Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Offalycool

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok. But my point is the market is always distorted in this case. Or, to put it another way, the idea that we can regulate mans behaviour to remove what you perceive are negative effects of human participation in the market, protectionism and bailouts; would leave behind something else. It would not be a market, because what we refer to as a market has protectionist elements, and insurance policies through and through. Supposing for a moment it was actually possible, to create the circumstance whereby man found it extremely difficult to be underhanded (even if this morally ambiguous idea simply achieves this by permitting everything), the Libertarian ‘market’ would not be a market as we understand it, it would be something that has never ever existed in history before. Now call me cynical but I suspect the reason for this is man himself, and we haven’t proven to be particularly good at regulating our own behaviour on such a foundational level in a conscious way before.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with this.

Protectionism happens when governments take it upon themselves to regulate the natural flow of trade in markets.

I don't agree with this.

Protectionism is a human instinct. It has existed long before the state, or kingdom.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

trade protectionism is just another expression of the human need to protect its interests.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

Whoever has the means to protect their interests. Not everybody is in a position to protect them, and this is why people that can, will at the expense of others. I don't know much about the protectionist policies of the 1930's but I know a thing or two about protectionism. I'm moved by the plight of the third world, but I'm not going to move there and live in a refugee camp.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Information on media consolidation in the U.S. are widely available, but here's a simple chart

Yes? Can we have statistics on the ever-decreasing number of pharmaceutical companies, please?

http://www.biojobblog.com/uploads/file/pharmaconsolidationtimeline.pdf
(originally from NY times)

There are fewer airlines today than ever before? Source?

There are fewer airlines with a bigger market share and we are going through another round of mergers and consolidations. Many 'independent' airlines are actually owned by bigger airlines giving the illusion of increased competition (like the media and motor industry)

We have fewer retail outlets now than there were in, say, 1950? Stats, please?

There are fewer retail outlets controlling a bigger market share than before, I don't have time to trawl the net looking for statistics I guarantee that in the U.S. the number of retail corporations controlling the majority of the market has shrunk as the market has de-regulated.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They could be brought before a court if they were dealing drugs in front of your property, and you felt that such an activity violated your property rights.....
Instead of a simple law like "no dealing drugs" We end up with a complex set of legal precedents surrounding where one can and can not deal drugs, and all of these precedents would be open to be challenged at any time by any lawyer creating whole new precedents....

Where have I been dishonest? Unlike the socialists, I don't aim to design a utopian system in which any and every problem will either disappear or be solved by the "democratic will of the collective."

You just did it again, calling us 'utopian'. If we go through your answers to my questions about increasing crime, homelessness, child abuse etc. your answer was always essentially "that wouldn't be a problem".

Your system is much more utopian than mine—absolutely everything gets resolved down at the town hall. Crime, exploitation, chicanery, and human misery just cease to be. Everybody is educated, happy, and fulfilled.

Everything gets addressed through democratic and accountable means, they don't all get resolved, and nobody ever said they would, but at least anarchism recognises these problems and proposes ways to address them. Libertarians just believe that the free market will be so efficient that crime, homelessness, poverty, disadvantage, pollution, etc would all melt away

The courts would not be an a priori presence in people's lives. People would be brought before the courts only when they had aggressed against the liberty or property of another. How is this "coercive"?

Because they are 'brought before the courts'. They might not believe that they had in fact, aggressed against their fellow man, but they would be 'brought before the courts none the less. If the courts exist, and have the power to 'bring you before them' then they are no less omnipresent and no less a threat to your liberty than 'the state'

I seem to remember that in your anarcho-socialist society, anyone accused of a crime would be unable to avail of legal representation, and jurors would be instructed to reach decisions on the basis of their "conscience." I see a great irony in you criticizing a libertarian judiciary for its complexity, while insisting on an alternative system that would be open to rampant abuse.

Where did I say there would be no representation, I said there would be no lawyers, but people would be free to represent themselves, or appoint someone to represent them.
I suggest the jury would decide based on their conscience, and also the evidence (the second part was implied, it shouldn't even have needed to be brought up, are you suggesting that anarchists are in favour of psychic courts?)

I'm not proposing radical changes to the legal system. A great deal of burdensome, unnecessary legislation would be repealed,

By who? legislators? like a government?

and we would revise the sentencing system—with restitution preferred over incarceration for non-violent criminals. But the courts themselves would continue working in much the same way. And yes, the ultimate goal of the courts would be to "decide things." I'm sorry if that's not progressive enough for you, but issuing verdicts seems to be an intrinsic and thus unavoidable function of the judiciary.

Will there be competing courts? Will the courts be privately funded, private companies? You never answered those extremely relevant questions. (I know many libertarians are in favour of a minimal state purely for defence and law and order, but aren't these the two most coercive elements of the state? in that they are the method through all the other supposedly coercive aspects of the state are enforced)

Coercion is to initiate action against the person or property of someone against his will or without his permission.

So you can only be 'brought to court' if you agree to attend?

