Arbor
Uni of NC - Chapel Hill
College of William and Mary
Georgia IT
UniCal - San Diego
UniCal - Davis
UniCal - Santa Barbara
UniCal - Irvine
Uni Washington
Uni of Texas - Austin
Uni of Wisconsin - Madison
Penn State
Uni Illinois
Uni Miami

[Anonymous]

BEST - The ones with the most widely-accepted degrees.

I wouldn't trust such criteria with actual education nor the type of people I hire.

[freespirit]

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?

That myth has been busted for awhile now

Enjoy...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html

It's almost as comparing apples to oranges. Taxation differences between US states is incomparable to that of semi-socialist European countries.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/29/the-truth-about-taxes-and-the

From the link above:

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

Squirming again? Or should I say twisting facts?

[freespirit]

I went to a private college, thanks.  You're probably the product of public (or no) education, hence why think it's valid to compare these countries while ignoring what other forces and historical events got them to where they are now.

:lol: You contradict yourself. According to you, centrally-planned/public education should be better.

Please quote where I've said this.

You appear to be a proponent of (quote) "centrally planned nations" . Isn't education part of this?

According to libertarians (and I can actually back this up with proof), public education sucks.  Behold, PUBLIC schools listed in the top 50 US colleges:

UniCal - Berkley
UniCal - LA
Uni of Virginia
Uni of Michigan - Ann Arbor
Uni of NC - Chapel Hill
College of William and Mary
Georgia IT
UniCal - San Diego
UniCal - Davis
UniCal - Santa Barbara
UniCal - Irvine
Uni Washington
Uni of Texas - Austin
Uni of Wisconsin - Madison
Penn State
Uni Illinois
Uni Miami

That's 17 out of 50. The other 33 must be private.
So, that's right, public education sucks

[Anonymous]

Well, those private colleges are centrally-planned. All of them we granted land and such by stolen funds (taxes). It's public all the way down, really. There is no such thing as a private college free from restriction. The curriculum and everything has to be limited by the government.

[Tawsix]

Well, those private colleges are centrally-planned. All of them we granted land and such by stolen funds (taxes). It's public all the way down, really. There is no such thing as a private college free from restriction. The curriculum and everything has to be limited by the government.

Hillsdale.

[myrkul]

Well, those private colleges are centrally-planned. All of them we granted land and such by stolen funds (taxes). It's public all the way down, really. There is no such thing as a private college free from restriction. The curriculum and everything has to be limited by the government.

Hillsdale.

Do they take Bitcoins?

[Tawsix]

Well, those private colleges are centrally-planned. All of them we granted land and such by stolen funds (taxes). It's public all the way down, really. There is no such thing as a private college free from restriction. The curriculum and everything has to be limited by the government.

Hillsdale.

Do they take Bitcoins?

Someone needs to email them ASAP.

[AyeYo]

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?

That myth has been busted for awhile now

Enjoy...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html

It's almost as comparing apples to oranges. Taxation differences between US states is incomparable to that of semi-socialist European countries.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/29/the-truth-about-taxes-and-the

From the link above:

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

Squirming again? Or should I say twisting facts?

Nope, sorry.  Your argument is that higher taxes drive the rich away, see...

Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example)

That's simply not true, mostly because wealthy people aren't stupid and they understand that you have to pay to play.  You want to live in a nice society?  You're going to pay higher taxes for it.  You want people to actually be health and alive enough (not to mention have enough disposable income) to buy your products?  You're going to have to subsidize them.  One hand washes the other.  The rich understand why they pay more in taxes.  It's the igornant poor (like yourself) that are the ones crying for lower taxes on the rich.

[LastBattle]

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?

That myth has been busted for awhile now

Enjoy...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html

It's almost as comparing apples to oranges. Taxation differences between US states is incomparable to that of semi-socialist European countries.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/29/the-truth-about-taxes-and-the

From the link above:

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

Squirming again? Or should I say twisting facts?

Nope, sorry.  Your argument is that higher taxes drive the rich away, see...

Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example)

That's simply not true, mostly because wealthy people aren't stupid and they understand that you have to pay to play.  You want to live in a nice society?  You're going to pay higher taxes for it.  You want people to actually be health and alive enough (not to mention have enough disposable income) to buy your products?  You're going to have to subsidize them.  One hand washes the other.  The rich understand why they pay more in taxes.  It's the igornant poor (like yourself) that are the ones crying for lower taxes on the rich.

If the rich want to be taxed higher, then why don't they donate rather than get "taxed"? Can't they do so on their own without dragging others in with them?

[freespirit]

It's the igornant poor (like yourself) that are the ones crying for lower taxes on the rich.

I am neither, but it looks like you are.

[AyeYo]

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?

That myth has been busted for awhile now

Enjoy...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html

It's almost as comparing apples to oranges. Taxation differences between US states is incomparable to that of semi-socialist European countries.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/29/the-truth-about-taxes-and-the

From the link above:

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

Squirming again? Or should I say twisting facts?

Nope, sorry.  Your argument is that higher taxes drive the rich away, see...

Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example)

That's simply not true, mostly because wealthy people aren't stupid and they understand that you have to pay to play.  You want to live in a nice society?  You're going to pay higher taxes for it.  You want people to actually be health and alive enough (not to mention have enough disposable income) to buy your products?  You're going to have to subsidize them.  One hand washes the other.  The rich understand why they pay more in taxes.  It's the igornant poor (like yourself) that are the ones crying for lower taxes on the rich.

If the rich want to be taxed higher, then why don't they donate rather than get "taxed"? Can't they do so on their own without dragging others in with them?

Because the rich aren't stupid.  Everyone pays their share.  No one in their right mind is going to let people benefit from a system without contributing to it, which is why we force you to pay taxes even though you don't understand the benefits you reap from it.

[LastBattle]

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?

That myth has been busted for awhile now

Enjoy...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html

It's almost as comparing apples to oranges. Taxation differences between US states is incomparable to that of semi-socialist European countries.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/29/the-truth-about-taxes-and-the

From the link above:

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

Squirming again? Or should I say twisting facts?

Nope, sorry.  Your argument is that higher taxes drive the rich away, see...

Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example)

That's simply not true, mostly because wealthy people aren't stupid and they understand that you have to pay to play.  You want to live in a nice society?  You're going to pay higher taxes for it.  You want people to actually be health and alive enough (not to mention have enough disposable income) to buy your products?  You're going to have to subsidize them.  One hand washes the other.  The rich understand why they pay more in taxes.  It's the igornant poor (like yourself) that are the ones crying for lower taxes on the rich.

If the rich want to be taxed higher, then why don't they donate rather than get "taxed"? Can't they do so on their own without dragging others in with them?

Because the rich aren't stupid.  Everyone pays their share.  No one in their right mind is going to let people benefit from a system without contributing to it, which is why we force you to pay taxes even though you don't understand the benefits you reap from it.

You missed my point.  Oh well.

The "rich" are not a single group, just like "the poor" and "the blacks". They are composed of many individuals, each with their own goals and abilities, and many come out of supporting higher taxes in better shape because they get subsidies, or because they can survive the taxes and a competitor can't, allowing them to make up the difference in market share. Look at Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff, the Kochs, and then look at Warren Buffet and George Soros. The aforementioned most definitely do NOT want to be taxed, and they are rich.

Anyway, the vast majority of people who pay taxes end up with a net loss. We get roads, but they are paid for (in my own country, at least) with absurdly high gas taxes, are excessively spread out, constantly have inconvenient maintenance, encourage pollution when alternate forms of transportation would be common if roads didn't get a blank check, and they aren't even of especially high quality. We get water plants, but they too aren't especially cheap and are often run by incompetent idiots who allow e. coli into the water or they attempt to make it cleaner by dumping fluoride into the water. We get electricity, but because of monopoly it is generally pretty expensive, not always reliable in bad weather, and requires that individuals be forced out of their homes at gunpoint, given paltry compensation, and forced to leave as the government destroys their house to build a power line. We get the military, which goes to foreign countries to bomb brown people that we have no good reason to bomb, and benefits absolutely no one except a handful of beneficiaries.

