On Libertarianism

For several months i was a libertarian of sorts. I certainly believe in people's personal freedom and the elimination of red tape, but what i cannot bring myself to agree with is a totally unregulated market.

Libertarians argue for a free market because of their core ideology, but a free market would cause Stark Capitalism, impoverishing workers and enriching powerful Capitalists. that reality would not bring about more freedoms, but rather more power and control for Capitalists, causing less freedom.

that was when i stopped being a libertarian. i agree with freedom but their economic policy is poor. it is too bad that those two concepts are linked. libertarianism has attractive non-economic values.

[Gorgo]

Actually, no regulations would mean socialism. Without regulations to tell us whose property is what, without regulations to create corporations, then everything would be owned by everyone.

What Libertarians and Republicans usually mean by free market is a market that is regulated against the lower class for the benefit of the upper class.

i think you are taking it too far and describing anarchy. a free market is beneficial to the upper class because they have capital with which to do anything they want, often to make more money. the easiest way to do that is to cheat people out of their money. in stark capitalism that would be the norm.

and for the last time, socialism and communism are really, really different. germany is socialist. the USSR was trying to be communist, but stopped at dictatorship.

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs, Libertarians argue for a free market because of their core ideology, but a free market would cause Stark Capitalism, impoverishing workers and enriching powerful Capitalists. that reality would not bring about more freedoms, but rather more power and control for Capitalists, causing less freedom.

What many people do not understand about free-market capitalism is that it only involves voluntarily trade. In a free-market economy, you are not forced to trade with anybody. For example, consider a common argument of the anti-Wal-Mart crowd- that a new Wal-Mart is bad for the community because it will put small, locally-owned businesses out of business. They speak as if Wal-Mart is forcefully coming in a closing down it's competitors. This is not the case. The real case is that, given a choice that they did not previously have (before the new Wal-Mart opened), consumers now voluntarily choose to trade with Wal-Mart instead of the locally-owned businesses that they may have shopped at before they had the extra choice.

Your argument against free-market capitalism seems to depend on the existence of large monopolies. I don't see why a free-market would be more likely to create monopolies than our current economy. Less regulation would result in more entrepreneurship. This would cause more competition, and competition is the best defensive against monopolies. You also have to consider that, in a free-market society, a monopoly can only exist if the consumers allow it to exist. If a monopoly existed that consumers were opposed to (such as one that somehow caused less freedom, as you described) all they would have to do is cease to voluntarily trade with this monopoly. If a big evil monopoly existed that people disliked, this would provide a large incentive for somebody to create a competing company that lacked the attributes that people disliked about the previous monopoly, and it would provide a large incentive for the consumers to trade with the new company instead of the one that they dislike.

Regarding improverished workers; again, in a free-market society a company can't force somebody to work for them. People must voluntarily decide to trade their labor with an employeer. Since this is a mutually-beneficial trade, employeers also have an incentive to provide their workers with desirable work conditions. If there are two competiting companies, and one has good work conditions and the other has poor work conditions, more workers would want to work in the better work conditions. This means that the company with better work conditions has a larger pool of workers to choose from and is able to hire the best workers out of that pool, while the other company gets whatever is left. This is why companies have an incentive to provide desirable working conditions- they are rewarded with better employees.
Also, as we can see in modern society, the existence of global free-market capitalism has been causing the incomes of the poor to increase. Not only are they increasing, but they are actually increasing at a higher percentage than the incomes of the rich. (Source) Contrary to popular belief, the gap between the rich and poor is not increasing. Although sweatshops may seem horrible to us here in the US, they are better than the previous working choices available to these workers, or else they wouldn't have choosen to work there instead of their old jobs. This brings us back to how free-market capitalism only involves voluntary trade. Here's a key concept to remember; When two people trade voluntarily, they wouldn't have done so unless they were both made better off by the trade.

[Gorgo]

Well, generally the problem with globalization is that free trade doesn't exist.

