Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Exile 1798

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if they want to gamble with numbers on screens then that's their problem, there are trillions of derivatives out there few times larger than the world economy

the only reason that the banking fiasco became our problem, is because the government made it our problem

Dogma.

It wasn't a "banking fiasco" but a major, catastrophic economic collapse caused by a lack of government regulation and oversight.

If your dogmatic beliefs win the day against needed reform then we'll be setting ourselves up for yet another disastrous crash down the line... which you will then offcourse also blame on the government.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

Again it appears your issue is with THE government (i.e. FF) same as me, not with government in general.

I disagree, and I think the rise in liberatarianism can be partly attributed to a lack of faith in government in general, rather than specific practitioners (FF).

There's the major issue of moral hazard that has been addressed. Big governments create the impression (often true) that they will bail people out if things go wrong; hence the increase in risk taking. The latest group to demand a bailout is the travel operators, who feel they have a right to government money because of the volcanic ash debacle.


A major criticism of government as a system is this. Politicians are primarily interested in getting re-elected. When an interest group calls to Kildare Street the politicians will want to satisfy them, in order to win their votes. Take the aformentioned travel groups. They want, say, a €10 million bailout. If there are 1000 operators, that amounts to €10,000 each, a sweet deal. There are, say, 2 million taxpayers in this country. They each contribute €5 to the bailout, which they don't really feel because it is comparatively small. So by bailing out the travel agents the politicians have won 1000 votes, without losing any.

This is because, fundementally, the benefits of government spending are concentrated, whereas the costs are diluted. Hence, governments tend to increase spending, not for the social good, but just for a particular interest group.


This thing spreads beyond spending. The taxi drivers want less taxi licences issued. This policy will hurt consumers: as the supply of taxis drops, the price will go up. However the government will tend to side with the taxi drivers because the benefits of the policy are concentrated amongst taxi drivers, whereas the price increases are diluted across consumers in general.

joehanley55

Laminations wrote: »

Just while I have the attention of libertarians, how would your ideology deal with the prevention of a tragedy of the commons? Or how woul you deal with repeats of Fingers Fingleton? We are constantly reminded the man did not break any laws however with his mismanagement he has enriched himself and harmed others, why should he care that his institution is in the toilet when HD sits on €27million?

as for the tragedy of the commons, that is predicated on there being a shared land that is destroyed by being used by everyone. in a libertarian society, private property would reign (theoretically) and therefore people would have an interest in mantaining the natural resources. thats why when african governments ban hunting of animals they generally die out because no one cares about them. but when the animals have been made the property of the person who owns the land they take care of them and treat them as renewable resources and therefore they flourish.

as for fingers fingleton, he had that company and he f'd it up. anyone who got involved in that company in any shape or form without having all the info took a risk, and now they have to pay for that risk. it may seem harsh, but before they get involved in another company they will be sure as hell to check all the info first, and that will help society flourish and be smarter in the future. get it?:P:(:rolleyes::pac::cool::mad:

meditraitor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Thats a very in-depth answer...

?

Its common knowledge that libertarian fundamentalists are notoriously difficult to debate with because they all differ from each other in some way, they narrow the field of debate so much that even if they are not right they are right.... as I said previously they are just Sophists with some strange concepts.
They misrepresent other economic, historic and justice matters to suit their arguments, I would without a shadow of a doubt put them in the same camp as scientologists...

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I rather agree with you that aggressive government action would have been called for in that case. A strange argument for a Libertarian to make, but a welcome one.

One thing that didn't stop the great fires of London - moral hazard. Just like it didn't stop Wall Street inflating and collapsing the world economy. What's needed is strong and effective Fire Brigades, and strong and effective regulations.

ei.sdraob

meditraitor wrote: »

Its common knowledge that libertarian fundamentalists are notoriously difficult to debate with because they all differ from each other in some way, they narrow the field of debate so much that even if they are not right they are right.... as I said previously they are just Sophists with some strange concepts.
They misrepresent other economic, historic and justice matters to suit their arguments, I would without a shadow of a doubt put them in the same camp as scientologists...

You fancy getting involved in the thread and contributing something insightful

or do you wish to waffle away?