[AyeYo]

You've got the rhetoric down well: list only the negatives of government, list only the positives of private business.

You'll overlook private market greed giving birth to companies like Enron, who systematically decreased electricity supply to sections of California to fake a lack of supply, thus allowing them to jack electricity prices and tack on obscene service charges to fix problems that never existed.  The free market did that.

You'll forget about all the factory farms that cut corners on cleanliness and pest control, action that has led to numerous e.coli and salmonela outbreaks in the last few years.  That's the free market's standard of food safety.

Let's just ignore tobacco companies that knew the negative affects of their products as early as the 1930's, but continued to market them as perfectly safe until government regulation cracked down on them over thirty years later.

So easily you forget AIG that sidestepped and mislead regulators about the finanical instruments they had created, of course, out of greed, and brought world-wide financial system collapse - because they only cared about themselves and making a quick buck.

And oh, all the Chinese companies using lead paint in toys. Forget about them, they don't matter. That's the free market saving a buck at the expense of the populace. That didn't stop until government regulators put an end to it.

[Anonymous]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

[AyeYo]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

[Anonymous]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

Except the government doesn't do that at all when they have more incentive to accept bribes. However, that's alright; government organizations can't be held accountable. They will always be the only ones.

They will self-regulate when their is actual incentive to give consumers safe products. That disappears when the industry is forced to rely on a regulatory monopoly.

Let me guess, companies shouldn't be dealing bribes. It's their fault! It couldn't possibly be because the whole system is flawed and allows for this kind of thing!

[AyeYo]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

Except the government doesn't do that at all when they have more incentive to accept bribes. However, that's alright; government organizations can't be held accountable. They will always be the only ones.

Can't be held accountable?  You must live under a rock.  Do you know what a voting booth looks like?

 

They will self-regulate when their is actual incentive to give consumers safe products. That disappears when the industry is forced to rely on a regulatory monopoly.

Why, in your wacked out mind, is there not currently incentive to give consumers safe products?

[Anonymous]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

Except the government doesn't do that at all when they have more incentive to accept bribes. However, that's alright; government organizations can't be held accountable. They will always be the only ones.

Can't be held accountable?  You must live under a rock.  Do you know what a voting booth looks like?

 

They will self-regulate when their is actual incentive to give consumers safe products. That disappears when the industry is forced to rely on a regulatory monopoly.

Why, in your wacked out mind, is there not currently incentive to give consumers safe products?

The voting booth is bunk. It doesn't work for building good services. There is little incentive and efficiency to achieve set objectives unless you have passionate officials and workers, which never happens. You only get it when there is a possibility of failure that comes with competing services.

There is no incentive now because nobody else but the government can regulate safety. If I want society to have safer products, I have to ask for permission and I will always get a no because the government likes its power.

If I tried working for the government agency, it would be a nightmare. The culture would naturally be terrible and the funding would be inadequate for what needs to get done.

[AyeYo]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

Except the government doesn't do that at all when they have more incentive to accept bribes. However, that's alright; government organizations can't be held accountable. They will always be the only ones.

Can't be held accountable?  You must live under a rock.  Do you know what a voting booth looks like?

 

They will self-regulate when their is actual incentive to give consumers safe products. That disappears when the industry is forced to rely on a regulatory monopoly.

Why, in your wacked out mind, is there not currently incentive to give consumers safe products?

The voting booth is bunk. It doesn't work for building good services. There is little incentive and efficiency to achieve set objectives unless you have passionate officials and workers, which never happens. You only get it when there is a possibility of failure that comes with competing services.

That's a fault of the people electing the crappy officials, and those people are a fact of life in ANY system.  Stop bitching and running your mouth online where it'll do nothing and go run for office yourself.

There is no incentive now because nobody else but the government can regulate safety. If I want society to have safer products, I have to ask for permission and I will always get a no because the government likes its power.

That does not explain why businesses have no incentive to produce safer products.  All you've done is repeat the line: "government bad, free market good, rabble rabble rabble."