The IMF, NAFTA, the WTO, these are not instruments of free trade, but of neo-colonialization.

A corporation sells rice that is subsidized by the U.S. government to Haiti, which drives peasants off their land to work for some sweatshop that sub-contracts to Disney for long hours for next to nothing. Are they better off? Not likely. Their income statement is larger, but they are now slaves.

[Milton Bradley]

This supports Gordo's position.


I found this at The Brookings Institute. I highly recommend that you all look around the Brooking site after reading this. Something tells me this will inspire you to do so.


http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20040107.htm


Milton's RANT ...
Osborn and I, being good citizens ( your laughter here ) were watching C-SPAN the other day during the World Trade conference talks. We learned that our elected politicians are playing a little "word definition" trick with us, the American people.



We learned that there two definitions of the term "Free Trade".


To talk to an economist, they would tell you that free trade means the ability of any person to buy any product from any other person without government interference, no matter where that person may reside.


The definition of "free trade" used in government documents such as N.A.F.T.A. , G.A.T.T. , the World Monetary Fund , and The World Trade Organization is quite different. They're definition of free trade specifically states that the products being produced are more mobile than the facility that creates them.


As we see in our current ecomy, they is a massive outflux of jobs leaving the U.S. for foreign shores, and it all seem to come from companies that trade on the Stock Exchange. The fact that they are responsible to show the most profit for the shareholders means they must seek the cheapest operating cost, witch means outsourcing to the cheapest product available. Many even move there factories, thereby violating the treaty we signed, and negating any good effcts it might have had here at home.


My simple plan, since there are no non-globalist politicians getting any press, is for all Americans that care about their country, is to take all monies out of the Stock Exchange, take all monies out of any 401K accounts, and put your money into local credit unions.


Then boycott all companies that sell stocks in any stock exchange until We the People are heard by our elected offials

[Milton Bradley]

My whole point of this post is that the way we are operating now, with the current rules in effect, is that companies that trade on any stock exchange, are continually, and perpetually disenfranchizing any American who does not already have money.


Believe me when I tell you that there are plenty of us (who have no money ) out there that are being screwed by our own elected officials.


The question is ... How do we go about changing the laws/rules we have had stuck up our backsides?


I happen to believe this is all intentional. The sad thing is that the people who are doing these types of thing are the ones who are screwing their own progeny. Isn't that incest?


Every day that passes makes it more difficult for me to mask my contempt for stupidity/assholia.

[Comrade]

You can't cut yourself off from the world economy.
One of the main detractors from communism is that it works (in theory) at the nation-state level, but it had trouble dealing with things like foreign investors (thus one of the USSR's laws, it was illegal to own foreign currency, and the non-certificate ruble had no international value, and only high ranking party officials could shop in "closed" stores, where foreign goods were sold for certificate rubles)

It works the same for any form of economy.


Pure capitalism, as opposed to free markets, is definitely not the way to go. It is self-destructive, as the "bourgeoisie", or those with capital, could monopolize the market (and the easiest way to control anybody is through economics, see ex-slaves post-civil war). At the far extreme, if everyone works for one company, that company is the de facto government, and can force competitors out of business, and you have communism (or an oligarchy) again.
This is Marx's train of thought, almost, I just realized, only quite backwards.
Low amounts of regulation is good, but moderation is the key.

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by Gorgo, A corporation sells rice that is subsidized by the U.S. government to Haiti, which drives peasants off their land to work for some sweatshop that sub-contracts to Disney for long hours for next to nothing. Are they better off? Not likely. Their income statement is larger, but they are now slaves.

Well first of all, government subsidies are not a part of free-market capitalism. Second of all, as I addressed in my previous post, introducing a product at a lower price than what is currently being sold for in that market is not an initiation of force. In your Haiti example; the consumers now have an added choice that they did not have before. Either they can buy rice from local farmers at the same price they had been buying it before, or they can now buy rice at a cheaper price from American exporters. If they value supporting their local farmers as much or more as the price difference between the local rice and the imported rice, then they will buy the local rice. If they value cheaper rice more, than they will buy the cheaper rice. American rice sellers cannot come over and forcefully put Haitian workers out of work. If Haitian rice workers are put out of work, then it is a result of voluntarily decisions- not force.