I clearly outlined that Libertarianism is like Atheism, instead of lack of faith in religion one has lack of "faith/trust" in state

and you turn around and call libertarians as "scientologists"

yes very insightful :rolleyes:

fontanalis

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you wouldn't get a tragedy of commons when there is no "commons" :cool:#

lets not forget that Fingers was helped along by a certain government

It was still greed and stupidity, it still exists no matter what influence government has or doesn't have and that's what I don't like about libretarianism (apart form the magical entity called "the market" knowing everything, which is almost like a religion) is that it seems like it assumes in general that people aren't greedy and stupid. People talk about the crisis being as much caused by the government (although Irelands unique brand of corruption didn't help), however "the market" didn't stop doing stupid things, "the market" in the US wasn't forced to securitise junk and and make up dodgy intruments. And they sure as f*** weren't handing back the bailout money.

ei.sdraob

fontanalis wrote: »

It was still greed and stupidity, it still exists no matter what influence government has or doesn't have and that's what I don't like about libretarianism (apart form the magical entity called "the market" knowing everything, which is almost like a religion) is that it seems like it assumes in general that people aren't greedy and stupid. People talk about the crisis being as much caused by the government (although Irelands unique brand of corruption didn't help), however "the market" didn't stop doing stupid things, "the market" in the US wasn't forced to securitise junk and and make up dodgy intruments. And they sure as f*** weren't handing back the bailout money.

If someone is stupid and/or greedy then eventually they get burned

Nationwide and Anglo are our problems now because they were made our problems

by socializing the risk, we allowed the people responsible get away with a "soft landing"

fontanalis

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If someone is stupid and/or greedy then eventually they get burned

Nationwide and Anglo are our problems now because they were made our problems

by socializing the risk, we allowed the people responsible get away with a "soft landing"

I don't agree with making Anglo and Nationwide the societies problems but large organisations like this will still act in their own self interests and effect alot more than themselves.

Oh yeah, and if pets were libertarians.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I disagree, and I think the rise in liberatarianism can be partly attributed to a lack of faith in government in general, rather than specific practitioners (FF).

Nope, its just FF, and has been for a long time, which is why its hard to get younger people to vote - they recognise the lack of real choices and are disillusioned with the whole process.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A major criticism of government as a system is this. Politicians are primarily interested in getting re-elected. When an interest group calls to Kildare Street the politicians will want to satisfy them, in order to win their votes. Take the aformentioned travel groups. They want, say, a €10 million bailout. If there are 1000 operators, that amounts to €10,000 each, a sweet deal. There are, say, 2 million taxpayers in this country. They each contribute €5 to the bailout, which they don't really feel because it is comparatively small. So by bailing out the travel agents the politicians have won 1000 votes, without losing any.

Thats not how it works in Ireland, its a better description of the system in the US. Here the votes and campaigns are regional, a thousand votes spread across the entire country isn't worth much. Lobbying by interest groups is viewed as more of a distraction from the actual process of getting re-elected, which is why the government bowed to anyone who made enough noise over the last ten years, and don't have a workable long term plan for the nation as a whole. They have no incentive to care.

Anyway what you are talking about is more properly called corruption, which happens in all walks of life. If you don't like it, run for office and change the rules, its as simple as that.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This thing spreads beyond spending. The taxi drivers want less taxi licences issued. This policy will hurt consumers: as the supply of taxis drops, the price will go up. However the government will tend to side with the taxi drivers because the benefits of the policy are concentrated amongst taxi drivers, whereas the price increases are diluted across consumers in general.

Taxi licences are a bizarre situation in Ireland. On the one hand, taxi drivers have no reason to cut their fares because they are receiving much fewer of them with the number of licences issued, and are forbidden to advertise lower prices, thus distorting the market, so the consumer loses out along with taxi drivers. On the other hand, the taxi industry has been used as a dumping ground for people who have difficulty finding work elsewhere, so there is a wider social purpose being served in a very roundabout fashion there.

Exile 1798

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If someone is stupid and/or greedy then eventually they get burned

Nationwide and Anglo are our problems now because they were made our problems

by socializing the risk, we allowed the people responsible get away with a "soft landing"

That's true. Ireland likely could have afforded to let those banks go bankrupt, though we shouldn't pretend that that wouldn't have involved a very real pain of a different sort.