Again, explain to me why businesses currently have no incentive to produce safer products.

If I tried working for the government agency, it would be a nightmare. The culture would naturally be terrible and the funding would be inadequate for what needs to get done.

Completely irrelevant to what's being discussed and in dire need of a citation or ten.  Cliffs: government bad, free market good, rabble rabble rabble.

[Anonymous]

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED IT.

THEIR PHILOSOPHY: GOVERNMENT GOOD, PROFIT BAD, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

So you admit democracy fails? So why not let people vote with their dollar?

[AyeYo]

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED IT.

THEIR PHILOSOPHY: GOVERNMENT GOOD, PROFIT BAD, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

So you admit democracy fails? So why not let people vote with their dollar?

HOW has the government eliminated it?  What, specifically, has been eliminated that has taken away the incentive.  Try to break out of your norm and post more than a one-liner with zero backup proof.


Democracy eventually fails, as do all systems, because the rich and powerful will always find a way to get themselves back in power.

The problem with people voting with their dollars is that 50% of the world's population controls less than 1% of the world's wealth.  So, voting with dollars means you get what you pay for, and the rich are the ones able to pay for whatever they want, thus it puts them in directly in control (no need to take the time and effort to proxy through a government) right off the bat.

It's a simple concept really, you'll understand it when you're older.

[Anonymous]

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED IT.

THEIR PHILOSOPHY: GOVERNMENT GOOD, PROFIT BAD, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

So you admit democracy fails? So why not let people vote with their dollar?

HOW has the government eliminated it?  What, specifically, has been eliminated that has taken away the incentive.  Try to break out of your norm and post more than a one-liner with zero backup proof.


Democracy eventually fails, as do all systems, because the rich and powerful will always find a way to get themselves back in power.

The problem with people voting with their dollars is that 50% of the world's population controls less than 1% of the world's wealth.  So, voting with dollars means you get what you pay for, and the rich are the ones able to pay for whatever they want, thus it puts them in directly in control (no need to take the time and effort to proxy through a government) right off the bat.

The government doesn't allow any other businesses to appear. Passionate people who can build great systems are kept out because of political barriers and so forth. Normally they would only require funding by investors.

Businesses fail before they can take the people with it.

So, what? Voting with dollars means if your system doesn't work and fails to complete its objective, it gets no money. It's replaced by one that works and meets peoples desires. People get the value they put into it. It lets the people who pay for the services to have control, which is completely justified.

[AyeYo]

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED IT.

THEIR PHILOSOPHY: GOVERNMENT GOOD, PROFIT BAD, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

So you admit democracy fails? So why not let people vote with their dollar?

HOW has the government eliminated it?  What, specifically, has been eliminated that has taken away the incentive.  Try to break out of your norm and post more than a one-liner with zero backup proof.


Democracy eventually fails, as do all systems, because the rich and powerful will always find a way to get themselves back in power.

The problem with people voting with their dollars is that 50% of the world's population controls less than 1% of the world's wealth.  So, voting with dollars means you get what you pay for, and the rich are the ones able to pay for whatever they want, thus it puts them in directly in control (no need to take the time and effort to proxy through a government) right off the bat.

The government doesn't allow any other businesses to appear.

What does this mean?  There are plenty of businesses around.  Business is quite cut-throat in many industries due to the number of competitors, especially in this down economy.  What do you mean by this statement?

Passionate people who can build great systems are kept out because of political barriers and so forth. Normally they would only require funding by investors and they can.

Like who?  Do you have an example?  What industry are you referring to?  What barriers, specifically, are you referring to?  It's time for you to put some substance behind your vague and hollow statements.

Businesses fail before they can take the people with it.

What does this mean?  Give me a real world example.  Take what people with it?

So, what? Voting with dollars means if your system doesn't work and fails to complete its objective, it gets no money. It's replaced by one that works and meets peoples desires. People get the value they put into it. It's let the people who pay for the services to have control, which is completely justified.

