Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Kama

Similar to the sister sub-thread, this is a 'kite' thread, to see which way the wind blows as to whether people would like to discuss aspects of libertarianism in a sustained manner. There was a perception that the previous thread was incoherent, and that a seperate and focused treatment would do the issue more justice; we'll let people vote with their feet (as good libertarians) as to whether to 'slugfest' or attempt a discrete treatment.

The purpose of the thread is for investigation into, and critique or defence of, libertarian social philosophy, and discussion of it's implementation, in past, future or current societies.


Key questions may include:

• What is the ethical justification for property rights in libertarianism? Are arguments from natural law, custom, or possession sufficient?

• How would a judicial system function in an equitable manner, given an unequal distribution of resources?

• Can a libertarian-capitalist market system exist in the absence of state support? As the libertarian agenda can be achieved by meliorist and democratic means within liberal-capitalist societies, why has its success been so limited in scope?

• If the deal-breaker of coercion is the initiation of force, when do we take as the start-point? If the origins of a system of property involve force or fraud, how is its unmodified continuance justifiable?

• How are contractual subjects constituted? On what grounds is competence based?

Rules-of thumb for posting:

Avoid aggressive behaviours. Strength of opinion is no excuse for rudeness.

Respect the opinions and intelligence of others. Any theory advocated here has likely been supported by smarter men than we; nothing is 'stupid' except refusing to think.

While rhetoric is pretty and often convincing, claims are stronger with evidence.

If an argument is repeatedly ignored, the point is ceded; but a question is more likely to be answered the less friends it brings to the post-party. Phrase accordingly.

Akrasia

I would like to know if the libertarians think their future society would be mostly made up of self employed sole traders, or if corporations would be the dominant form of business organisation.

The main reason I ask this, is because whenever I bring up the point that workplaces are dictatorships of the owners, and that this doesn't sound very conductive to individual liberty, the libertarian solution is that the workers can leave and start their own business.

So do Libertarians see most people being employees, or self employed?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Health is an obvious sector worth mentioning here as large numbers of ex state workers would find themselves in the private sector. You might find that the facilities themselves would be owned by companies but that doctors might rent the facilities or you might find groups of doctors setting up smaller hospitals

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The first post in, and DF has already avoided the question. I asked

"So do Libertarians see most people being employees, or self employed?"

the answer

it's reasonable to assume that a libertarian economy would generate quite a lot of self-employment and small-business ownership.

does not answer the question.

silverharp

Akrasia wrote: »

I would like to know if the libertarians think their future society would be mostly made up of self employed sole traders, or if corporations would be the dominant form of business organisation.

The main reason I ask this, is because whenever I bring up the point that workplaces are dictatorships of the owners, and that this doesn't sound very conductive to individual liberty, the libertarian solution is that the workers can leave and start their own business.

So do Libertarians see most people being employees, or self employed?

I would dispute your assertion that being an employee or not is an issue of liberty, how could one define that a pilot working for BA is oppressed or someone who owns their sandwich round is not oppressed? what difference does it make?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

I would regard the first question,

do Libertarians see most people being employees, or self employed?

as having been answered satisfactorily, unless anyone has an argument against this? Libertarians view that small business would thrive under a classical liberal regime, and that individual entrepreneurship would increase, and DF has provided figures to buttress the claim.
The question had a second, ethical component as a rider, that:

workplaces are dictatorships of the owners, and that this doesn't sound very conductive to individual liberty

If ownership is distributed (as in most companies) I wouldn't consider it a dictatorship, in anything other than a loose pejorative sense. Equally, ownership does not necessarily mean direct control. If an employee has the ability to incrementally increase his ownership, is he not then (partially) a dictator of himself? At this point, the term seems more than a little screwy. The link between employment and oppression becomes somewhat problematic for a orthodox Marxist anaysis, if your employer is yourself.


And there was a third implicit question from Akrasia, the status of corporations in libertarian economics; as a point of information, many libertarians are anti-corporate, though I won't speak for any of those present, and view the fusion of big business and big government as dangerous, and analytically resembling facism.

An argument could be made that in a less statist economic system, the advantages of the corporations could be reduced; notice there could be no 'too big to fail' bailouts, and regulatory capture. Large corporations also benefit from a regulated statist economy insofar as they are better able to absorb the red-tape compliance costs than a 'sweat-equity' self-starter business.

The conventional counter is that corporations can distort markets in a manner similar to intervention by states, and that unfettered competetion leads paradoxically to lessened competition; policy philosophies such as Ordoliberalism and competition law are emergent form this position.

brianthebard

Kama wrote: »

And there was a third implicit question from Akrasia, the status of corporations in libertarian economics; as a point of information, many libertarians are anti-corporate, though I won't speak for any of those present, and view the fusion of big business and big government as dangerous, and analytically resembling facism.

