Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

First of all, Barack Obama is the head of state of a superpower, John Locke was a philosopher. Massive difference between the two, given that Obama's society has institutions to safeguard against the injustices of 18/19th century and so on whereas Locke wrote about them.
I'm still fairly perplexed that you could apply the term libertarian to 18th/19th century Britain/USA. Regardless of what society was like at the time and the efforts of those you deem libertarians, the society was pretty tyrannical.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Locke also believe in the social contract; achknowledging that individuals also have duties and rights to and from a state.

Would you not agree that similar forms of taxation occurred in those days; for example, sharecropping. A sharecropper is permitted to work on the owners land and was obliged to give up hefty amounts of his work to the landowner. Sounds quite similar to governmental taxation, but I'm wondering if libertarians would oppose it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Poverty is still poverty, regardless of how bad it was beforehand.
A modern example would be the sweatshops in existance in Asia; while some people choose to go into such work as it is better than a life on the farm, I would still term them as living in poverty.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, but by that logic, would you not agree that 18th/19th century Britain/USA had standards of a modern conservative rather than a libertarian.
Given their liberal economics but authoritarian social values.

silverharp

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Would disagree with you there;countries like Britain were economic powerhouses while poverty still persisted.

remember by the 1930's there had been a huge increase in productivity/production of consumer goods (everything from houses to to a decent suit) in the 19th C the production wasnt there for the general public. If you wanted furniture for example it was either hand made or not at all, moving forward to the 20th C and the average person in the US could buy a factory made house for less then 2 years salary.You would have to explain poverty relative to what exactly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

silverharp wrote: »

you mentioned poverty in the 19thC , but wasnt that more a function of productivity or lack thereof compared to today.

No. Poverty in the 18th/19th and even 20th century was a direct result of exploitation of working class people by the capitalists. Extracting as much as is possible from the destitute; suppressing unions, forming governments that sided with their interests and so on and so forth.

Come to think of it, the 21st century seems to be not much different....

Akrasia

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You mean a time where your rights depended on your property/sex/race and things like slavery and conscription existed?
As well as things like property tax in the US and income tax being introduced in the 18th century (Britain) and 19th century (US)

No, he only means all the good things about america are libertarian, all the bad things are due to evil statism and 'socialism'

It's the same with everything else in the world. Good equals libertarian, bad equals statist/socialist

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nope,, My position is a bit more nuanced than that. But if we're breaking it down, All authority must be constantly re-legitimised, and that includes political and economic authority.

Lockstep

silverharp wrote: »

remember by the 1930's there had been a huge increase in productivity/production of consumer goods (everything from houses to to a decent suit) in the 19th C the production wasnt there for the general public. If you wanted furniture for example it was either hand made or not at all, moving forward to the 20th C and the average person in the US could buy a factory made house for less then 2 years salary.You would have to explain poverty relative to what exactly.

I would determine poverty based on the standard of living; whether people had enought to eat, lived in conditions that weren't squalid and disease producing, children able to attend school without placing the family finances in jeopardy and so on.

Not whether or not you had a nice consumer durables.

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course there was, but does that somehow justify poverty within capitalism or something?

Do you agree that capitalism was, and still is, based solely on the exploitation of the working class?

silverharp

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I would determine poverty based on the standard of living; whether people had enought to eat, lived in conditions that weren't squalid and disease producing, children able to attend school without placing the family finances in jeopardy and so on.

Not whether or not you had a nice consumer durables.

How better could it have been at the time? dont get me wrong I would have hated to live in the 19th C , chances are you would have had a hard life and little comfort. But looking at the US for instance what major errors did "they" make wrt to standard of living.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed but we are not referring to Obama's academic record, but that he presides over a US guaranteeing civil and political liberties. Which is surely more libertarian than the UK/USA in the 18th/19th centuries, given it's much better record on such rights.
Agree with you on Bush's interventionism however.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Conscription is one example (pitching off the US Draft Riots, Royal Navy press ganging), prevention of women, blacks and men of little property from voting being another.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is going in the direction of the difference between positive/negative liberty.
Given the above, would you accept that individuals do not only belong to themselves, but that if libertarianism is based around Locke, then individuals also owe allegiance to the state, based on this social contract.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Similar to the way you have the choice to accept the sharecropping tax, attempt to change the agreement or leave the land, the same way that you have the choice to accept taxation, attempt to change it (starting up a libertarian party etc) or vote with your feet.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No I do not; poverty had existed pretty much since man has. I said that even if the poverty of the industrial revolution worker was less severe than that he left behind in the country, it is still poverty.
I would say that the mixed economy is what has done more to alleviate poverty; capitalism sure, but I would find the term liberal more debatable.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You misunderstand me; I clearly said that the standard of living from working in a sweatshop is better than the life they left behind (or else they wouldn't be working there, aside from bonded labourers), however such conditions are still what I would call poverty.
While I would not oppose sweatshops per se, I do believe that safe working conditions and so on should be in place.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They might have been more socially libertarian than previously, but this still does not mean they were libertarian.
Would you call Krushchev's regime libertarian seeing as it was more liberal than that of Stalin?