But we're an extremely small fish, we don't have the size or strength to swim against the current. So let's get back to the major cause of the GFC, the epic collapse of unregulated markets on Wall Street. Surely you recognise this failure, and surely you think tough regulations are required to prevent it happening again?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you wouldn't get a tragedy of commons when there is no "commons" :cool:#

Two can play at that game - you wouldnt get a financial crisis when there is correctly enforced regulation

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets not forget that Fingers was helped along by a certain government

That avoided my question completely. Under a libertarian system you all presume that people would behave in the best interets of the company to ensure its continuation. With Fingers we have a man that has behaved wrecklessly and profitted from it. Why should he care about the company when he can go home to his mansion (protected by property rights) and enjoy his €27mil (protected by contractual agreement). Property rights and contractual agreement are two things libertarians think are involved in a self regulating market. So I'll ask again, how would a self regulating market stop men like Fingleton?

joehanley55 wrote: »

as for the tragedy of the commons, that is predicated on there being a shared land that is destroyed by being used by everyone. in a libertarian society, private property would reign (theoretically) and therefore people would have an interest in mantaining the natural resources. thats why when african governments ban hunting of animals they generally die out because no one cares about them. but when the animals have been made the property of the person who owns the land they take care of them and treat them as renewable resources and therefore they flourish.

Tragedy of commons does not simply concern animals or land, but in the animals example you give, what stops a company buying up all shark from the locals who 'own' them and selling them to a market that demands shark meat??

joehanley55 wrote: »

as for fingers fingleton, he had that company and he f'd it up. anyone who got involved in that company in any shape or form without having all the info took a risk, and now they have to pay for that risk. it may seem harsh, but before they get involved in another company they will be sure as hell to check all the info first, and that will help society flourish and be smarter in the future. get it?:P:(:rolleyes::pac::cool::mad:

Yes because we are all adept at economic investigation and auditing. I think you are advocating a very conservative market where lending would stagnate to avoid risk

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I disagree, and I think the rise in liberatarianism can be partly attributed to a lack of faith in government in general, rather than specific practitioners (FF) etc....

Thats just broadening it out to an issue of parish pump politics and still not the idea of government in general.

Akrasia

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There is a significant aspect of moral hazard. With the government around people take more risk, because the government will bail them out if something goes wrong.

This is the standard speil of the libertarian when blaming the government for total market failure.
It's not the markets fault for getting out of control because there was little or no regulation, it's the governments fault for existing, and allowing the bankers to believe that they would be bailed out if their gambles didn't work out. (despite the governments never explicitly saying they would bail bankers out, or if asked, flatly denying that such a bailout would ever take effect, the mere existence of governments is enough to absolve the markets of any blame)

Of course, there were other types of moral hazard other than governments, It is after all, an insurance term.

Most of the hedge funds and speculators had at least one type of insurance that they believed would have protected them. Even insurance risk was insured through re-insurance companies like AIG. There were CDOs and CDS and CFDs and all these different kinds of instruments that were unregulated and designed to hedge against risks.
All it takes for a Moral hazard to be ineffect is the belief that one is covered against taking a risk. If Libertarians are convinced moral hazard ruined the free market, then they should be in favour of regulating insurance markets.. but then they wouldn't be libertarians.....

I have asked libertarians probably a few dozen times how their ideology would have prevented the derrivatives market from ballooning in the way that it did under the light touch regulation of the past 15 years. They never answer that question, rather they go on about enforcing the gold standard and how the fed is evil. (btw, having a gold standard would do nothing to curb speculation in non cash bonds and derivatives.)

The government seems to be viewed as a place where those who feel wronged get cash: the latest group are travel agents who want taxpayer money for the ash-cloud crisis.

Governments find themselves in this position because they are the only entity that is trying to promote long term stability (well, at least until the next election) while markets thrive on chaos and uncertainty.

The reason governments end up compensating people when they suffer losses due to an extreme event, is because to exist as a long term stable economy/society, you can't have entire sectors of the economy wiped out just because of a short term shock.


Libertarians love instability and think the collapse of an industry is a good thing as it weeds out the weak companies and makes things stronger. They call this 'creative destruction'.

