Libertarian Capitalism vs Social Democracy - A metaphor

[The Script]

Libertarian Capitalists believes that if you do not govern, if you leave to chaos - then the emergent outcome will be better than meddling; out will come greatest productivity from less government intervention.

And in a sense they are right. Competition leads to the aggressive seeking out of all niches. In a narrow sense, there is greater economic activity. And this is what it looks like:



Social Democrats advocate a mixed economy where the state is prepared to invest time and effort into planning for the future. And this is what happens when you plan and maintain:



Remember, there may be more Biomass raised by leaving entirely to nature (Biomass analogous to wealth measured by GDP) than the forced unnatural occurrence of a field of potatoes. But the latter will feed more people.


http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-is-what-libertarian-capitalism.html

This is a joke, right?  You realize people and grass aren't the same things and pretty pictures don't mean your logic is correct.  Besides, I like Immanuel Go's picture better.

[FirstAscent]

This is a joke, right?  You realize people and grass aren't the same things and pretty pictures don't mean your logic is correct.  Besides, I like Immanuel Go's picture better.

You may like Immanuel Go's picture better, but you haven't indicated that you're interested in methods to make sure that such environments will be around much longer or in abundance given your political ideological beliefs.

[The Script]

This is a joke, right?  You realize people and grass aren't the same things and pretty pictures don't mean your logic is correct.  Besides, I like Immanuel Go's picture better.

You may like Immanuel Go's picture better, but you haven't indicated that you're interested in methods to make sure that such environments will be around much longer or in abundance given your political ideological beliefs.

My point is simply: Bad logic and pretty pictures do not an argument make.  Do you disagree?

I am still developing my political beliefs and am trying to keep an open mind which is why I actually listen to what you say and follow up on some of the resources you link, instead of blindly dismissing your viewpoints.  I simply am unconvinced that government is the only way to preserve such natural beauty. 

[FirstAscent]

I am still developing my political beliefs and am trying to keep an open mind which is why I actually listen to what you say and follow up on some of the resources you link, instead of blindly dismissing your viewpoints.  I simply am unconvinced that government is the only way to preserve such natural beauty.  

Government is definitely not doing a good enough job. But to relax their regulations even further is to go in the direction the libertarians want.

In a nutshell, we need stricter environmental regulations which severely restrict exploitation of the environment, which in turn spurs capitalistic markets to competitively discover the technology faster that will allow prosperity for people.

EDIT: And relaxed or no regulations will only accelerate the exploitation of the environment, as individuals race to pick the lowest hanging fruit before their competitors do.

[niko]

Libertarians don't care about what is the most productive society as they don't believe in society.

Only in America...

[niko]

Use your imagination. If people want something, they will get it. It's not like these regulatory innovations were invented by government. It all requires trust in the end and I rather trust organizations that can easily be held accountable by failure rather than by an unremorseful government that only changes every term or so.

Don't use your imagination, face the reality. These regulatory innovations is how the representative government was invented. If all these private entities that you cherish so much were not corrupting it, the government would have been doing an even better job.

[stevendobbs]

This plot of land was stripped of its natural growth and planted with artificial seed. This is far from a natural environment. It's more of an example of government-enabled corporatism if anything. Certain plants get subsidies while what was natural and thriving is killed. The small and weak growth that pops up is quickly admonished to the artificially stronger plants.

This is what genuine unfettered growth looks like:



Nice try.

a good and reasonable point. Nature does indeed produce great beauty - however, what would you do about barren land where people actually live - because land that is valuable, not just pretty, is land which is where we live and produce from.

A farm left to nature will see a collapse in production. The indians of america prior to invasion had an interesting approach of working with nature - with a guiding hand. It struck the settlers how amazing it was that the forests were full of fruit trees. That doesn't happen by accident.

So it may be possible to kill production with over regulation, but its certainly possible to degrade production by letting go of the tiller entirely.

[stevendobbs]

Libertarian Capitalists believes that if you do not govern, if you leave to chaos - then the emergent outcome will be better than meddling; out will come greatest productivity from less government intervention.