Lockstep

silverharp wrote: »

How better could it have been at the time? dont get me wrong I would have hated to live in the 19th C , chances are you would have had a hard life and little comfort. But looking at the US for instance what major errors did "they" make wrt to standard of living.

THey were economically very powerful but poverty persisted.

Using Belgium as an example, better working conditions were made in the late 19th century; by the struggle of men such as Adolf Daens. Safer working conditions were enacted and pay increased to prevent starvation. This was possible previously but was not granted until it was fought for by the Christian people's Party/Socialists/Liberals.

Deep Easterly

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No I do not; poverty had existed pretty much since man has. I said that even if the poverty of the industrial revolution worker was less severe than that he left behind in the country, it is still poverty.
?

Indeed. Donegalfella's typical neo-liberalist comparisons to poverty before capitalism is a misnomer and a distraction. Poverty still exists today, in relative and absolute measurements. Poverty that is justified and glossed over by the neo-liberal sycophants. Why is this? why is poverty, even the relative form, accepted in society today?

The neo-liberalist, in my opinion at least, will do anything to justify the existance of the fat cats; unequal pay/ unequal working conditions and entitlements; and true to the neo-liberalist, they will always blame the poor, the exploited and the oppressed for their own social disadvantage.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Expand please. This time without posting up the writings of Locke as an answer.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because there were libertarian struggles within a society does not make it a libertarian society; we have libertarian groups in America but I doubt you would see the US as a libertarian society.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know anyone who would say that citizens belong to the state, a cornerstone of democracy is that the inverse is true.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course not; industrialision had many benefits, however, this does not mean that poverty did not exist.
Of course the moving from dreadful to slightly less dreadful is something to complain about; nothing changes unless action is taken.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would disagree with you there; I see a fair bit about child prostitutes or subsistence farmers in the 3rd world as well as the terrible conditions of sweat shops.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, so would I. However, because conditions in sweatshops are terrible does not mean they have to remain so; people fought to change inhumane treatment of workers in the 19th century and continue to do so today.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Strange then as you seem happy to apply the term libertarian to a society that was more libertarian than it's predecessor, as Kruschev's regime was compared to Stalin's.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't know, or claim to. But I do not automatically assume on the basis of no possible evidence other than personal prejudice that it would be a worse world. It's fun to think about might-have-beens, the EWG model is fantastic for fiction, but pretending one knows definitively how an alternate contingency would have evolved is either an excess of faith or charlatanry.

I assume the former.

donegalfella wrote:

The civil and political rights you enjoy today are largely a creation of English, American, and French liberal thought of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

Depends where you draw the line; we can take them back further into the 'feudal' period, and the right of a king to resist against his lord if he was treated unjustly, and leadership by gaining consensus among your peers. Or to the truly classical Greek concept of the demos, itself a response by Cleisthenes to the rampant oligarchy of the day, rupturing and re-distributing the pre-existent society into a more egalitarian form, and attempting to institute isonomia or legal equality. Other alternatives include Just War theory, canon law, a whole evolutionary tapestry of development. To claim these concepts as a 'creation' of classical liberal thought is only possible by a deliberately shallow reading of history; essentially, the misattribution of origin. In academia, we call it plagiarism. In property proper, it tends to be associated with theft.

Funny, that.

The critical issue for me in this selectorate, those whose voices are heard, is how extensive the franchise is; the classical liberal societies tended to limit the franchise to the holders of property. (Perhaps this feature is what, perhaps unconsciously, endears their brand of 'freedom' to the ever-nostalgic libertarian? Rich, white males with extensive property as the rightful rulers of the country?) If the franchise, the selectorate, is limited to those who own property, is it not true that this is a tyranny to those who do not possess it? They are dominated, coerced, taxed, occassionally enslaved, without being represented. And this, my friends, is the 'Golden Age', to which we must return. This, apparently, is the model, the true and pure genesis, from which all that is good emerged; its shortcomings are not its fault, while its benefits are entirely to its credit.

Funny, that.

Deep Easterly wrote:

Expand please.