Of course, what 'creative destruction' really does is see the small vulnerable companies wiped out while the bigger more powerful conglomerates simply consolidate more and more of the industry and leads to more and more wealth consolidation.
Libertarians, have zero mechanisms to protect against excessive consolidation of wealth or domination of industry by monopolists (that would require effective anti trust regulations, which libertarians are opposed to)

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If someone is stupid and/or greedy then eventually they get burned

So says libertarianism - so how would you deal with men like Fingleton? There would be dozens of men who could play the market, swindle the less informed, make a bad decision after years of good management (ala Sean Quinn), and others will always pay

Laminations

Akrasia wrote: »

This is the standard speil of the libertarian when blaming the government for total market failure.
It's not the markets fault for getting out of control because there was little or no regulation, it's the governments fault for existing, and allowing the bankers to believe that they would be bailed out if their gambles didn't work out. (despite the governments never explicitly saying they would bail bankers out, or if asked, flatly denying that such a bailout would ever take effect, the mere existence of governments is enough to absolve the markets of any blame)

Of course, there were other types of moral hazard other than governments, It is after all, an insurance term.

Most of the hedge funds and speculators had at least one type of insurance that they believed would have protected them. Even insurance risk was insured through re-insurance companies like AIG. There were CDOs and CDS and CFDs and all these different kinds of instruments that were unregulated and designed to hedge against risks.
All it takes for a Moral hazard to be ineffect is the belief that one is covered against taking a risk. If Libertarians are convinced moral hazard ruined the free market, then they should be in favour of regulating insurance markets.. but then they wouldn't be libertarians.....

I have asked libertarians probably a few dozen times how their ideology would have prevented the derrivatives market from ballooning in the way that it did under the light touch regulation of the past 15 years. They never answer that question, rather they go on about enforcing the gold standard and how the fed is evil. (btw, having a gold standard would do nothing to curb speculation in non cash bonds and derivatives.)


Governments find themselves in this position because they are the only entity that is trying to promote long term stability (well, at least until the next election) while markets thrive on chaos and uncertainty.

The reason governments end up compensating people when they suffer losses due to an extreme event, is because to exist as a long term stable economy/society, you can't have entire sectors of the economy wiped out just because of a short term shock.


Libertarians love instability and think the collapse of an industry is a good thing as it weeds out the weak companies and makes things stronger. They call this 'creative destruction'.

Of course, what 'creative destruction' really does is see the small vulnerable companies wiped out while the bigger more powerful conglomerates simply consilidate more and more of the industry and leads to more and more wealth consolidation.
Libertarians, have zero mechanism to protect against excessive consolidation of wealth or domination of industry by monopolists (that would require effective anti trust regulations, which libertarians are opposed to)

Excellent post. Bravo

meditraitor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You fancy getting involved in the thread and contributing something insightful

or do you wish to waffle away?

I clearly outlined that Libertarianism is like Atheism, instead of lack of faith in religion one has lack of "faith/trust" in state

and you turn around and call libertarians as "scientologists"

yes very insightful :rolleyes:

Criticism of libertarianism is destructive. Criticism of society by libertarians is constructive

http://wikiality.wikia.com/Libertarian

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Given that libertarian socialism, ie Anarchism, has existed as a political philosophy long before your version of extremo capitalism climbed out from the swamps, it is insulting that you are now claiming that libertarian socialists have a fundamental misunderstanding of what those terms mean.

Anarchism is a thoughtful, considered and coherent political philosophy. Right Libertarianism is a new refuge for the hard of thinking and their ranks are over populated with paranoid conspiracy theorists who are only suspicious of authority because they think some shadowey one world government is trying to tax them to death.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How would you deal with men like Fingleton who are contractually entitled to their wealth after mismanaging (not illegally) their company?

How would you prevent a tragedy of the commons? The sale of a resource to satisfy market demand and maximise an individuals profits?

How would you address the factual and studied propensity of individuals to pursue short term gains over long term stability?

What would a libertarian system mean to a drug addict? A disable person? A person born in a bad area to uncaring parents?

a deaf persons views after visiting the HQ of the Libertarian Party wrote:

The Libertarian Party believes that the government should NOT “force” everybody to give access to the disabilities. It’s simply up to them whether or not if they want to do that. It’s all about the freedom of choice. If a restaurant does not wish to have a wheelchair ramp, it will lose business compared with a restaurant that does have a wheelchair ramp. And it’s up to people to privately fund the interpreters for deaf people. Discriminating against people with disabilities would not be against the law in Libertarians’ eyes.

The entire Gallaudet University group and another group of hearing students in the program voiced strong disagreement with the Libertarian representative on this specific issue, arguing that if Libertarians are for strict reading of the Constitution – then “All men are created equal” should be taken literally and disability access is not only constitutional, it should be a major priority.

