Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The source of the pollution, in the situation I mentioned above, is everyone, each polluting a little which builds up cumulatively in the eco system.

That's usually how pollution works. The environment can usually deal with a certain level of emissions. What happens when there are 3 factories on a river polluting just enough that there isn't serious damage to the water quality/aquatic life, but if a 4th factory is constructed, the water will degrade rapidly. Who would be sued, the extra factory who added the extra pollution, or the 3 factories that had already been there?

I'm not nit picking here. Externalities are a major problem that libertarianism can not adequately deal with, and the proposals appear so cumbersome that in order to be effective, they would have to be extremely oppressive and therefore counter productive to libertarian freedom (ie, the fines imposed by the courts would have to be higher than the profits that can be generated by breaking the law, would have to be punitive or else they could just be paid and added in as another cost of doing business (and would operate like a pollution tax/license

Anyone whose property or person is affected could sue. Including you, if you're affected. But no, you can't sue somebody for something that doesn't affect you.

Who isn't affected by pollution? Pollution is pervasive, especially air pollution.

Well, it depends what you mean by that, since, as the proverb says, one cannot step in the same river twice. But yes, if the river flows through my property, then I "own" that section of river. So if I am affected by pollution, I can sue for damages.

If you own the river, can you charge people for using the water? (can they sue you if the banks burst and their property gets flooded?)

I think it's a much better system. Libertarians simply demand that everyone be respectful of the liberty and property of others, and reserve the right enforce those rights by law, if needed.

But you freely admit that people are inherently competitive and selfish, and if you mix a litigious society with selfishness and greed, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what will happen.

I've asked brianthebard to explain why he believes Sweezy's argument to be correct—or preferable to alternative arguments—and he refuses to do so. If I said to you, "God exists, because the Bible says so," I wouldn't consider you out of line if you objected to that brand of non-logic. And yet brianthebard can say "Capitalism is inherently unstable, because Sweezy says so"—and it's inappropriate to question that assertion?

No, he said 'I believe sweezy when he said capitalism is inherently instable. That's different to saying it's because sweezy said so.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In Ireland, there are no property taxes on PPR, there are no other taxes if you choose to live 100% self sustainably on your lake isle of inishfree.
Why is it an example of 'freedom' because it may be possible, if you go to great lengths, to live 'off the grid' to escape a monopoly electricity provider, but not freedom to go to similar lengths live self sufficiently in a manner that avoids all government taxes.

Because consuming a service such as electricity is a choice. If you don't like the company's terms, you can buy a wind generator, set it up in your backyard, and tell the electricity company where to go. You can't choose not to pay taxes. If you can't voluntarily opt out, it's coercive.

unless you get sued by your neighbours for having a noisy or unsightly wind turbine in your garden which violates their rights to peace and quiet....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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

every action has a consequence so a gov policy to do anything is as likely to have negetive consequences somewhere else or at best the same resouce cannot be consumed twice, transferring wealth from one group by definition must effect their freedom of choice and options in life (the unseen)
If you accept that people are in some way property of the state then taxation is not theft, otherwise logically it must be as its not a payment for services received and it is not voluntary.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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.

I see no reason why everyone has to go though the same system and since even a family with the smallest of incomes pay 1000's in tax every year its not an all or nothing proposition. As for your privately funded schools by definition they are unaffordable to most, if people were not taxed they would have the opportunity of using them.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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?

The democratic accountabiliy is very weak though , I cannot withold part of my taxation if I think a portion is being wasted. Re property rights, I meant it in the context that you imply that the state must be involved in certain activities, the alternative is that people should manage scarce resouces themselves as they have the stongest rights to such resources, the benefit being that they will be put to better use.

Akrasia wrote:

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? .

How many financial transaction does a person make in a year? 100's , does an instance of a supposed monopoly negate the argument? why does the monopoly exist? are they providing a better service then potential competition?

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, you didn't. You never asked me that question.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

Lets try and attack the arguments, not the people. We have a designated 'slugfest' main thread to yell at each other

I see 3 fascinating questions here:

One: The legitimacy or coercivity of taxation. Is taxation justified, or an innately a coercive imposition on liberty?

Two: Monopoly formation and free markets. Beyond 'hurrah-boo', can we get a argument on this debate, rather than merely alluding to its existence? DF, I'd agree that the reality is more nuanced (always an easy thing to agree on), but what are the nuances?