An argument could be made that in a less statist economic system, the advantages of the corporations could be reduced; notice there could be no 'too big to fail' bailouts, and regulatory capture. Large corporations also benefit from a regulated statist economy insofar as they are better able to absorb the red-tape compliance costs than a 'sweat-equity' self-starter business.

The conventional counter is that corporations can distort markets in a manner similar to intervention by states, and that unfettered competetion leads paradoxically to lessened competition; policy philosophies such as Ordoliberalism and competition law are emergent form this position.

On this point; Paul Sweezy has written extensively on the topic of monopoly capitalism. He believes (and I feel he's correct in saying) that capitalism is inherently unstable and thus gravitates towards monopoly. In a liberal economy, with no regulation to prevent monopoly this process could only be sped up, as instead of bail outs and regulation against monopoly, companies that fail could be swallowed up by bigger competitors, or simply allowed to die and not be replaced, thus increasing the market share of the remaining companies by default. Or companies would be free to do a microsoft on their respective industries with no consequences. Where are the guarantees in libertarianism against this?

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1004pms2.htm

Offalycool

• What is the ethical justification for property rights in libertarianism? Are arguments from natural law, custom, or possession sufficient?

Natural rights, the idea that everybody has innate rights that they are born with are a relatively new phenomena. It gained a resurgence in popularity after the world learned of the fate of the Jews in Nazi Germany. The idea was intellectual reasoned out in the form of a ‘social contract’, a theoretical agreement that man has natural rights in a state of nature that he rationally agrees to forfeit as a member of society. In a state of nature, Hobbes argues we would be forced to conflict with one another because of the scarcity of goods, which is due to that lack of cooperation between men. Thereby it is reasonable for man to forfeit his natural right (to kill for profit) and obey laws that enable man to work together.

However this house of cards rests on the unstable notion of ‘objective reason’ (the idea that what is rational for one is rational for all), the belief that there was a ‘state of nature’ as Hobbes describes in the first place, and also ‘natural rights’. The big problem with natural rights is justifying them. Hobbes tried to claim that the human body has a natural right to motion, man’s heart beats in his chest, his limbs move etc. Therefore anything that restricts mans natural right to move restrict his ‘natural rights’. Unfortunately, man in Hobbes day just assumed he was not of nature. I mean, just look at the whole state of nature idea, as if we descended from the Garden of Eden! He never considered that man is an animal. And if animals hearts beat in there chest and their limbs have a natural tendency to move, and we slaughter them whenever we want, what makes the animal called man so special?

Lock on the other hand falls into a similar hole. He claimed man has a natural ability to kill another, If not by strength, by cunning! Therefore it is reasonable to assume we need a ‘social contract’. But can all men kill another (Infants? Disabled?), and if they can’t, should they be entitled to rights? Natural rights are extremely difficult to justify. I personally believe human beings are entitled to rights, we don’t necessarily need natural rights: we can retain the rights/duties relationship without them (in fact when people talk of rights today most of them are thinking of law). Unfortunately, deciding what rights (EDIT: people should have) can be a little tricky if we are to have practical rights for everyone. Property is a tricky issue, because while everybody should be entitled to property, nobody should be allowed to deprive others by acquiring too much property under the guise of ‘wealth’. Wealth can become property we make no use of except to acquire more wealth, thereby depriving others who may not survive, and indeed this happens to the majority of the population of the world.

• How would a judicial system function in an equitable manner, given an unequal distribution of resources?

In a purely Libertarian system we could not have an impartial judicial system. Property-less people would be trespassers. Hungry people would be thieves. Life would almost return to a Hobbesian state of nature. It’s interesting to note; Hobbes acknowledged (via natural rights) that man was entitled to forfeit the social contract as soon as society stopped protecting him. Anarchy is really that people, Anarchy!

People would only have their physical strength (If they are lucky enough) to work for food, without any recourse to established social standards. No minimum wage, no standards outside your employer/employee contract at all. If you think about it, welfare is as much about stabilising society as providing for the poor. And that is exactly what Hobbes wanted, a stable society (at the time he wrote he feared civil war). In a Libertarian society, the rich would be even more vulnerable than they are now (from the mob). Which is exactly why the whole idea is absurd to the core! Anybody rich enough in a Libertarian system is going to try and get his rich buddies together and create the circumstances required to stabilise society (welfare) and no judicial system is going to stop them. It’s a half baked fantasy.