And in a sense they are right. Competition leads to the aggressive seeking out of all niches. In a narrow sense, there is greater economic activity. And this is what it looks like:



Social Democrats advocate a mixed economy where the state is prepared to invest time and effort into planning for the future. And this is what happens when you plan and maintain:



Remember, there may be more Biomass raised by leaving entirely to nature (Biomass analogous to wealth measured by GDP) than the forced unnatural occurrence of a field of potatoes. But the latter will feed more people.


http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-is-what-libertarian-capitalism.html

This is a joke, right?  You realize people and grass aren't the same things and pretty pictures don't mean your logic is correct.  Besides, I like Immanuel Go's picture better.

I've presented a metaphor which supports my views. Metaphor is a good way of making an argument when the processes are in someway similar. And I think I can argue well enough that the metaphor can be pushed far and therefore has power.

In an economy, there are many agents buying and selling, surviving either by merit or by established power. In nature it is the same, regarding survival adaptation and other matters such as diversity. Ecosystem metaphors are seen by many as a good way of looking at the economy.

The reason why libertarians and capitalists get upset about ecosystem metaphors is because it touches a very raw nerve? With a huge part of the world economy driven by ecosystem services, use of the nature metaphors reminds them that a large part of the economy does not exist to their ideology, and yet it plainly does and justifies regulation on a global scale.

And thats before you touch them with the ticklestick of global warming.

[cryptobard]

Use your imagination. If people want something, they will get it. It's not like these regulatory innovations were invented by government. It all requires trust in the end and I rather trust organizations that can easily be held accountable by failure rather than by an unremorseful government that only changes every term or so.

Don't use your imagination, face the reality. These regulatory innovations is how the representative government was invented. If all these private entities that you cherish so much were not corrupting it, the government would have been doing an even better job.

Did you really just claim that government would be pristine if it were not for external, PRIVATE forces corrupting it?

...lololololololol...

Please, expand on this.

[Hawker]

Use your imagination. If people want something, they will get it. It's not like these regulatory innovations were invented by government. It all requires trust in the end and I rather trust organizations that can easily be held accountable by failure rather than by an unremorseful government that only changes every term or so.

Don't use your imagination, face the reality. These regulatory innovations is how the representative government was invented. If all these private entities that you cherish so much were not corrupting it, the government would have been doing an even better job.

Did you really just claim that government would be pristine if it were not for external, PRIVATE forces corrupting it?

...lololololololol...

Please, expand on this.

I think that by "corrupting it" he doesn't mean "corrupting government" but "corrupting the environment" - I'm open to correction though.

Niko did correct me so please ignore.

[niko]

Use your imagination. If people want something, they will get it. It's not like these regulatory innovations were invented by government. It all requires trust in the end and I rather trust organizations that can easily be held accountable by failure rather than by an unremorseful government that only changes every term or so.

Don't use your imagination, face the reality. These regulatory innovations is how the representative government was invented. If all these private entities that you cherish so much were not corrupting it, the government would have been doing an even better job.

Did you really just claim that government would be pristine if it were not for external, PRIVATE forces corrupting it?

...lololololololol...

Please, expand on this.

I think that by "corrupting it" he doesn't mean "corrupting government" but "corrupting the environment" - I'm open to correction though.

No, I meant government.  Of course, in a country such as US, where most of constituents have the frame of mind that is reflected in comments here, my statement does not apply. But there is more to world than the US. Yes, there are places in this world where government pretty much does a good job protecting the interest of the public - often defending it from narrow-minded, self-centered private interest. Foreign interest, too - with the mentality prevalent in this forum. It also provides valuable services to the public, provides employment, and distributes wealth more equally among constituents.
My point is, Americans, relatively speaking, almost have no government: it's on the verge of default, weak and easily manipulated by the private interest. They don't even have their own army when they invade other countries - they have to rely on private contractors. People are out on their own, and it shows. And yet, Americans cry that the government is "too big!" From your perspective, France or China or Canada are a living hell.

[Hawker]

Niko makes a fair point.  A lot of Americans boast that their government is a waste of space and deduct from that all governments are a waste of space.  And I can see the American's logic; in the US you have beach lifeguards paid $200,000 per year with generous pensions while bridges and airports need maintenance.  In the UK, the lifeguards would (a) never get that pay and (b) get laid off if the local taxpayers want to use that money for better purposes.  That's an extreme example but naturally a UK resident will end up with a more positive attitude to government.