Three: Pollution, externalities, and torts. If the ability to access effective legal counsel is restricted by ability to pay (as it already is), does this not mean that the law is unequal in practice? A larger body can absorb larger costs. Does this have implications for a libertarian legal system?

In cases of diffuse externalities (public 'bads'), how is an individualized tort and property system efficient? Eg, my factory does 1 billion worth of assessed damages, divided equally between 1 billion people. The cost per person of seeking recompenese is > $1, and it is hence perverse for any individual to bring suit.

Kama

No, you didn't. You never asked me that question.
....
Doing quite a good job of ducking and weaving today, aren't we?

Pff, if either of you spent half the time answering each others questions as evading them, then complaining that the other does likewise...:rolleyes:

brian, what aspects of Sweezer do you find convincing, and why?

DF, what is flawed or incorrect in Sweezer, or what alternate position on monopolies is more plausible?

If you accept that people are in some way property of the state then taxation is not theft, otherwise logically it must be as its not a payment for services received and it is not voluntary.

Without accepting that the person is state property, taxation can be viewed as a payment for services received. Income is accrued through use of a developed network of previously-existing social capital (a society that accepts the rule of law, a system which enforces contracts, a working financial and currency system (lol@that currently tbh), and the host of 'services'; the context in which you can make money is not something produced by the individual, but is pre-existent.

As Akrasia says, you can attempt to live off-grid and without using the 'System', but use of the 'System' makes payment of a rent more contractual-reciprocal than confiscatory-coercive. My 2c.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll assume that by linking to two completely unrelated posts instead of the post where you supposedly asked me a question you're admitting you are wrong again. Tbh its pretty sad that you had to create a set of rules for your own thread but can't apply them to any other situation or to your own posts.

brianthebard

Kama wrote: »

brian, what aspects of Sweezer do you find convincing, and why?

In capitalism to be successful your company has to grow, every year, by several percentage points, the more the better. If there are 100 businesses trading in a given commodity/market they can't all grow at the same rate at the same time. Some will gain market share and some will lose it. Over time this inequality will become more pronounced. As Sweezy points out in the link I originally provided;

P.M. Sweezy wrote:

The way to succeed in a competitive market is to cut costs and expand production, a process which requires incessant accumulation of capital in ever new technological and organizational forms. In Marx’s words: “The battle of competition is fought by cheapening of commodities. The cheapness of commodities depends, ceteris paribus, on the productiveness of labor, and this again on the scale of production. Therefore the larger capitals beat the smaller.” Further, the credit system which “begins as a modest helper of accumulation” soon “becomes a new and formidable weapon in the competition in the competitive struggle, and finally it transforms itself into an immense social mechanism for the centralization of capitals” (Marx, 1894, ch. 27).

Cut (costs), expand (production) and accumulate (capital) are the three processes by which a company grows, and the most stable and long lasting method of ensuring growth is to compete with as few as possible. Through expansion and accumulation a business (or businesses) can exert virtual monopoly/ oligopoly control over a sector.

Sand

In capitalism to be successful your company has to grow, every year, by several percentage points, the more the better. If there are 100 businesses trading in a given commodity/market they can't all grow at the same rate at the same time. Some will gain market share and some will lose it. Over time this inequality will become more pronounced. As Sweezy points out in the link I originally provided;

This assumes it is consistently the same business gaining a greater and greater market share. Or that old markets dont close and new ones open as supply and deman alters over time.

Cut (costs), expand (production) and accumulate (capital) are the three processes by which a company grows

No time for innovation then? The discovery of new products/markets?

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

No time for innovation then? The discovery of new products/markets?

Covered under expansion don't you think? Especially 'the discovery of new products/markets', you're almost using a synonym for expansion there.

Sand

I wouldnt agree - music companies have been for years attempting to expand production of CDs. Has not really worked out for them so well.

brianthebard

I'm not sure what your point is?

Kama

Therefore the larger capitals beat the smaller.

I'd agree with Sand, that this is a highly static analysis; there's no Scumpeterian 'creative destruction', there's no disruptive technology, the necessary telos is one giant OmniCorp.

Especially in a small country like Ireland, you can make an argument that too much competition can be inefficient as their exists the conditions for a natural monopoly in some industries, or more broadly that monopolies can be justified from increased efficiencies or from economy of scale. While there may be initially efficient reasons for a monopoly, the lack of competitive pressure creates a strong incentive or hazard, especially if there are high entry costs/sunk costs as a barrier to competitors.