The logic is quite simple; all that is good in late-modern society comes from capitalism, and more precisely, the pure strain of libertarianism within it, the natural and authentic human state, deviation from which is a sinful corruption. All that is bad came from the the devious machinations of the state and the international communist conspiracy. the insatiable and greedy Mob who will steal all that has been rightfully produced, and all their diabolical works; they are the cancer that is killing the social body with its toxic notions of 'egality', their 'doublethinking' linguistic perversion and justification of their immoral and dangerously excessive desires.

Positive developments from before libertarian capitalism, at best, prefigured its development. Negative developments arise from exogenous forces or causes. So we can rule out the (working-class) Chartists, and their removal of the property qualification, as a positive step, ignore the brutal suppression of workers movements in industrializing countries, and so on. To phrase it simpler: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.

Funny, that.


It's a simplistic, Manichaean faith, but like all such attempts to divide the world into neat and discrete parts, wheat from chaff, tends to require a certain amount of violence towards historical memory to accomplish its goals. Specifically, in the US and British cases, the origins of property in violent expropriation. Locke, with the legitimation of the forceful enclosure of common lands, lingering in folk memory of theft in the guise of Law:


The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from off the goose.

The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.

The fault is great in man or woman
Who steals a goose from off a common;
But what can plead that man's excuse
Who steals a common from a goose?

Legitimacy, the original 'sin' of ownership, where these property rights came from, either in historical context or philosophically; fundamental questions quite necessarily avoided. Nozick at least admits it to be a problem; the starting point is always and necessarily arbitrary, or the US would have to be given back to the Indians, to be blunt, and the silver returned to Potosi, with a fair return at a conventional rate of interest for the (unwilling) loan.

We must also redact from memory, or shift blame for, the colonialist tradition of violent appropriation, genocide and slavery, enforced heroin addiction by gunboat dipomacy, treaty violation with the Native Americans, the whole panoply of violent robbery that is historically at the heart of the liberal outopia, yet so vehemently rejected within its theory, with its emphasis on the 'consensual' transfer of property. After the (violent) fact.

Funny, that.


As Kierkegaard said in relation to the riches of the Church and their vows of poverty:

'And no one laughs'

silverharp

kickoutthejams wrote: »

THey were economically very powerful but poverty persisted.

Using Belgium as an example, better working conditions were made in the late 19th century; by the struggle of men such as Adolf Daens. Safer working conditions were enacted and pay increased to prevent starvation. This was possible previously but was not granted until it was fought for by the Christian people's Party/Socialists/Liberals.

Ok, what I know about the European labour movement could be written on a matchbox but purely looking at it in economic terms, by definition a union tries to set a price for labour above the market rate. The natural response of the employer is to reduce demand for labour. So a downside here is that the unionised sectors slow down relative to the non unionised ones while at the same more labour is forced to chase jobs in the non unionised sectors thus reducing wages there.
Then you have the violence and & closed shops , the unions werent cuddly voluntary association that ran health and safety classes. From a point of principle, if I could find out that the result of unions was that there was more then a single instance of a worker being made unemployed becasue of unions, do unions lose their moral position?

I guess someone in the Union business or government for that matter wouldnt be able to deal with the Frederick Bastiat principle of the "That which is seen, and that which is not seen,"

Kama

As you say, what you know is quite specific and partial on the world history of the labour movement and its influence on the development of the social and political rights we enjoy today. I'd recommend a brief brush over the Chartists, and their reaction to the property-owning democracy that coincides with DF's preferred epoch, and whether this is a morally superior development to the previous political context. And labour movements have indeed run classes for the improvement of their members, for self-defence, literacy, legal advice, and a range of other social functions which would not otherwise have been available to them.

Now, I won't claim its all sunshine and roses, but I'm a 2-cheers kind of guy, so I'd regard doing that much as I regard DF's highly selective reading of history; as either deliberate falsehood, or a form of bias emerging from perspective. So much as Caplan might talk of an anti-market bias, there can be others, in this case anti-labour movement, to the point of needing to redact out their contribution to the rights we enjoy today.

As to your question, I don't think unions (today, in the First World anyway) are a particularly 'moral' force, they are almost purely the wage-bargaining instruments that fit the model you reduce them to. Interesting that you move quickly to the extreme case; similarly one could say 'if libertarianism was ever responsible for a death or coercion of any kind it loses its moral position'. The hard case, while easy to prove, means comparatively less; changed goalposts make the score less impressive, as we can currently see with the Greens change of approach on their NAMA vote.