What Libertarianism doesn’t account for is human nature, because libertarians cannot accept people as they really are, and the world as it really is! And frankly if they believe this rubbish could fly I’m not surprised.

ChocolateSauce

Although I am sympathetic to libertarianism and would lean that way, I am not an economic libertarian for several reasons. Where I think libertarians err is in assuming that if we eliminate all or most regulation, the most talented, motivated people will naturally and inevitably rise to the top. This is an oversimplified view of reality, which overlooks the institutional forces and natural barriers that can prevent individuals from succeeding through no fault of their own. Not everyone is born in a position which is favourable. The people who do become wildly successful might simply have been lucky, or had opportunities not available to everyone, while even more talented or motivated people languish in circumstances they cannot escape.

This is why I support social welfare programmes created through taxation. The point of redistribution, in the classical liberal philosophy, is not to create equal distribution of wealth, but rather equal distribution of opportunity. By guaranteeing universal access to basic goods like health care and education, differences in natural ability and talent have the best chance to manifest and are less likely to be cut short by bad luck.

The alternative is a situation where the children of people who have mismanaged their affairs will not have a chance at life, and where a person who suffers a disease or injury is at the mercy of his employer. While there are arguments that insurance companies can play a role in this instead of a state, I don't think it is good enough. The goal of a company is to profit, and unlike a state which offers the same thing- security - a company isn't accountable to anyone except its shareholders.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well your post fails to show this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There would no need to lobby because the corporations would be able to do whatever they liked.

The only restriction would be the risk that they might get sued, so what happens when they start 'lobbying' the courts?

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I never suggested it was the only contribution, and Sweezy talks about the wide range of literature in the link I provided. I never said that he was correct and therefore everyone else is incorrect. But if you wish to continue to express your issues with my sources instead of actually engaging with the questions that's fine, but it doesn't exactly suggest you're position is very strong. I never said Sweezy should be preferred, only I that I agree with his position. But again, its fine if you want to twist my words, it only shows you have little else that you can do in reference to the issue of monopoly.
Now I asked a question about monopoly, which you quoted but failed to answer. If you wish to answer it that would be super, but if not then by the rules of the thread as outlined in the op I'm going to assume you cede that monopoly will exist in a libertarian society.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

You never stated any position, but since you have insisted on twisting my words I don't expect to see any real attempt to answer the question. Well done.

silverharp

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Although I am sympathetic to libertarianism and would lean that way, I am not an economic libertarian for several reasons. Where I think libertarians err is in assuming that if we eliminate all or most regulation, the most talented, motivated people will naturally and inevitably rise to the top. This is an oversimplified view of reality, which overlooks the institutional forces and natural barriers that can prevent individuals from succeeding through no fault of their own. Not everyone is born in a position which is favourable. The people who do become wildly successful might simply have been lucky, or had opportunities not available to everyone, while even more talented or motivated people languish in circumstances they cannot escape.

two problems that I see here is that you are trying to rectify a percieved problem by the use of a coercive tax system almost akin to commiting a crime to solve a crime. Secondly by focusing on the seen you are ignoring the unseen, so again a system has been created that adds a new dice roll into peoples lives.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This is why I support social welfare programmes created through taxation. The point of redistribution, in the classical liberal philosophy, is not to create equal distribution of wealth, but rather equal distribution of opportunity. By guaranteeing universal access to basic goods like health care and education, differences in natural ability and talent have the best chance to manifest and are less likely to be cut short by bad luck..

similar to above, what price did people in the middle pay by not having the choice to choose an education more suitable to their kids talents/needs?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The alternative is a situation where the children of people who have mismanaged their affairs will not have a chance at life, and where a person who suffers a disease or injury is at the mercy of his employer. While there are arguments that insurance companies can play a role in this instead of a state, I don't think it is good enough. The goal of a company is to profit, and unlike a state which offers the same thing- security - a company isn't accountable to anyone except its shareholders.

The state isnt really accountable to anyone , A central premise of Libertarians is that we live in a world of scarce resources and that property rights guarantee the best outcomes in that people get to vote every time they buy and sell in the market. A state run system does not have this dicipline and can exist for years by treating less people at a higher cost.




For anyone else I came across this article which although doesnt discuss every aspect of self onership in detail, i thought it read well enough

How We Come to Own Ourselves : Stephan Kinsella
http://www.mises.org/story/2291

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lobbiests petition for reduced regulations on things like pollution, health and safety standards, labour regulations, advertising etc. In your world, there would be no pollution regulations, the corporation could pump effluent into the river or the sky and there would be nobody to stop them.
You are trying to frame the 'end of lobbiests' as some kind of benefit of your system, when it's just the ultimate victory for the lobbiests, in that their employers now have ultimate freedom to 'self regulate'.