The debate went on for hours and it was a lively discussion full of differing perspectives. I’m glad that we were given the opportunity to meet with the Libertarian Party because I realized that – frankly – the Libertarian Party is naïve. They genuinely believe in the goodwill of humans and honestly do believe that people will give access to disabilities out of pure choice. They do not realize at all nor do they acknowledge the long history of oppression that people with disabilities have encountered and their struggle for basic civil rights.

When you leave helping the poor to volunteerism, where the act of volunteering disenfranchises the volunteer, then you get a lot of poor people getting no help.

You complain at the moment that you have to pay (taxes) more than others. Under your 'charity' system if you were to give money you'd lose out over someone not giving, so you'd be motivated to not give also - unless of course you are motivated by more than money, but thats not the case because you complain so much about paying tax.

Akrasia

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if they want to gamble with numbers on screens then that's their problem, there are trillions of derivatives out there few times larger than the world economy

the only reason that the banking fiasco became our problem, is because the government made it our problem

The main reasons the government made it our problem are because
A, pretty much everyone in the state would have lost all their life savings if the banks had collapsed

B. Without banking and clearing systems, economic activity in the state would have ground to a complete standstill (if only temporarily)

On top of those main reasons, there were of course the complicating factors like the desire of politicians to cover their tracks and protect their own interests, but it is extremely disingenuous to claim that the financial collapse only became 'our problem' because the banks were bailed out.

If the banking system had collapsed, there would have been absolute uproar and blood on the streets as people lost their savings, their pensions, their insurance, everyone would have been totally wiped out leaving only those with un-mortgaged property and other concrete assets having anything of any value. (ironically, those who would also benefit would be the poor, having nothing to lose, would stand to gain from a more equal playing field... fight club stylee)

To those who know me here, (i haven't been posting much recently, too busy) you know that I am extremely critical of the way the governments of the world have handled this crisis. But to have those who did a great deal to cause the problem (self regulation pd libertarian ideologues) trying to pretend that they had nothing to do with the collapse and are the only ones with a solution is just too galling to take lying down.

Laissez faire capitalism has failed miserably. It should be consigned to the dustbin of history, alongside statist marxism.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Cogent arguments have been made by myself and others, they have been largely ignored.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65811434&postcount=53

Which isn't surprising off-course, when dogma is confronted with contradicting facts and reality, it often looks away.

Scofflaw

Again, we're off-topic. While I appreciate that this thread is a very tempting place to have a go at libertarianism, that's not the purpose of the thread. If it's just going to be a handbag-fest, it will have to be closed.

moderately,
Scofflaw

meditraitor

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

bite,,,,, do you ascribe to left or right libertarianism?

Exile 1798

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, we're off-topic. While I appreciate that this thread is a very tempting place to have a go at libertarianism, that's not the purpose of the thread. If it's just going to be a handbag-fest, it will have to be closed.

moderately,
Scofflaw

It would be a shame to close this thread, a lot of very good posts have been made.

However I do reconise the need for moderators to regulate boards.ie for the general benefit of users.;)

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

1857
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque

Paranoid conspiracy theorists? Scientologists? :rolleyes:

Honestly, the quality of debate in this thread would be much improved if libertarianism's detractors could actually make the occasional cogent argument, rather than just flapping their arms and slinging insults.

If you don't believe that conspiracy theory has a part to play in the massive increase in self described 'libertarians' on the net, just speak to any 'libertarian' and quote this phrase "the federal reserve is illegal"

You'll have them whooping in chorus about the evil Fed and how it's run by a cabal of institutional bankers on behalf of the new world order. When you have this view of history as a central belief, that attracts an awful lot of nutters.

Anarchists tend to believe that economies are run for the benefit of industrialists and capitalists, but this is an institutional analysis based on how the system is set up, and anarchists want to alter the rules of the game to change the balance of power. Conspiracy theorists don't do this, they think that everything is being manipulated from behind the scenes and that bad decisions are made on purpose rather than as just a failure of a weak and corrupt system.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, we're off-topic. While I appreciate that this thread is a very tempting place to have a go at libertarianism, that's not the purpose of the thread. If it's just going to be a handbag-fest, it will have to be closed.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Well if that is all we are discussing here then I closed the case on page 4

Laminations wrote: »

I think there is a rise now because more people are looking inward and asking why am I paying this much when person B is only paying this. It reflects a rise in selfishness. People are thinking if they are left to operate under their own steam that they will thrive.