The other problem, as per the Bastiat quote, is that this purely economic perspective itself suffers from the problem of 'what is not seen'. As with all hermeneutics of suspicion, the reflexive problem arrives, or returns, necessarily. The dangers of being sure we know what we 'see', especially with the application of theory, is the lacunae of our awareness come to be ignored all the more, the unseen blindspot grows.

silverharp

Kama wrote: »

As you say, what you know is quite specific and partial on the world history of the labour movement and its influence on the development of the social and political rights we enjoy today. I'd recommend a brief brush over the Chartists, and their reaction to the property-owning democracy that coincides with DF's preferred epoch, and whether this is a morally superior development to the previous political context. And labour movements have indeed run classes for the improvement of their members, for self-defence, literacy, legal advice, and a range of other social functions which would not otherwise have been available to them.

To be fair I'm not against social reform and if groups of workers or anyone wish to come together to improve welfare, education etc. thats fantastic. Looking at the British Empire, there were fundamental illiberal elements to it , tariffs, the mercantilism of the British East India company, the Opium wars. So I am not very interested in scoring a particular time versus another time, its a case of judging what worked and what didnt based on ones ethical principles.
You mentioned the "rights we enjoy today", at the risk of reading to much into it I'll assume you are saying that somehow our standard of living is better because of it? In principle I'd have to say why? for example do we only have airplanes today because of the Wright brothers or Teflon pots because of NASA. I'm guessing the reason we dont send 10 year old kids down mines is that we dont have to. I see no reason that a free market society wouldnt increase the benefits for everyone over time as the surpluses increase.

Kama wrote: »

Interesting that you move quickly to the extreme case; similarly one could say 'if libertarianism was ever responsible for a death or coercion of any kind it loses its moral position'. The hard case, while easy to prove, means comparatively less; changed goalposts make the score less impressive, as we can currently see with the Greens change of approach on their NAMA vote.

I'm not sure it can be flipped around , libertarians accept that individuals or any entities can be flawed or develop flaws, the question is what is, how can a centralised coercive solution bring anything to the party while at the same time risking all the unintended consequences that such solutions normally bring?

Kama wrote: »

The other problem, as per the Bastiat quote, is that this purely economic perspective itself suffers from the problem of 'what is not seen'. As with all hermeneutics of suspicion, the reflexive problem arrives, or returns, necessarily. The dangers of being sure we know what we 'see', especially with the application of theory, is the lacunae of our awareness come to be ignored all the more, the unseen blindspot grows.

Its more general then an economic perspective, drug prohibition comes to mind. Making Heroin illegal is the seen becasue it is bad for people, the unseen is the inability to compute the negetive consequences of such a policy. In other situations like education as choice is crowded out by a state system , the planners will highlight the benefits of a free system while the choices that people dont get to make are not counted.

Lockstep

But in Britain, the mercantilism period was weakening while the industrial revolution took off even even n 1824 when the Combinations Act was repealed (preventing workers from organising to demand higher wages), it was only in the late 19th century that unions were definetely legal.

Kama

silverharp wrote:

To be fair I'm not against social reform and if groups of workers or anyone wish to come together to improve welfare, education etc. thats fantastic.

Great. My quite mild point, dressed in strong rhetoric, was that the thesis that the agreed benefits we enjoy today of social, political, and economic rights and liberties derive from a broad historical progression that has multiple and varied sources, rather than the highly ideological stance of claiming they are all emergent from a single historical seed.

You mentioned the "rights we enjoy today", at the risk of reading to much into it I'll assume you are saying that somehow our standard of living is better because of it? In principle I'd have to say why? for example do we only have airplanes today because of the Wright brothers or Teflon pots because of NASA.

I'm leaning more and more towards a form of technological determinism, summed up by the phrase 'it steam engines when it's steam engines time'; so we don't just have airplanes because of the Wright brothers, given the available technological context airplanes will tend to develop. Kevin Kelly has a good, if long, article on simultaenous and convergent invention here. It argues against the 'solitary genius' concept of technological advance. That's an aside on the technology part.

As to rights, and their equation with standard of living, I'd like if you could define the latter more tighly, in your own terms? Increases in material standard of living are quite possible in the absence of rights; a well-fed slave has a higher standard of living (which was a stated argument for the Southern 'peculiar tradition') while lacking isonomia. Is said slave better or worse off than one with a lower standard of living, but equality before the law of his community?

A current case would be the Chinese regime; increasing material standard of living in context of highly restricted social, political and associational rights. To pre-empt, I don't think these can be easily submitted to a cost-benefit calculus, but perhaps thats my prejudice that the political realm should not be subordinated to the economic, much as DF would prefer the economic not to be subordinated to the political. Certainly, there's an unresolved tension.

I see no reason that a free market society wouldnt increase the benefits for everyone over time as the surpluses increase.