Monopolies, whether state or private, are somewhat renowned for inefficiencies. Competition or antitrust are the standard legal or regulatory solution to predation, to structure a regulatory environment of competition. ordoliberal in European market theory...which brings to mind Silverharps youtube joke about the 3 corporations:

'if i charge too much, its a monopoly, if i charge too little, its predatory pricing, but if I charge the same its collusion and cartelism!'

brianthebard

Kama wrote: »

I'd agree with Sand, that this is a highly static analysis; there's no Scumpeterian 'creative destruction', there's no disruptive technology, the necessary telos is one giant OmniCorp.

Two things there, that's actually a quote from Marx that you've labelled as Sweezy, sorry if that wasn't clear enough. And he does mention that there's more to it than that one static situation later on in the article, I just wasn't bothered with linking to it again when I did so on the first page and it was ignored.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you believe the market is some objective thing, removed from human behaviour, then it’s no surprise you believe the market is distorted. However, I believe the market has always come after humans, and so if I was to look at the market from your point of view, it has always been distorted (or at least since man settled and became agricultural). Since agricultural settlement man has cultivated wealth, both for himself and the collective. Man found security in provisions for the future and protection from robbery and murder. The Kingdoms of the past were expansive developments of the agricultural tribes of the past, which again, protected ‘law and order’, and ‘property rights’ of the kings conquest (and lets not forget his subjects).

Similarly, the State, a development of the rise to political power of the mercantile class or Bourgeoisie, saw the democratisation of power in the name of expansion of wealth. Again, the state was interested in law and order within its borders, and the conquest of resources without (Property rights are particularly perverse when you consider the rights of man were suppressed in the colonies until the west went home, leaving a few rights behind them to protect their interests abroad).

Citizens of a state require the state to expand exponentially; the desire for surplus production (security) is too great. The state is required to blend business with policy, in the interest of greed. Of course this is unstable, but we have yet to find any other model we adapt, never mind agree on! A government, indeed any centre of power will never be free from lobbying, because a government will be politically pressured by the people to provide the circumstances for expansion, and this creates conflict both with neighbours and the environment.

Bad an all as this is, this is always preferable to internal conflict, so the Leviathan ticks over and over, destroying the surplus it can’t use and gobbling up as much as it can. I’m afraid to say we may well see the whole show go down the crapper someday (perhaps in our lifetime) and Anarchy may well come once again, but I doubt it will be the sort any of us would choose. On the other hand, life in a backwater capitalist/socialist/democratic island like ours is pretty good as far as things go, I can go to collage and study philosophy and get involved with advocating rights for Asylum seekers, how cool is that! So I for one am not complaining too much, except when there is the remote chance it can actuality change something.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats not an answer. "thats for the courts to decide" is not an answer to a question that implies that courts would not be able to make reasonable decisions on these matters.

I gave you a specific example of a case of water pollution caused by the cumulative actions of 4 factories. Which one of them would be sued? Would they all be sued? Who would be allowed to sue them? who would receive the damages. If it became profitable to sue companies for damages, what is to stop nuisance class action law suits from professional litigators. Would the courts have discretion about which cases to hear? What happens when the courts are corrupted and refuse to hear cases against the big corporations? Who will investigate the courts for corruption?...

If the courts are privatised and there are competing court systems chosen on basis of 'reputation', it couldn't possibly work as the prosecutor would want the court with the reputation as the harshest, and the defendent would want the court that is most likely to find in their favour, and if there was a dispute the guilty party would just refuse to pay the fine using the Saddam defense. How would the non coersive libertarian society 'encourage' (for want of a less oppressive word) the offending party to abide by the court ruling.

One could say exactly the same thing about your idea that town hall meeting would have to be held to determine whether someone could ride a bicycle, own a toothbrush, or hang a painting on his wall. And you're worried that the libertarian system would be too cumbersome?

Again, you deliberately distort what an anarchist society would be like. There would be a standing constitution for each collective that would be decided in a series of democratic votes and meetings, these would form the ground rules on a day to day basis. Once these were established, people would be free to challenge them on an ongoing basis if they felt they were unfair or outdated, but to say that every meeting would be dominated by disagreements over toothbrushes is just taking the piss.

Yes, you can charge them for using the water. Yes, you can charge for fishing rights. Yes, you can be sued if you are negligent. What part of this doesn't make sense to you, Akrasia?

So you can charge for fishing rights on your section of the river. Can you sue the fellow upstream if he also has an income from fishing rights and is so successful that he stops fish from getting to your part of the river?