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you really have to denigrate every single source people use that doesn't agree with your position? If you bothered to read the link I posted instead of wiki-ing baran and sweezy you'd see that it mentions some texts on the dissipation of competition in capitalism.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There was a study that compared the level of propaganda in the media between the 'totalitarian' soviet union, and the 'free' united states during the cold war. The result that both countries had almost identical levels of propaganda (towing the party line versus independent reporting of events)
The point of a controlled media is not to control the reporting of events, but to control the spread of ideas. When 90% of all the media outlets are owned and controlled by 5 corporations, 90% of the news reporting will be biased in their favour, and this affects how whole societies think.
Your simplistic analyis "look at all the shiny magazines and newspapers on those shelves, look at how much choice I have" completely fails to grasp the point that it's largely an illusion of choice and that when something important happens, the owners of the media will make certain that their point of view gets the best possible spin.
(if you think the media is free, why do so many U.S. citizens still believe that America found 'WMD' in Iraq?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/

And yet airfares are lower, and more routes are opening up, and more people are flying to more places than ever before....

And the control of the industry is dominated by fewer and fewer companies.

And yet more people are buying more things at more competitive prices than ever before.

In sum, consumers have access to more media, more drugs, more air travel routes, and more consumer goods.... and the Marxist is warning us about— what, exactly?

You denied that the tendency is towards monopoly/oligopoly. When I demonstrate that trend, you change the subject.

Akrasia

I think it's quite funny that most people look at science fiction movies like 'alien' and robocop, where the society is essentially controlled by a few massive corporations who do very bad things and think "OOh, those bastards"
while DF will look at the same movies and think "I bet they have cheap cornflakes"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you have no problem with drug dealers selling heroin outside your house?

I don't quite follow. Why would this even happen? And if it did, why would it be a problem? We already have complex legal precedents surrounding many jurisprudential issues, and somehow the courts still manage to enforce the law.

these precedents are all referenced to the constitution and legislation. If there is a failure in the way the courts interpret laws, the legislature can introduce laws to deal with that. Who are the legislators in your system?

Disputing your kneejerk presumption that the incidence of all of the above would increase in a more libertarian society is not the same thing as saying that they would disappear entirely.



As I've said above—libertarians believe that these problems would be less widespread in a more libertarian world. Nobody has said anything about such issues "melting away."

Well I'm not nitpicking when I say that when you combine homelessness, drug addiction, extreme inequality and a complete lack of any social welfare or support system, you're guaranteeing that there would be increases in crime and civil disorder.

The judiciary would not have the power to levy taxes,

Merely 'fines' and 'fees' for their services

start wars

the irish state has never started an aggressive war, or the constitutional power to engage in one

monopolise services

but do have the power to put fine companies out of existence

conscript people into armies

Ireland doesn't have consciption or the constitutional power to demand it

So there would be no professional legal representation. How can you have a coherent legal system without lawyers? You'd really have an accused murderer defended by -- his girlfriend? His mother?

Why do you need a lawyer to defend a murder trial. I'd much prefer jessica fletcher. Lawyers are experts in rhetoric and points of law. Murder trials should be decided based on what evidence there is that the accused is guilty. There could be experts in evidence gathering and forensics brought in for trials of serious crimes, but that would be no different to the current legal system.

What does it mean to decide a case "based on conscience"? As in "my conscience tells me he must have done it, so he's guilty"?

You would decide if he did it based on the evidence, you would decide if he was justified in doing it, based on your conscience. That's the fundamental justification for a trial judged by a jury of your peers. They're all supposed to decide on the basis of their conscience, but where perversions of justice come from, it's often because they are restricted from passing the correct verdict because of obscure points of law.

Many libertarians would retain the judiciary within the realm of the state, but anarcho-capitalists would favour privatizing the court system. Since this thread is about the theory and practice of libertarianism, I'm assuming the former, although I personally support the latter.

At least the former is slightly coherent, if a little inconsistent given their opposition to all forms of state coercion, if they allow the state to maintain the police force and the army to enforce it's laws.

No. If you are accused of a crime, you would be obliged to attend the court.

by force if necessary?

Lets leave the libertarian courts aside here for a minute, I'd love to know how your private court system would operate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You believe in private courts system, I believe?


Just as Akrasia et al tell us we cannot see the socialistic ideal due to our prejudices etc, and our failure to think outside the box, I think Akrasia is guilty of this when it come to Libertarianism. The drugs example is a classic: people resorting to sensationalist drug dealing scenarios (usually in front of you children and always in front of your house) that fail to see the drugs market outside the way it is modeled today. A good article from The Economist that was one of the reasons I was bent towards legalization. Of course that article argues on the basis of economic and social advantage; it completely ignores the personal liberty dimension of the argument.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who mentioned anything about them being disinterested in Sweezy? And what exactly does the obiturary have to do with the topic at hand? Once again you decide to insult me and denigrate the sources provided rather than engage with the questions. You may think that in some way this is giving you the upper hand in the debate, but meanwhile Akrasia for one has taken apart your position and you've been able to do very little to stop it. You may think that linking to unrelated obituaries in order to deflect totally from the issues makes you right, because you say so, but I doubt that outside the one or two neo-liberal fanboys who agree with you anyone is impressed. I'd really like to know what exactly you thought the above post was meant to achieve, besides being intended as an insult to me? Was it perhaps to show that you're jealous of the education Sweezy received, attending the London School of Economics and whatnot?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

brianthebard, do you think donegalfella would be in a better position if he adopted your tactic; that is to leave the thread entirely when it becomes uncomfortable and only come on now and again to thank posts that agree with him?