Perhaps, but as Keynes famously said, in the long run we are all dead. This promise, of distribution at a later date, is of no use to those in dearth now alongside the accumulation of surplus; the empty houses in this country are currently of no use to our homeless. The argument hinges on the IOU of a share to come; the response is that this share is always, conveniently, in the future. Those without cannot eat the area of a Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, especially if they are not compensated.

I'm not sure it can be flipped around , libertarians accept that individuals or any entities can be flawed or develop flaws, the question is what is, how can a centralised coercive solution bring anything to the party while at the same time risking all the unintended consequences that such solutions normally bring?

So how many deaths would it take from the 'unintended consequence' of application of libertarian policy for the approach to be discredited? Rhetorical question; such a calculus is, I hope you agree, obscene.

Centralized solutions have costs and benefits, much as decentralized, coercive solutions have costs and benefits, much as freer, autonomous approaches. Any system, whether the anarchic or the archic has 'unintended consequences'; lacking perfect and deterministic predictive power this seems almost trivially true.

A state or corporate central approach possesses different time horizons, firstly; take power generation, and gas versus nuclear. Nuclear is frontloaded in cost, and less palatable to a short-term market mentality, while gas is the opposite, greater downstream costs. Central systems (eg France) are better positioned to develop nuclear, while liberalized market system will tend to develop more gas-fired. Gas may be 'better' while it's flowing, but suddenly 'worse' if it does not. In energy security terms, a longterm strategic goal, France is safer, due to the economies and abilities of central planning.

Its more general then an economic perspective, drug prohibition comes to mind. Making Heroin illegal is the seen becasue it is bad for people, the unseen is the inability to compute the negetive consequences of such a policy. In other situations like education as choice is crowded out by a state system , the planners will highlight the benefits of a free system while the choices that people dont get to make are not counted.

As with DF, you are preaching to the converted here to a great extent. My more cynical thoughts on this issue as an intended consequence are alluded to in my thread on non-state violent actors, and the dangers of organizational or policy capture. Drug policy is anything but evidence-based, and driven less by rational policy than by emotion and fear. For more sane policy regimes, Portugal is the current example of a more 'liberal' approach, which is achieving its intended consequences.

On a more philosophical line, the libertarian 'unintended consequence' argument relies upon the 'heads i win tails you lose' again; if no consequence is intended, in rational-constructivist terms, then one can hardly complain about the unintended consequences. Yet these regimes too produce results which are not what they are advertized as; the libertarian 'freedoms' of 'choice' are not nonzerosum affairs; one mans positive freedom is anothers coercion, whether his chosen mechanism is state or non-state. Again, I argue strongly against the argumentative attempt to 'enclose' freedom by either side.

The problem, and it is a thorny one, for a calculus of consequences, is where to draw the (arbitrary) line as to what qualifies as an externality cost or benefit. What value is assigned, and who assigns? Which returns to the earlier point on power, and the ability to successfully seek redress. My preference again is for isonomia, and my critique of the more libertarian arguments is the 'distortion' or influence of economic inequality on political and legal equality, where 'Voice' comes to be allocated according to wealth, votes by houses, and the value of human life by the depth of a pocket.

silverharp

Kama wrote: »

I'm leaning more and more towards a form of technological determinism, summed up by the phrase 'it steam engines when it's steam engines time'; so we don't just have airplanes because of the Wright brothers, given the available technological context airplanes will tend to develop. Kevin Kelly has a good, if long, article on simultaenous and convergent invention here. It argues against the 'solitary genius' concept of technological advance. That's an aside on the technology part.

I read the article and it seems reasonable, on the one hand you can have technological “accidents” like the stirrup which led to the advantage for the Knight etc etc (from Guns Gems and Steel from memory) or the more general case of planes trains and automobiles which again would steer away from overly lauding the inventor which should call into question the whole Patent system as an unnecessary monopolistic grant via the state.
I have seen any number of comments to the effect that we need the state to subsidise science. The inherent logic is that if the scientists were not working on the space program for example that they would have had nothing to do or would not have been productive in some other area of science/engineering (flawed imo). Obviously this line of reaosning supports the statists need for bigger gov. and more taxation.

Kama wrote: »

As to rights, and their equation with standard of living, I'd like if you could define the latter more tighly, in your own terms? Increases in material standard of living are quite possible in the absence of rights; a well-fed slave has a higher standard of living (which was a stated argument for the Southern 'peculiar tradition') while lacking isonomia. Is said slave better or worse off than one with a lower standard of living, but equality before the law of his community?