How would the courts decide whos rights take precedent?

Wouldn't the courts be introducing regulations by the back door?

Akrasia

brianthebard wrote: »

In capitalism to be successful your company has to grow, every year, by several percentage points, the more the better. If there are 100 businesses trading in a given commodity/market they can't all grow at the same rate at the same time. Some will gain market share and some will lose it. Over time this inequality will become more pronounced. As Sweezy points out in the link I originally provided;



Cut (costs), expand (production) and accumulate (capital) are the three processes by which a company grows, and the most stable and long lasting method of ensuring growth is to compete with as few as possible. Through expansion and accumulation a business (or businesses) can exert virtual monopoly/ oligopoly control over a sector.

I agree with this analysis also. I was at a conference in NUIG's Economics dept a few years ago about theories of capital accumulation (SSA theory)
More information can be found here http://ssagalway.blogspot.com/

In order for capitalist systems to be stable (not collapse) they must develop social structures that accommodate profits and protect capitalists against short term shocks. These structures are the same structures that facilitate consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few and a declining share for the majority. The long term trend is always towards monopoly

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

This assumes it is consistently the same business gaining a greater and greater market share. Or that old markets dont close and new ones open as supply and deman alters over time.

The old dominant companies expand through acquisition into the new technoogy markets.

It doesn't have to happen in every case, old companies will close down, but more often than not, they will merge with other conglomorates and use the power of their assets to dominate the new industry.

New companies can still open up and be very successful (google for example) but the trend will always be towards large companies eating up the smaller competitors and this would only be amplified if there weren't any anti trust legislation or regulations on the behaviour of corporations.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But it'll all work out in the end.
You oppose the state and regulations because of the theoretical possibility that the state can enact a law to tax your home grown potatoes, but you simply gloss over all the countless issues that would arise in the implementation of capitalist economy with no regulations other than the fear of being sued for infringing on the property rights of others.

The only people I can see benefiting from such a system would be the armies of lawyers who would never be short of work interpreting the increasingly complex series of legal precedents and 'laws' (however they're made without a legislature)

Well, of course there would. Libertarians don't generally pretend otherwise. We don't envision some kind of collectivist paradise on earth; we certainly don't anticipate that every inequality, every dispute, every want, every need, can be resolved without acrimony by the "democratic will of the collective," leaving everyone happy and fulfilled 100 percent of the time.

You feign offense that you think I am accusing you of being a utopian, but in the very same breath you accuse anarchists of the exact same thing. A little bit of honesty would be nice.
Show me where I or anyone else said that anarchism would be "leaving everyone happy and fulfilled 100 percent of the time"

The libertarian goal simply is to build a more moral, just, and free society based around the ideals of individual freedom and voluntary cooperation. People act out of free will; they are not coerced by some majoritarian mandate. They are free to come together in their families, communities, and social circles—but nobody owes "society" anything. Analogously, nobody can wield the power of the state against his or her neighbour. If my teenage neighbour gets pregnant, she can't compel me to care for her child through state coercion—although I can do so voluntarily, if I wish, through charity.

You have yet to explain how the power of the state is bad and coersive, but the power of the courts is good and 'free'. You have yet to explain anything at all about the courts other than that they will decide things. (which is extremely unsatisfactory seeing as libertarians propose very radical changes to the legal system but refuse to explain how these changes would work

The ultimate goal of libertarianism is to free people from coercion. The goal of socialism, however, is to ensure that the individual is never free from coercion. He can never throw off the shackles of collectivism. You yourself in another thread have admitted that a person in your ideal society could not ride a bicycle or hang a Picasso on his wall unless the collective permits it. To the individualist libertarian, this is nothing more than Orwellian totalitarianism.

Please define coercion. It seems like you're just defining everything that's libertarian as 'free' and everything that's not libertarian as 'coercive'

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Look at media consolidation in the 20th century
Look at pharmaceuticals
Look at Airlines.
Look at retail outlets and the rapid expansion of Wallmart and the corresponding decline of independent retailers...

Mergers and acquisitions by the most powerful corporations in the world, as individual companies fail or go through hard times, they're swallowed up by another company which gets more and more powerful in the marketplace and gains monopoly or oligopoly powers.
There are mechanisms in place at the moment to prevent companies from merging if it would give them too much market power (eg if Intel was allowed to buy AMD) which would be absent in a libertarian world

Here's a talk at the conference I mentioned a few posts ago.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=1680850307856727280&hl=en

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.