You say that the protection against bad behaviour by the corporations is the courts system, but if the government is so corruptable by the lobbying industry, what's to stop them from directly 'lobbying' the courts themselves.

"[Sweezy] believes (and I feel he's correct in saying) that capitalism is inherently unstable and thus gravitates towards monopoly."

So someone who argues that capitalism is inherently stable, and does not gravitate towards monopoly, would be incorrect, in your view? Because Sweezy states otherwise?

Is this how you're going to debate?

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Monopolies fundamentally contradict the entire reason for 'libertarianism'. That people ought to have choices.

Libertarians don't agree with the state 'forcing' them to use their schools or electricity provider or whatever, but why is it ok to be forced to use a private monopoly?

If there is a private monopoly who abuses it's market position by charging extortionate prices or providing a very poor service or having harsh terms and conditions (like 2 year minimum contracts for example), what recourse does the individual have other than to accept it or completely forgo the service

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

The state isnt really accountable to anyone , A central premise of Libertarians is that we live in a world of scarce resources and that property rights guarantee the best outcomes in that people get to vote every time they buy and sell in the market. A state run system does not have this dicipline and can exist for years by treating less people at a higher cost.]

How does this paragraph fit in with DF's position that there is nothing wrong with monopolies?
How are you supposed to vote with your wallet if there's only one supplier?

ChocolateSauce

silverharp wrote: »

two problems that I see here is that you are trying to rectify a percieved problem by the use of a coercive tax system almost akin to commiting a crime to solve a crime. Secondly by focusing on the seen you are ignoring the unseen, so again a system has been created that adds a new dice roll into peoples lives.

What do you mean by seen and unseen? I would also say that I simply disagree that taxation of any kind is theft. I agree that unjustified and excessive taxation is bad (and yes, I know this then opens the question of how much is too much and who gets to decide, lengthy debates I don't really want to get into right now), but intrinsically I find it acceptable and even desirable. If tax of any kind is theft, then tax must be abolished outright. If it is not theft, then a fair figure must be arrived at.

similar to above, what price did people in the middle pay by not having the choice to choose an education more suitable to their kids talents/needs?

Not as much a price as the people on the bottom would pay if there wasn't state-funded education. Besides, it is in the interest of the whole of society to have a universally educated population. And a state funded education system does not mean choice is abolished-there'd be nothing stopping privately funded schools from opening.

The state isnt really accountable to anyone , A central premise of Libertarians is that we live in a world of scarce resources and that property rights guarantee the best outcomes in that people get to vote every time they buy and sell in the market. A state run system does not have this dicipline and can exist for years by treating less people at a higher cost.

A democratic state is accountable to the voters. And I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but you seem to think I spoke against property rights?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And what does that have to do with anything on this thread?
I know you are, but what am I?

If you include rampant nuclear experimentation without regard for human life, the above is a fairly good description of environmental "protections" that existed under the former Soviet Union. In a libertarian world, however, any polluter would be quickly taken to task in the courts and compelled to respect the integrity of other people's property.

And how would that work? You have 50 factories along the course of one river, each one pumps effluent into the river. Each one by itself is not enough to cause long term damage to the river, but combined, all the factories cause the river to become very badly polluted. How would the courts allocate blame? who would the injured party sue? Who would have the right to sue for damages? Would it only be adjacent property owners? Or could I sue for the damage to the environment? would the river have an owner? (which raises even more issues)

I'm describing a system in which no vested interest can harness the legislative power of government to achieve an unfair advantage over another group. You think that's a bad thing?

I think it's a bad thing where there are no protections for people and the environment who can be the victims of 'externalities'

I don't think a better alternative to government regulation, is to have the permanent and constant threat of being sued by anyone you come into contact with who might think you are negatively affecting their property rights

Does "debating" involve refusing to support assertions with argument, as brianthebard is doing here? If he wants to convince us that Sweezy's position on the "inherent" direction of capitalism is correct, he has to do more than simply state that it is Sweezy's position and that it is therefore correct.

He said He agrees with sweezy's position. All you have done is attack him for agreeing with someone who you don't agree with. You refused to engage with the content of the objection. It does not come across well

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You say coercively, you mentioned that electricity might be a natural monopoly. If someone doesn't agree with the terms and conditions of this monopoly provider, he may be forced to choose between accepting them, or living in the 18th century.
You say the government is 'coercive' because takes tax off people's earnings. It's possible to not pay these taxes by giving up your job and living on an island and growing all your own food. Why is it coersive to collect taxes, but not coersive to force someone to accept a private monopoly of an essential utility or else do without the service?