If you're looking to go back to the feudal days, then you're on the right track.  The rest of us are looking for something a little less... tyrannical... and a little more.... free.

[Anonymous]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries. You have to be voted into a system by a shallow interview process in order to improve them. Private industry allows everyone to give it a shot.

When businesses fail, they only fail their supporters. Not everybody who was forced to pay into it.

Poor people want safe products to and they can pay for him. They will not be left out.

[AyeYo]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries.

Ah, but see, Chinese toy manufacturers and every other example I listed aren't government service monopolies, so you've still not answered my question: why do they not have incentive to create safer products?

[Anonymous]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries.

Ah, but see, Chinese toy manufacturers and every other example I listed aren't government service monopolies, so you've still not answered my question: why do they not have incentive to create safer products?

They are under the jurisdiction of Chinese safety regulations. The government sucks at enforcing them. If somebody tries to make a system that works, they are denied.

[AyeYo]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries.

Ah, but see, Chinese toy manufacturers and every other example I listed aren't government service monopolies, so you've still not answered my question: why do they not have incentive to create safer products?

They are under the jurisdiction of Chinese safety regulations. The government sucks at enforcing them. If somebody tries to make a system that works, they are denied.

You still have no answered the question: why do they not have incentive to make SAFER products?

Government regulations prevent them from making LESS SAFE products.  Why do they not have incentive to make MORE SAFE products?

[Anonymous]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries.

Ah, but see, Chinese toy manufacturers and every other example I listed aren't government service monopolies, so you've still not answered my question: why do they not have incentive to create safer products?

They are under the jurisdiction of Chinese safety regulations. The government sucks at enforcing them. If somebody tries to make a system that works, they are denied.

You still have no answered the question: why do they not have incentive to make SAFER products?

Government regulations prevent them from making LESS SAFE products.  Why do they not have incentive to make MORE SAFE products?

They have no reason to. The public is fooled into thinking everything is regulated and fine. The company can get away with shoveling out crap under the faux-veil of government protection.

[LastBattle]

You've got the rhetoric down well: list only the negatives of government, list only the positives of private business.

Hold on. Let me demonstrate. Notable points will be in ALL CAPS.

You'll overlook private market greed giving birth to companies like Enron, who systematically decreased electricity supply to sections of California to fake a lack of supply, thus allowing them to jack electricity prices and tack on obscene service charges to fix problems that never existed.  The free market did that.

Paid for by the CALIFORNIAN GOVERNMENT, Enron was NOT CAUGHT BY GOVERNMENT REGULATORS WHO REGULARLY TAKE MONEY WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF STOPPING THIS, but by a PRIVATE SECTOR TRADER WHO SHORT SOLD THEM AND RESULTED IN THEIR EXPOSURE. If you seriously think California has a free energy industry because it pays specific companies to do its dirty work, then you are high.

You'll forget about all the factory farms that cut corners on cleanliness and pest control, action that has led to numerous e.coli and salmonela outbreaks in the last few years.  That's the free market's standard of food safety.

How is the FDA working out for you? Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

Let's just ignore tobacco companies that knew the negative affects of their products as early as the 1930's, but continued to market them as perfectly safe until government regulation cracked down on them over thirty years later.

We already know tobacco is dangerous. If people want to smoke, then that is no one else's damn business. The government is not a mother.

So easily you forget AIG that sidestepped and mislead regulators about the finanical instruments they had created, of course, out of greed, and brought world-wide financial system collapse - because they only cared about themselves and making a quick buck.

You are right: AIG is crooked! But wait! AIG was receiving SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN THE FORM OF INCENTIVES AS WELL AS EASY CREDIT FROM THE AMERICAN CENTRAL BANK, THE FEDERAL RESERVE. Then, after failing (as they rightly should have and would have in a free market), they RECEIVED A TAXPAYER PROVIDED BAILOUT THAT REMOVED MORAL HAZARD.

And oh, all the Chinese companies using lead paint in toys. Forget about them, they don't matter. That's the free market saving a buck at the expense of the populace. That didn't stop until government regulators put an end to it.