A current case would be the Chinese regime; increasing material standard of living in context of highly restricted social, political and associational rights. To pre-empt, I don't think these can be easily submitted to a cost-benefit calculus, but perhaps thats my prejudice that the political realm should not be subordinated to the economic, much as DF would prefer the economic not to be subordinated to the political. Certainly, there's an unresolved tension.

the effects of rights in a free society are a consequence of material progress all things being equal, for sure the State in parallel can take away rights or be the abitur of who gets which rights, the question is, does for example the State need a law requiring kids to go to school or is it the natural choice of parents to want to see their kids do well in the absence of having to choose between having to send a kid out to work to earn enough for a couple of bowls of porridge? Why do African or Chinese kids for that matter “work” on rubbish heaps and probably shortening their lives. Is it the lack of laws? Are they stupid? Or is their society lacking the surplusus and normal pillars that a wealthy society would be expected to have. As you mentioned China indeed a “more” coercive society can increase its material gain, much like Germany did in the 1930's. Unlike the many great and the good in the 30's that drooled over the societies that Stalin and Hitler were creating, one would have to rely on more fundamental principles of individual liberty and justice to cry foul and wholly condemn their societies even if everyone (remaining) had the standard of living of kings from a previous generation

Kama wrote: »

Perhaps, but as Keynes famously said, in the long run we are all dead. This promise, of distribution at a later date, is of no use to those in dearth now alongside the accumulation of surplus; the empty houses in this country are currently of no use to our homeless. The argument hinges on the IOU of a share to come; the response is that this share is always, conveniently, in the future. Those without cannot eat the area of a Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, especially if they are not compensated.

again it comes down to a calculation problem, at any point in the time there will always be a specific amount of resources available to a person or company, the fact that the resources are moved around by the State doesnt add to the productive ability of the actors as a whole. Reducing savings to fund a particular program may turn out to be a misallocation of resources. Its not about an IOU in the future , that seems to be the promise of the state, tax now and “trust us” to put the money to good use in the future

Kama wrote: »

So how many deaths would it take from the 'unintended consequence' of application of libertarian policy for the approach to be discredited? Rhetorical question; such a calculus is, I hope you agree, obscene.

obscene no , difficult to impossible yes , in a theorical way you could postulate that Stalin defeated the Nazis ( I wouldnt buy it) so had a Libertarian system been in place in Russia none of us would be here now or that the free market couldnt beat a dictatorship so we settle for a mixed economy. However I think its fair to shine a light on the unintended consequences when any degree of coercion is involved by the State as by definition choice/freedom is being reduced for some individuals

Kama

silverharp wrote:

I read the article and it seems reasonable, on the one hand you can have technological “accidents” like the stirrup which led to the advantage for the Knight etc etc (from Guns Gems and Steel from memory) or the more general case of planes trains and automobiles which again would steer away from overly lauding the inventor which should call into question the whole Patent system as an unnecessary monopolistic grant via the state.

Glad you enjoyed it, kk isn't to everyones taste, but a good read. I'd also recommend his article on Moores Law, and his Lifestream generally. I also agree on patent rights as government monopolies and rent-seeking legal squatting that does not necessarily act as an incentive, or if the incentive exists and functions whether it is sufficient to compensate for the inefficiency costs. The Pirate Party are the only political movement I see directly addressing this issue, as both state and market interests are generally aligned against in a quite conservative stance.

I have seen any number of comments to the effect that we need the state to subsidise science. The inherent logic is that if the scientists were not working on the space program for example that they would have had nothing to do or would not have been productive in some other area of science/engineering (flawed imo). Obviously this line of reaosning supports the statists need for bigger gov. and more taxation.

Similarly, I see arguments that only the market, and the monopolistic patent and copyright system, can produce technological advance; again, I think the assumptions are flawed. In my opinion, where statist research allocation performs better (time horizons again) is in basic research. Applied can be performed quite happily commercially, where the payoff is relatively near-term, but due to the fact that the consequences of basic research are unintended, and unintendable, it seems a better place for the strategic investment of state or other central allocators. Applications emergent from pure math are the best example for this. Non-exclusive, impossible to predict a commercially-profitable application prior.

the effects of rights in a free society are a consequence of material progress all things being equal

I'm not quite as sure as this, especially because all things, including people, are not equal. A society can be highly rich, with limited political rights (such as an authoritarian democracy like Singapore, an effective dictatorship under Lee Kuan Yew). I remember this argument being made with respect to China, that with market freedom would come political freedom; the relationship no longer seems that clear, suggesting to me that political and social freedom is not just a luxury to be bought as an afterthought to material progress, but a basic human desire and goal, relatively independent of material wealth.

for sure the State in parallel can take away rights or be the abitur of who gets which rights, the question is, does for example the State need a law requiring kids to go to school or is it the natural choice of parents to want to see their kids do well in the absence of having to choose between having to send a kid out to work to earn enough for a couple of bowls of porridge? Why do African or Chinese kids for that matter “work” on rubbish heaps and probably shortening their lives. Is it the lack of laws? Are they stupid? Or is their society lacking the surplusus and normal pillars that a wealthy society would be expected to have.