Of course these people (at least the ones I've debated) already have a good means of production - either education or wealth or both. When they attribute blame for the financial crisi they speak of government failure, ignoring the major role private companies played and ironically lecturing on personal responsility in the next breath. The rise in libertarianism comes from the rise in over educated self obsessed individuals who underestimate individual differences, thinking 'if I can do it, anyone can'. They see inequality and accept it.

I would summarise as 'a Freudian-type transference of blaming FF for f***ing up so much in this country to the idea of government in general'.

Laminations

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It would be a shame to close this thread, a lot of very good posts have been made.

However I do reconise the need for moderators to regulate boards.ie for the general benefit of users.;)

This is a private forum whose statutes and members need protecting!! We all choose to be here. How dare you compare it to a country that has statutes and er... citizens who also choose to live in...... I've lost my point

joehanley55

Laminations wrote: »

Tragedy of commons does not simply concern animals or land, but in the animals example you give, what stops a company buying up all shark from the locals who 'own' them and selling them to a market that demands shark meat??

there's nothing to stop someone from buying up all the sharks and selling them, but that would be a pretty short lived business venture, a much better idea for him would be to make shark farms and produce them on a consistent basis. imagine the one guy who didnt sell his sharks to this shark buyer, wat a great monetary investment for him, once the shark buyer has sold all his sharks, the guy who didnt sell's now cornered the market and has gone from a lowly shark owner to a shark magnate cause he was intuitive and smart, now he can make a shark farm and make lots of money... imagine a society where people were encouraged to be productive and helpful to society, instead of the situatioin we have now where its just about how much u can get the gov to do for you. people work things out, and those with bad business pratices generally fail (cept when the government keeps them afloat):pac::cool::eek:

Akrasia

Laminations wrote: »

Well if that is all we are discussing here then I closed the case on page 4



I would summarise as 'a Freudian-type transference of blaming FF for f***ing up so much in this country to the idea of government in general'.

I think there are two types of libertarian, the 'I'm alright jack' type that you've described above, those who resent the government interfering in their ability to make money for themselves. These are the PD voters or less than 2% of the irish population

Then there are the net libertarians, These are people who became interested in politics following 9/11 and joined the 'truth' movement and became sucked into the alex jones-o sphere. It is a vast internet based echo chamber where people are constatly telling each other to WAKE UP and linking to the ludwig Von Mises institute website. They believe the government lied to them about 9/11 and therefore is capable of lying about anything, and therein lies the seed to reject all authority but not the education or self awareness to develop a coherent critical assesment of their newly held beliefs.

It's a really unusual sub-culture that needs further study.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

I'll try and address some of the points made later on; I'm busy at the moment.

I just want to make a point. It seems people here are having a fun time telling libertarians what they are. "Libertarians love instability and think the collapse of an industry is a good thing", "their ranks are over populated with paranoid conspiracy theorists", "These are people who became interested in politics following 9/11 and joined the 'truth' movement and became sucked into the alex jones-o sphere" etc. So what they're effectivly doing is making up some fauz-libertarianism in their head, attacking that made up idealogy the best they can, and then parading around as if they've debunked actual libertarianism.

As to this allegation that libertarians are loonies: two Nobel Economics laurettes are libertarians. Now, who's opinion to trust: a Nobel committee or some posters on boards.ie. I'm perplexed...

BluePlanet

joehanley55 wrote: »

a much better idea for him would be to make shark farms and produce them on a consistent basis.

But why believe this enterprising person would ever want to get into the drudergy of shark farming?
He sees a market and he can make money from it right now.

It's the same thing with forestry.
Buying up rainforest is cheap, the trees are worth money now.
Why should I plant trees and wait around for 60-100 years for them to grow?
Surely it's better to just move into new acreage and cut more, rinse and repeat.

fontanalis

Has there ever been a goverment that libertarians would like to see emulated in Ireland?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So it's either: Let London Burn, or Mob-Rule Demolishes Buildings to try and save their own.