We all know Communist China has a free market, don't we? Oh wait, they have a corporatist system which protects Chinese companies from prosecution. Whoops.

It looks to me like you are exposing the flaws of corporatism and the failure of government regulation, not any particular problems with the free market.

[evoorhees]

You've got the rhetoric down well: list only the negatives of government, list only the positives of private business.

You'll overlook private market greed giving birth to companies like Enron, who systematically decreased electricity supply to sections of California to fake a lack of supply, thus allowing them to jack electricity prices and tack on obscene service charges to fix problems that never existed.  The free market did that.

You'll forget about all the factory farms that cut corners on cleanliness and pest control, action that has led to numerous e.coli and salmonela outbreaks in the last few years.  That's the free market's standard of food safety.

Let's just ignore tobacco companies that knew the negative affects of their products as early as the 1930's, but continued to market them as perfectly safe until government regulation cracked down on them over thirty years later.

So easily you forget AIG that sidestepped and mislead regulators about the finanical instruments they had created, of course, out of greed, and brought world-wide financial system collapse - because they only cared about themselves and making a quick buck.

And oh, all the Chinese companies using lead paint in toys. Forget about them, they don't matter. That's the free market saving a buck at the expense of the populace. That didn't stop until government regulators put an end to it.

You criticize market advocates for "listing only the negatives of government, and listing only the positives of private business." And then the rest of your post is you committing the same offense in reverse.

Let's examine your examples:

1) Enron - First of all, the energy industry is one of the most regulated of all. Please don't claim it's a "free market." It's not even close. Second, the moment it was discovered that Enron was cooking the books and scamming people, it's share price collapsed to zero and it went out of business. Now it's gone, and it's leaders are behind bars for fraud (punishing fraud is one legitimate role of government). This is an example of GOOD interaction between gov and business. The market collapsed the company when the fraud was discovered. The gov put away the criminals. Well done all.

2)  Factory farms and clean food - You watch too much television news. Food in the United States is extremely safe, let's not pretend that we live in a world of poison food lol. I'm 27, I eat 3 meals a day, and have gotten food poisoning twice in my life (both times from fast food chains that are HEAVILY regulated by the food safety boards). US food is very safe. You'll credit the regulations, I'll credit the fact that poisoning your customers is bad for business and thus food providers have severe interest in maintain standards themselves. It's fine if we disagree here, but please don't pretend that food companies would cut every possible corner to save money. ONE mere mention of poison chicken almost put Tyson out of business.

3) If a tobacco company lies about what's in its product, or about known effects of its product, that is fraud and should be handled by courts. You don't need a government "crackdown"... you just need to enforce anti-fraud laws.

4) In a free market, AIG would've been out of business if they fucked up so badly. In our corporatist/socialist centrally-planned economy, however, they were bailed out and they get to remain in operation. NOT FREE MARKET

5) Regarding lead paint in Chinese toys... DONT BUY STUFF FROM CHINA IF YOU'RE SCARED OF IT. If people would just take responsibility for themselves instead of trusting mommy-government to protect them, they'd make market decisions which would quickly make it unprofitable for the Chinese companies to continue using lead. Just like with poison food - it's bad for business to hurt your customers, and even the possibility of harm can mean bankruptcy.

Only a few regulations are needed for a healthy world. Don't steal. Don't damage property (this includes pollution externalities, etc). Don't defraud.

[LastBattle]

You've got the rhetoric down well: list only the negatives of government, list only the positives of private business.

You'll overlook private market greed giving birth to companies like Enron, who systematically decreased electricity supply to sections of California to fake a lack of supply, thus allowing them to jack electricity prices and tack on obscene service charges to fix problems that never existed.  The free market did that.

You'll forget about all the factory farms that cut corners on cleanliness and pest control, action that has led to numerous e.coli and salmonela outbreaks in the last few years.  That's the free market's standard of food safety.

Let's just ignore tobacco companies that knew the negative affects of their products as early as the 1930's, but continued to market them as perfectly safe until government regulation cracked down on them over thirty years later.