In order:

I support the right to homeschool, while I also support the right to universal early childhood education. If parents wish to edicate their children, or provide for their education privately, I don't think the state should get in the way; equally, I don't think the lack of financial means should prevent any child from having an education available to them.

I'm also (gasp!) ambivalent on child labour. While economists talk of un and underemployment in the developing world, it would be closer to the fact to say that everyone works, especially in the slums. Their work may or may not be waged, but they are working. In the case of children there, and your argument, I partially agree; necessity, and time horizons again. Education is an investment they cannot make, much as others I know closer to home dropped out of college or school here because of the need to provide for their families. Longterm, education would be closer to optimal, but short-term its not possible. I see a strong role here for state intervention, and an increase in aggregate liberty; by providing or lowering the cost of education, or providing income supports for the same. Education is one of the best investments governments can make (its one of the better ones we've made) in social and economic terms, and within that early childhood education is the best return and should be prioritized. Providing childcare, creche, and early education also frees women to participate in the labour market as an intended consequence.

As you mentioned China indeed a “more” coercive society can increase its material gain, much like Germany did in the 1930's. Unlike the many great and the good in the 30's that drooled over the societies that Stalin and Hitler were creating, one would have to rely on more fundamental principles of individual liberty and justice to cry foul and wholly condemn their societies even if everyone (remaining) had the standard of living of kings from a previous generation

Indeed, and this argument is often made by 'Leftists' to the 'Capitalists' who deploy the 'argument-by-standard-of-living'; materially, there may be improvements, but if this is at the costs of oppression, the deal is a somewhat satanic one.

Again it comes down to a calculation problem, at any point in the time there will always be a specific amount of resources available to a person or company, the fact that the resources are moved around by the State doesnt add to the productive ability of the actors as a whole.

I don't see this as necessarily true, in a theoretic sense. A state can allocate resources productively, a market may allocate them in a less productive fashion; a market may fail to provide a public good, a state may succeed in provision. I don't see either as necessarily being a productive or non-productive allocation purely by virtue of their position on the state-nonstate axis, whereas it seems the libertarian position is that state allocation is by definition unproductive. The point is assumed far more than it is ever substantiated, while the practicalities of when it is or isnt efficient are of keen interest within public goods theory.

On a more purely redistributive basis, again the point should be followed to its conclusion. The state action may or may not increase the productive ability of actors as a whole, dependent on the allocation those actors then make. If the previous situation was highly unproductive, redistribution could lead to a more optimal allocation. Or in the more marginalist form, the utility of an additional euro increases the fewer euros one had initially, and vice versa, leading to a relatively robust utilitarian argument for redistribution.

Reducing savings to fund a particular program may turn out to be a misallocation of resources. Its not about an IOU in the future , that seems to be the promise of the state, tax now and “trust us” to put the money to good use in the future

Conceivably. But I view the situation with a different temporal condition; taxation not as an IOU for future service, but as an ethically-justified payment for previous services rendered; infrastructure, functioning legal system, as well as social investments received such as education, for which one did not as an individual pay. These services have already been provided; with fiendishly coercivity have the libertarians been protected from possible invasion, a system of law, and so on, will they or nil they, produced from the taxation and allocation of the wealth of previous generations.

in a theorical way you could postulate that Stalin defeated the Nazis ( I wouldnt buy it)

In terms of total divisions destroyed, history is relatively clear. I say this with no partiular affection for that regime.

However I think its fair to shine a light on the unintended consequences when any degree of coercion is involved by the State as by definition choice/freedom is being reduced for some individuals

Is the principle issue here the coercivity, or the unintended consequences? My feeling is that coercivity is no state monopoly, and can be as easily applied by individuals in relation to each other. States can both coerce, and limit coercion. The strict minarchist retains a state for 'force and fraud'. The issue then becomes definitional, as a wide array of situations can come under these headings, especially fraud.

silverharp

Kama wrote: »

...Applications emergent from pure math are the best example for this. Non-exclusive, impossible to predict a commercially-profitable application prior

I'll have a think about that one , would would assume that top tier universities would involve themselves in this type of reseach as it would add to the prestige of the college?

Kama wrote: »

I'm not quite as sure as this, especially because all things, including people, are not equal. A society can be highly rich, with limited political rights (such as an authoritarian democracy like Singapore, an effective dictatorship under Lee Kuan Yew). I remember this argument being made with respect to China, that with market freedom would come political freedom; the relationship no longer seems that clear, suggesting to me that political and social freedom is not just a luxury to be bought as an afterthought to material progress, but a basic human desire and goal, relatively independent of material wealth.