Akrasia

joehanley55 wrote: »

there's nothing to stop someone from buying up all the sharks and selling them, but that would be a pretty short lived business venture, a much better idea for him would be to make shark farms and produce them on a consistent basis. imagine the one guy who didnt sell his sharks to this shark buyer, wat a great monetary investment for him, once the shark buyer has sold all his sharks, the guy who didnt sell's now cornered the market and has gone from a lowly shark owner to a shark magnate cause he was intuitive and smart, now he can make a shark farm and make lots of money... imagine a society where people were encouraged to be productive and helpful to society, instead of the situatioin we have now where its just about how much u can get the gov to do for you. people work things out, and those with bad business pratices generally fail (cept when the government keeps them afloat):pac::cool::eek:

I'm not sure to what extent that post was taking the piss, but I did have a conversation with a libertarian who did genuinely propose protecting ocean life through privatising the oceans and having people farm the commercially viable species.

It was ludicrous. I explained that many species of wild fish have to migrate over thousands of miles to spawn and to feed and simply to follow the ocean currents as temperatures change over the year, and it would be totally impractical to fence off the oceans to protect fish as doing so would cause them to freeze to death in winter and starve or death in summer. The response was predictably insane. The problem was not with the idea of fencing off the oceans, but that our fence technology was not well developed enough yet, and if we put enough research into it, we could develop new fences that could solve all the problems I had raised.

The only chance we have of protecting the oceans is international treaties enforcing regulations to protect the habitat of these species. The free market not only does not help, the fact that the rarer the fish, the higher it's price is, means that left unprotected, within a very very short space of time, we will drive many of our most popular fish species into extinction and the entire ocean food chain would be dismantled

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, we're off-topic. While I appreciate that this thread is a very tempting place to have a go at libertarianism, that's not the purpose of the thread. If it's just going to be a handbag-fest, it will have to be closed.

But they are our own handbags, and we should be allowed do as we like with them. Inalienable property rights and all that.

joehanley55

BluePlanet wrote: »

But why believe this enterprising person would ever want to get into the drudergy of shark farming?
He sees a market and he can make money from it right now.

It's the same thing with forestry.
Buying up rainforest is cheap, the trees are worth money now.
Why should I plant trees and wait around for 60-100 years for them to grow?
Surely it's better to just move into new acreage and cut more, rinse and repeat.

he doesnt sound very enterprising if he doesnt want to opt for the obvious answer and open a shark farm. and like i said if he did sell them all oof, then like i said some oportunistic person probably would not have sold, and also, if he's selling these to the highest bidder, wat a great investment option for someone to buy the sharks off him and open his own farm. the great thing about the market is that you dont know wat its gonna do till it does it, cause measuring consumer wants and needs is very difficult.

also, its hard to believe, but people can decide to buy off this guy or not, if they dont like wat he's doing they are not forced to buy off him. thats wat a non-statist society is, removing force as much as possible.

i understand that some guy who's enherited alot ogf money could go mad and just buy and kill a bunch of sharks, or whales or watever animal you feel strongly about not killing(probably not cows or chickens), and a libertarian society isnt perfect.

but, as im sure you know, the governments of the world arent exactly doing a great job of protecting animals and rainforests at the moment. in fact, i might go so far out on a limb and say are actually helping to destroy animals and the rainforest............:pac::cool::P:confused

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As to this allegation that libertarians are loonies: two Nobel Economics laurettes are libertarians.

So that's two out of... sixty four.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm perplexed...

Indeed.

joehanley55

Akrasia wrote: »

The only chance we have of protecting the oceans is international treaties enforcing regulations to protect the habitat of these species. The free market not only does not help, the fact that the rarer the fish, the higher it's price is, means that left unprotected, within a very very short space of time, we will drive many of our most popular fish species into extinction and the entire ocean food chain would be dismantled

the fact of the matter is that when things are communally owned as you are suggesting, no one has any interest in them, and they die out then cause people will go out and fish as much as possible and rape the oceans. if people have an interest in the resource, then they will try to maintain a steady stream of that resource. by protecting the resource.

your idea of the goverments of the world, who are useless at everything they do, protecting all the species of fish in the ocean using regulations is quite laughable. they may make treaties, but enforcing them would not help them get re-elected, so i dont understand why they would enforce the treaties???:P:P

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

BluePlanet wrote: »

But why believe this enterprising person would ever want to get into the drudergy of shark farming?
He sees a market and he can make money from it right now.