So easily you forget AIG that sidestepped and mislead regulators about the finanical instruments they had created, of course, out of greed, and brought world-wide financial system collapse - because they only cared about themselves and making a quick buck.

And oh, all the Chinese companies using lead paint in toys. Forget about them, they don't matter. That's the free market saving a buck at the expense of the populace. That didn't stop until government regulators put an end to it.

You criticize market advocates for "listing only the negatives of government, and listing only the positives of private business." And then the rest of your post is you committing the same offense in reverse.

Let's examine your examples:

1) Enron - First of all, the energy industry is one of the most regulated of all. Please don't claim it's a "free market." It's not even close. Second, the moment it was discovered that Enron was cooking the books and scamming people, it's share price collapsed to zero and it went out of business. Now it's gone, and it's leaders are behind bars for fraud (punishing fraud is one legitimate role of government). This is an example of GOOD interaction between gov and business. The market collapsed the company when the fraud was discovered. The gov put away the criminals. Well done all.

2)  Factory farms and clean food - You watch too much television news. Food in the United States is extremely safe, let's not pretend that we live in a world of poison food lol. I'm 27, I eat 3 meals a day, and have gotten food poisoning twice in my life (both times from fast food chains that are HEAVILY regulated by the food safety boards). US food is very safe. You'll credit the regulations, I'll credit the fact that poisoning your customers is bad for business and thus food providers have severe interest in maintain standards themselves. It's fine if we disagree here, but please don't pretend that food companies would cut every possible corner to save money. ONE mere mention of poison chicken almost put Tyson out of business.

3) If a tobacco company lies about what's in its product, or about known effects of its product, that is fraud and should be handled by courts. You don't need a government "crackdown"... you just need to enforce anti-fraud laws.

4) In a free market, AIG would've been out of business if they fucked up so badly. In our corporatist/socialist centrally-planned economy, however, they were bailed out and they get to remain in operation. NOT FREE MARKET

5) Regarding lead paint in Chinese toys... DONT BUY STUFF FROM CHINA IF YOU'RE SCARED OF IT. If people would just take responsibility for themselves instead of trusting mommy-government to protect them, they'd make market decisions which would quickly make it unprofitable for the Chinese companies to continue using lead. Just like with poison food - it's bad for business to hurt your customers, and even the possibility of harm can mean bankruptcy.

Only a few regulations are needed for a healthy world. Don't steal. Don't damage property (this includes pollution externalities, etc). Don't defraud.

I think you put it even better then I did. Good job. He's probably going to handwave it away, though.

[AyeYo]

You've got the rhetoric down well: list only the negatives of government, list only the positives of private business.

Hold on. Let me demonstrate. Notable points will be in ALL CAPS.

You'll overlook private market greed giving birth to companies like Enron, who systematically decreased electricity supply to sections of California to fake a lack of supply, thus allowing them to jack electricity prices and tack on obscene service charges to fix problems that never existed.  The free market did that.

Paid for by the CALIFORNIAN GOVERNMENT, Enron was NOT CAUGHT BY GOVERNMENT REGULATORS WHO REGULARLY TAKE MONEY WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF STOPPING THIS, but by a PRIVATE SECTOR TRADER WHO SHORT SOLD THEM AND RESULTED IN THEIR EXPOSURE. If you seriously think California has a free energy industry because it pays specific companies to do its dirty work, then you are high.

You'll forget about all the factory farms that cut corners on cleanliness and pest control, action that has led to numerous e.coli and salmonela outbreaks in the last few years.  That's the free market's standard of food safety.

How is the FDA working out for you? Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

Let's just ignore tobacco companies that knew the negative affects of their products as early as the 1930's, but continued to market them as perfectly safe until government regulation cracked down on them over thirty years later.

We already know tobacco is dangerous. If people want to smoke, then that is no one else's damn business. The government is not a mother.

So easily you forget AIG that sidestepped and mislead regulators about the finanical instruments they had created, of course, out of greed, and brought world-wide financial system collapse - because they only cared about themselves and making a quick buck.