[FirstAscent]

I've presented a metaphor which supports my views. Metaphor is a good way of making an argument when the processes are in someway similar. And I think I can argue well enough that the metaphor can be pushed far and therefore has power.

In an economy, there are many agents buying and selling, surviving either by merit or by established power. In nature it is the same, regarding survival adaptation and other matters such as diversity. Ecosystem metaphors are seen by many as a good way of looking at the economy.

The reason why libertarians and capitalists get upset about ecosystem metaphors is because it touches a very raw nerve? With a huge part of the world economy driven by ecosystem services, use of the nature metaphors reminds them that a large part of the economy does not exist to their ideology, and yet it plainly does and justifies regulation on a global scale.

And thats before you touch them with the ticklestick of global warming.

I think you've made some good points, and your last one was good. However, your pictures fail to capture some essential themes of biodiversity, and its role. Your pictures show land which has been landscaped and meddled with. They're better than concrete sidewalks, but the real preservation of biodiversity is in leaving ecosystems in their natural state, and as large as possible, to reduce edge effects.

I think you'd really enjoy these two books:

The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson

Rewilding North America: A Vision For Conservation In The 21St Century by Dave Foreman

[cryptobard]

No, I meant government.  Of course, in a country such as US, where most of constituents have the frame of mind that is reflected in comments here, my statement does not apply. But there is more to world than the US. Yes, there are places in this world where government pretty much does a good job protecting the interest of the public - often defending it from narrow-minded, self-centered private interest. Foreign interest, too - with the mentality prevalent in this forum. It also provides valuable services to the public, provides employment, and distributes wealth more equally among constituents.

I'm still not sure about your previous statement. You said that private interests corrupt government, as though the government which facilitates the private interests was not already corrupt. I think that is patently false, but maybe I didn't get what you meant.

"Foreign interested too - with the mentality prevalent in this forum." Can you explain this more? What is the mentality and do they defend with that mentality or defend against that mentality? I'm not clear.

As to the last sentence - yes, some governments do those things. And I would not tell them not to, if that's what their people want.

My point is, Americans, relatively speaking, almost have no government: it's on the verge of default, weak and easily manipulated by the private interest. They don't even have their own army when they invade other countries - they have to rely on private contractors. People are out on their own, and it shows. And yet, Americans cry that the government is "too big!" From your perspective, France or China or Canada are a living hell.

One reason that I, at least, say that the American government is too big is because it can, despite its peoples' resounding disapproval, engage in multiple illegitimate wars. This means that it kills people in foreign countries, including - or especially - those that have nothing to do with anti-US aggression. This means that it effectively taxes generations to come - generations that may very well want nothing to do with these or any other wars their government concocts - for its unfounded bloodshed. A government that makes such decisions seems pretty big to me.

So, while citizens of other countries may be pleased with their governments and look at Americans like they're insane because their government is already "small," all I have to say is - well, yours doesn't really have the same power to fuck up the world, does it? Yours at least pretends to listen to you, doesn't it? It's practically a different world.

Which I think was along the lines of what you were explaining. Very different perspectives.

But no, Canada, France, etc. are not living hells to me. I have lived in countries with HUGE governments for periods of time. While I felt constricted in many ways, I was comfortable because these governments largely did what their people wanted (outside, perhaps, of immigration ) and were not bloodthirsty.

P.S. America does not have to rely on private contractors to invade other countries, they're just nice to have around because they are not as accountable as its military. If you want to commit war crimes it's best that they don't taint the country's reputation. That's a substantial difference 

[AyeYo]

vs.

I asked for a definition, not a picture of bread.  Can you define it?

[niko]

I'm still not sure about your previous statement. You said that private interests corrupt government, as though the government which facilitates the private interests was not already corrupt. I think that is patently false, but maybe I didn't get what you meant.