Or, of course, theres always the "No" option; that is to openly refuse to address posts that might lead to you conceding some point, as seen in all its glory on the electricians thread yesterday.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who the hell said it was a critique of Sweezy? Why don't you provide your own critique?
Turgon are you just here to make some pot shots for DF, or do you have something to contribute? Do you really have such an issue with me clicking a thanks button on someones post, because if so I suggest you leave the internet for a while, you're taking it too seriously.

Kama

Taxation is always a coercive imposition; it is nothing more than bonded servitude and legalised theft.

Property is theft; property is freedom. Taxation is theft; taxation is freedom. Different people emphasise different aspects, I'm of the (pluralist) opinion that there's evidence and reason for both sides, and to claim theres just one creates a dangerously impartial view of reality. Thats my epistemological conviction, in case anyone is counting...

Given that libertarianisms reliance on the concept of contract, the Grover Norquist 'drown the State in the bathtub' approach, seems to me like reneging on contract. You receive services from the State. including territorial security, law, a functioning economy etc. This context allows you to make money, earn profit, etc, and taxation is the rent which you pay for this. It's legitimate, since by inhabiting a country and participating in its economy, you derive benefits, and pay a share of the cost for the production of these public goods of which you partake.

Coercion is to initiate action against the person or property of someone against his will or without his permission.

Follows on from tax; by using the facilities and territory of a soveriegn state, you are bound to accept its laws. This constitutes a contract. If you refuse to pay your tax, for example, then the initiating party is the non-paying libertarian, rather than the state-legal system which hauls you away. To argue that the State in this case is the initiator of force requires a little intellectual gymnastics, similar to proving that 1 = 2 by using an infinite series and playing with the brackets.

The classic analogy for such an implicit contract is the restaurant meal; we eat together, and at the end we pay the bill. The libertarian argument seems to be that while he ate the food, this does not form an implicit contract that he should pay his share.

More abstractly, if the extreme minarchism which is advocated could lead to a functional polity and economy, we'd likely see more examples of it in the anarchic free-for-all of the world-system, and societies would trend towards it if the benefits were so clear, all other things being equal. It's not, which leads me to suspect its not a possible or competitive equilibrium; the libertarian expects, ironically enough, a free lunch.

Kama

'insult me...are you sober...leave the internets....'

>_<

Does anyone else want to address the thread?

I think maybe I'm the one 'taking it too seriously'

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you really have such an issue with me clicking a thanks button on someones post,

No, I have an issue with the other two methods of debate you adopt - leaving threads or openly ignoring posts when it becomes uncomfortable for you. Although Im hardly surprised you didn't address those two things.

Sand

There was a study that compared the level of propaganda in the media between the 'totalitarian' soviet union, and the 'free' united states during the cold war. The result that both countries had almost identical levels of propaganda (towing the party line versus independent reporting of events)

Was there ever a Watergate in the USSR where some brave reporters brought low the Kremlin administration?

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

No, I have an issue with the other two methods of debate you adopt - leaving threads or openly ignoring posts when it becomes uncomfortable for you. Although Im hardly surprised you didn't address those two things.

People aren't allowed leave threads without your say so now? Or ignore posts if they choose to? Should I also have replied to every other poster on the electrician's strike thread? I would've thought a liberal such as yourself would allow me to choice of what posts I reply to without reproach.

Kama

Sorry for being prissy, I just hate to see an otherwise-interesting thread degenerate into personal recriminations and aggressive behaviour. This thread is for discussion of libertarianism; try to keep on-topic.

Tracking back:

We have an argument on monopoly formation and concentration of ownership. If I'm not misrepresenting, the lib side concedes that concentration of ownership/monopolistic trending exists, but argues that it is not pathological, and leads to greater benefits.

We have an ongoing argument over the status and operations of a legal system in a libertarian or fully-privatized scenario; the anti-lib claim seems to be that distribution or allocation of freedom would be inequitable, due to transaction costs, differential ability to pay or absorb costs, etc.

And imo we have an argument over public goods provision, whether recompense for the appropriation of current goods (privatization of the public) or the ability of a libertarian economy to generate them (Silverharp, this may take us back to Star Trek ).

Relatedly to public goods provision and taxation, we have the foundational status of coercivity in relation to liberty. If any action which impedes on private property rights and the person without consent is necessarily coercive, what are the implications for democratic practice, given that unanimity constitutes an elusive goal for any (not rigged) democracy, and hence any action which 'aggresses' against any individual can be viewed as coercive, rather than consensual and contractual by virtue of acceptance of a democratic system.

More macro again, whither democracy for a true anarcho-capitalist? Given that the primary mode of democratic expression currently would be the State, what mechanisms are to replace this, if the 'withering away' were accomplished?

What other key issues do people think are interesting/relevant? Is there a particular one anyone would like to focus on?