You are right: AIG is crooked! But wait! AIG was receiving SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN THE FORM OF INCENTIVES AS WELL AS EASY CREDIT FROM THE AMERICAN CENTRAL BANK, THE FEDERAL RESERVE. Then, after failing (as they rightly should have and would have in a free market), they RECEIVED A TAXPAYER PROVIDED BAILOUT THAT REMOVED MORAL HAZARD.

And oh, all the Chinese companies using lead paint in toys. Forget about them, they don't matter. That's the free market saving a buck at the expense of the populace. That didn't stop until government regulators put an end to it.

We all know Communist China has a free market, don't we? Oh wait, they have a corporatist system which protects Chinese companies from prosecution. Whoops.

It looks to me like you are exposing the flaws of corporatism and the failure of government regulation, not any particular problems with the free market.

Thank you for proving my point even further.  The government is ALWAYS at fault.  Private business is ALWAYS blameless.  It's too predictable.  It's like seven degrees to Kevin Bacon, but instead seven degrees to government.  If you can relate anything to government in seven steps or less, it MUST be the government's fault. hahah


Once again...

- Overlooking the fact PRIVATE BUSINEES GREED caused Enron, NOTHING government related.  Who they contracted for is irrelevant.

- AIG, PRIVATE BUSINESS GREED at it's finest... but wait, we can play seven steps to government and therefore offload ALL blame on the evil government!

- Chinese companies cutting corners to increase profits, private market greed again... but wait... seven steps to government and, just like magic, it's all the government's fault!!!

[LastBattle]

You've got the rhetoric down well: list only the negatives of government, list only the positives of private business.

Hold on. Let me demonstrate. Notable points will be in ALL CAPS.

You'll overlook private market greed giving birth to companies like Enron, who systematically decreased electricity supply to sections of California to fake a lack of supply, thus allowing them to jack electricity prices and tack on obscene service charges to fix problems that never existed.  The free market did that.

Paid for by the CALIFORNIAN GOVERNMENT, Enron was NOT CAUGHT BY GOVERNMENT REGULATORS WHO REGULARLY TAKE MONEY WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF STOPPING THIS, but by a PRIVATE SECTOR TRADER WHO SHORT SOLD THEM AND RESULTED IN THEIR EXPOSURE. If you seriously think California has a free energy industry because it pays specific companies to do its dirty work, then you are high.

You'll forget about all the factory farms that cut corners on cleanliness and pest control, action that has led to numerous e.coli and salmonela outbreaks in the last few years.  That's the free market's standard of food safety.

How is the FDA working out for you? Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

Let's just ignore tobacco companies that knew the negative affects of their products as early as the 1930's, but continued to market them as perfectly safe until government regulation cracked down on them over thirty years later.

We already know tobacco is dangerous. If people want to smoke, then that is no one else's damn business. The government is not a mother.

So easily you forget AIG that sidestepped and mislead regulators about the finanical instruments they had created, of course, out of greed, and brought world-wide financial system collapse - because they only cared about themselves and making a quick buck.

You are right: AIG is crooked! But wait! AIG was receiving SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN THE FORM OF INCENTIVES AS WELL AS EASY CREDIT FROM THE AMERICAN CENTRAL BANK, THE FEDERAL RESERVE. Then, after failing (as they rightly should have and would have in a free market), they RECEIVED A TAXPAYER PROVIDED BAILOUT THAT REMOVED MORAL HAZARD.

And oh, all the Chinese companies using lead paint in toys. Forget about them, they don't matter. That's the free market saving a buck at the expense of the populace. That didn't stop until government regulators put an end to it.

We all know Communist China has a free market, don't we? Oh wait, they have a corporatist system which protects Chinese companies from prosecution. Whoops.

It looks to me like you are exposing the flaws of corporatism and the failure of government regulation, not any particular problems with the free market.

Thank you for proving my point even further.  The government is ALWAYS at fault.  Private business is ALWAYS blameless.

He's probably going to handwave it away, though.

He's probably going to handwave it away, though.

He's probably going to handwave it away, though.

That's one for one. I guess I am clairvoyant.