I really can't see it as patently false. I think we all agree that there are examples of reasonably good and also of terrible governments. I can think of examples of places with no old-school governments at all that functioned for some time. Some were quite intriguing - say, worker's collectives in Catalonia during the revolution in the 1930s. On the other hand, there is the example of Somalia over the past 20 years. Before I continue, let me state this: on the Political Compass test, I seem to belong to the lower left corner. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32376.msg511390#msg511390 I tried in ~2002, and again this year - my position is rock solid. Ergo, I am not a proponent of "big" government, and I am definitely against a totalitarian government. Over years, and after experiencing in depth the liberal socialism of the former Yugoslavia, a civil war and a foreign intervention, United States, Canada, and various systems in Southeast Asia - I've come to conclusion that government was the only answer I could come up with that addresses some very practical problems of life. It's not ideal, but I couldn't come up with anything better. For example, I can't figure out how I would be driving a car or a bicycle around the city if there were no government to draw and enforce the rules of traffic. How would it work? Who would yield whom at an intersection? What would we do with dangerous drivers? Who's to say? These are not trivial questions. Of course, one can say how people would come up with rules "by themselves", but there would need to be some kind of framework for discussion, decision making, and even enforcement. And that, to me, is the government.

Much of the argument here boils down to semantics. I want to understand if you object to the big government, or simply to the bad government...?

[FirstAscent]

For example, I can't figure out how I would be driving a car or a bicycle around the city if there were no government to draw and enforce the rules of traffic. How would it work? Who would yield whom at an intersection? What would we do with dangerous drivers? Who's to say? These are not trivial questions. Of course, one can say how people would come up with rules "by themselves", but there would need to be some kind of framework for discussion, decision making, and even enforcement. And that, to me, is the government.

Bitcoin2cash has all the answers for you on roads. It's very simple. Someone will buy land and build the road for you and charge you for it and provide enforcement and infrastructure. Not satisfied with their service? Bitcoin2cash suggests that you build your own next to it and compete. A third enterprising party can build a tunnel underneath both. And another party can build a bridge over all of them. These are his words almost verbatim, I kid you not. As a driver, you will have choices galore. Just be sure to keep in mind that each road can have different laws as per the owners, and you'll want to keep track of all of the differing laws, and changes of ownership, which inevitably will lead to different fee structures, regulations, etc.

Why have one road going straight from A to B when you can have four? Never mind the waste and damage to the environment.

[cryptobard]

Much of the argument here boils down to semantics. I want to understand if you object to the big government, or simply to the bad government...?

I think it's safer to say I object to bad government. I'm very aware that there are very helpful governments in the world - Denmark's government is a good example. The US government just isn't one of them.

[stevendobbs]

with regards to governances - I wonder if americans view their federal government as more out of touch than their state government. This might match the european position where a number of countries rate their own government higher than brussels.

[The Script]

Libertarian Capitalists believes that if you do not govern, if you leave to chaos - then the emergent outcome will be better than meddling; out will come greatest productivity from less government intervention.

And in a sense they are right. Competition leads to the aggressive seeking out of all niches. In a narrow sense, there is greater economic activity. And this is what it looks like:



Social Democrats advocate a mixed economy where the state is prepared to invest time and effort into planning for the future. And this is what happens when you plan and maintain:



Remember, there may be more Biomass raised by leaving entirely to nature (Biomass analogous to wealth measured by GDP) than the forced unnatural occurrence of a field of potatoes. But the latter will feed more people.


http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-is-what-libertarian-capitalism.html

This is a joke, right?  You realize people and grass aren't the same things and pretty pictures don't mean your logic is correct.  Besides, I like Immanuel Go's picture better.

I've presented a metaphor which supports my views. Metaphor is a good way of making an argument when the processes are in someway similar. And I think I can argue well enough that the metaphor can be pushed far and therefore has power.

In an economy, there are many agents buying and selling, surviving either by merit or by established power. In nature it is the same, regarding survival adaptation and other matters such as diversity. Ecosystem metaphors are seen by many as a good way of looking at the economy.

The reason why libertarians and capitalists get upset about ecosystem metaphors is because it touches a very raw nerve? With a huge part of the world economy driven by ecosystem services, use of the nature metaphors reminds them that a large part of the economy does not exist to their ideology, and yet it plainly does and justifies regulation on a global scale.

And thats before you touch them with the ticklestick of global warming.

Again, if you think people are the equivalent of plants there's not much more I can say to you.  It's a terrible metaphor because humans are acting thinking beings while plants are not.  Society is composed of people, ecosystems are composed of plants and animals.  See the difference?