Why the Left Fears Libertarianism

[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.