I agree if the setting is not liberal in the first place, a wealthy muslim state combined with an unreformed medieval religion for example is not a receipe for a convergence with the liberal aspects of a western society. Or looking at Ireland the state chose to line up with the interests of conservative and religious interests here which later had to be undone.

Kama wrote: »

I support the right to homeschool, while I also support the right to universal early childhood education. If parents wish to edicate their children, or provide for their education privately, I don't think the state should get in the way; equally, I don't think the lack of financial means should prevent any child from having an education available to them.

This where you get into choice issues. Given that the state generally controls the curriculum this takes choice away from parents. Also given that the state here for instance funds all 3 levels we are dependant on their choice of allocation, is it the Hechman curve that shows that allocation of resources should be a weighted toward the early years which is the opposite of the state approach and probably more in line with a parental approach?
By definition the state does get in peoples way, as the average family here or in other countries pay more then 40% of their salaries in taxes, choice is taken away, private education is not an option , and I'm not talking Rugby schools. How many state schools here teach foreign languages to primary school kids to a high standard or music or the arts? If your logic that all kids should have access to education then % that is up for grabs if the bottom 5% or 10%

Kama wrote: »

whereas it seems the libertarian position is that state allocation is by definition unproductive. The point is assumed far more than it is ever substantiated, while the practicalities of when it is or isnt efficient are of keen interest within public goods theory.

It is taken as being faily axiomatic that state provision of services will be lower quality and higher cost. be it state owned airlines, or police prosecuting victomless crimes that most taxpayers wouldnt pay for if taxes were based on being a fee for service.

Kama wrote: »

Is the principle issue here the coercivity, or the unintended consequences? My feeling is that coercivity is no state monopoly, and can be as easily applied by individuals in relation to each other. States can both coerce, and limit coercion. The strict minarchist retains a state for 'force and fraud'. The issue then becomes definitional, as a wide array of situations can come under these headings, especially fraud.

Hard to seperate , in a western context I'd weight the unintended consequences higher. For instance the Fed trying to manage economic planning. The coercive nature of the state would revolve around the tendancy for gov. to get bigger as well as the freedom issues that have been brought up before. Can individuals act in a coercive manner towards each other, indeed but for the vast majority of people most of the time they wouldn't find themselves in a probelm situation that couldnt be resolved legally or via insurance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

DF, frankly I expected your belated return to pack more of a polemical punch.

Deep Easterly still requires a reply, I did my best in your stead

Donegalfella wrote:

Have we become so accustomed to associating "working class struggle" with the anti-capitalist, statist Marxism of the twentieth century that we forget how deeply the nineteenth-century British working classes were defined by their ingrained, instinctive libertarianism?

Is it ingrained, or is it instinctive? This issue seems to recur...But it seems I did not fail to represent you accurately, as I had feared I might through hyperbole:

Kama wrote:

The logic is quite simple; all that is good in late-modern society comes from capitalism, and more precisely, the pure strain of libertarianism within it

The Chartists were an umbrella group of working class mobilization against the restrictive form of democracy of your 'Golden Age', or for a more materialist reading a move for political rights to gain economic benefit, a 'knife and fork, bread and cheese question'; they varied widely in ideological composition, including Luddites and Socialists, physical force and moral, free-trade and protectionist, agricultural and industrial, and so on, and can be interpreted as 'embryonic socialism' in relation to their awareness of their class location, and as a histrorical precursor to Labour.

How convenient, and as usual unsubstantiated, to lay claim to the entirety of the social development as 'defined by their ingrained and instinctive libertarianism'. Instead, there were a range of tensions within, unsurprisingly a factor in its collapse. There are, undoubtedly, sections which fit well with a demand that the classic liberal rights, so recently extended to the middle classes, also extend those less economically well-endowed. But to limit the movement to purely this, I argue, is indeed selective:

'the few have governed for the interest of the few, while the interest of the many has been neglected, or insolently and tyrannously trampled upon...taxation must be made to fall on property, not on industry...the good of the many, as it is the only legitimate end, so must it be the sole study of the Government.'

Such a statement as this in The Peoples Charter sounds suspiciously similar to that tyrannous majority, ever-threatening individual liberty, inflicting grievous harm on the property of the oligarchs for that destructive 'redistributive' lie, the 'good of the many'. What tragedy, the pure libertarian strain defiled by admixture so early

(btw silverharp, I'd be eager to discuss patent rights further, either in relation to libertarianism and their status as 'property' here, or more generally elsewhere. Inefficient rent-seeking monopolist parasitism, to be blunt)