It's the same thing with forestry.
Buying up rainforest is cheap, the trees are worth money now.
Why should I plant trees and wait around for 60-100 years for them to grow?
Surely it's better to just move into new acreage and cut more, rinse and repeat.

If I could set myself up for life by making sharks extinct, would I? no. But could I be sure that someone else wouldn't if there were no regulations? not at all, in fact I'd bet there is someone out there that'd revel in it.

Libertarianism promotes short sightedness as even though we should care about what happens beyond our years, and libertarianism wrongly thinks people do, there are people who don't care and are motivated by immediate gain and feathering their own nests.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How would a libertarian system stop this immediate gain at the expense of future generations??

Oh yes thats right, it wouldn't because a libertarian system doesn't care, it only concerns the individual. It is essentially careless, as you've admitted yourself.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Almost as many as there were nazi Nobel prize winners, by george. Did they win the prize for their work in Libertarianism?

Akrasia

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'll try and address some of the points made later on; I'm busy at the moment.

I just want to make a point. It seems people here are having a fun time telling libertarians what they are. "Libertarians love instability and think the collapse of an industry is a good thing", "their ranks are over populated with paranoid conspiracy theorists", "These are people who became interested in politics following 9/11 and joined the 'truth' movement and became sucked into the alex jones-o sphere" etc. So what they're effectivly doing is making up some fauz-libertarianism in their head, attacking that made up idealogy the best they can, and then parading around as if they've debunked actual libertarianism.

The idea that there is 'actual libertarianism' is flawed. If you take 10 self described libertarians and get them to explain to you what libertarianism is, you'll get 10 different answers.
There is no widely accepted definition of Libertarian that covers all people who self describe as libertarian.
There are so called 'anarcho capitalists' who think there should be no state at all and as much capitalism as possible, there are 'austrian school' libertarians, there are adam smith/thatcherite adherents who just think the government should do as little interfering as possible, but have no real objection to state forces cracking miner skull every now and then. There are the PD style libertarians who just want reduced regulations and more liberal laws on personal freedoms, there are those who want to privatise everything, and there are the conspiracy theorist new world order libertarians who are afraid of the big bad illuminati

I am describing what I see, the majority of libertarians who contribute to Irish message boards do fit the description I gave of them. Of course there are other people who describe themselves as libertarians who are not conspiratorial or who think some government intervention is a good thing, but that's as personal as asking an irish catholic what they think the holy spirit looks like.

As to this allegation that libertarians are loonies: two Nobel Economics laurettes are libertarians. Now, who's opinion to trust: a Nobel committee or some posters on boards.ie. I'm perplexed...

Not all libertarians are loonies, only the loonies are.

P. Breathnach

joehanley55 wrote: »

... a libertarian society isnt perfect...

Libertarian society?

joehanley55

Laminations wrote: »

If I could set myself up for life by making sharks extinct, would I? no. But could I be sure that someone else wouldn't if there were no regulations? not at all, in fact I'd bet there is someone out there that'd revel in it.

Libertarianism promotes short sightedness as even though we should care about what happens beyond our years, and libertarianism wrongly thinks people do, there are people who don't care and are motivated by immediate gain and feathering their own nests.

ya, i cant really understand how making sharks extinct is going to set someone up for life??

and if your quam with libertarianism is shortsightedness, think about wat the alternative to libertarianism, statism. states of the world havent exaclty shown themselves to be long sighted (how much is the natoinal debt at now). and why would they be, they only have to do enough to keep getting elected till they die. wat a great idea public debt was for them, spend loads, dont tax the equivilant necessary, and let people pay for it when you're dead or retired with all the money you managed to loot from the people. i think anyone can see that a libertarian society would be alot less shortsighted than the state system we have now.:cool::mad::):rolleyes:;)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fontanalis

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Libertarian society?

You haven't seen Mad Max 2?

BluePlanet

joehanley55 wrote: »

ya, i cant really understand how making sharks extinct is going to set someone up for life??

You've apparently failed to grasp the concept of short-term profit.
The enterprising person in my example isn't concerned with "settingup for life", naw he just wants to squeeze the blood from this particular stone to give him the capital for his next venture.

joehanley55 wrote: »

i think anyone can see that a libertarian society would be alot less shortsighted than the state system we have now.

And yet you have totally failed to make that case.