Also, is it important to not use the term "slave" inaccurately. Being a slave means that you lack self-ownership, and that somebody else has more of a claim to your life than you do. This is not the case for the example you describe. The workers voluntarily decide to change jobs as opposed to working in rice fields, where they cannot make as much money as they would like to. Nobody forced them to come work in their factory.

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by Comrade, Pure capitalism, as opposed to free markets, is definitely not the way to go. It is self-destructive, as the "bourgeoisie", or those with capital, could monopolize the market (and the easiest way to control anybody is through economics, see ex-slaves post-civil war). At the far extreme, if everyone works for one company, that company is the de facto government, and can force competitors out of business, and you have communism (or an oligarchy) again. This is Marx's train of thought, almost, I just realized, only quite backwards. Low amounts of regulation is good, but moderation is the key.

I provided arguments for why this would not be the case. If you want to critique my arguments, then you should do so. You shouldn't just repeat a claim that I just finished proving untrue without explaining how anything I had said is wrong.

[Gorgo]

Well, that's the whole point isn't it? The statement was made that people are better off than they were before because of the new colonialism. That's absurd. Some may be. However, mostly it's the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. This is not a free market as it stands. This is Reagan's kind of "free market," where you deregulate things for the mobsters and regulate everything for everyone else.

Originally posted by donkrabbit, Well first of all, government subsidies are not a part of free-market capitalism.

[donkrabbit]

No, the statement was that global free-trade benefits everybody. As basic economic theory can show us, an increased amount of competition results in higher quality goods at a lower price. This raises the standard of living for everybody.

I have already disproved the claim that the "rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer";

Originally posted by donkrabbit, Also, as we can see in modern society, the existence of global free-market capitalism has been causing the incomes of the poor to increase. Not only are they increasing, but they are actually increasing at a higher percentage than the incomes of the rich. (Source) Contrary to popular belief, the gap between the rich and poor is not increasing.

Simply repeating a claim that I have just finished disproving, without providing any extra evidence to the contrary, adds nothing to the conversation.

I never said anything about "deregulating things for the mobsters and regulating everything for everyone else". Please keep the strawman arguments to a minimum.

Quote: Bob_Dobbs

Libertarians argue for a free market because of their core ideology, but a free market would cause Stark Capitalism, impoverishing workers and enriching powerful Capitalists. that reality would not bring about more freedoms, but rather more power and control for Capitalists, causing less freedom.

Gorgo:
What Libertarians and Republicans usually mean by free market is a market that is regulated against the lower class for the benefit of the upper class.

Actually, you're both wrong.
Libertarians believe in Free Markets with rules standardizing economic activity and ensureing private property. This means a level playing field where anyone can reap the rewards of their efforts. There is no descrimination for or against individuals, or companies, wealthy or not.

[m3talsmith]

I know that most of this thread has been on free-trade. But I hope that people realize that libertarianism is not only about free trade. It's about freedom to decide in anything except the abuse of another persons rights.

Take for instance Medicare/Social Security (insert laugh on the security part here).
Let's start with freedom from paying for an older persons medication that you don't know; if you don't want to. However if you want to you can form a private group to help care for the elderly, go around collecting volunteer funds for it, do a massive campaign letting it be known that it's available. Then you could let the elderly choose to be in it or not, and even do things like allow members/donors to the fund choose from the list of elderly to have their funds go towards that one. Maybe the donors could even "adopt" one to take care of as their own elder in the family.

That's just a small example. And that's Free-Trade and Enterprise at work.

To be a Libertarian is to help others in the best way you can: free them.

Good post m3. It's so painfully obvious that free markets are far more efficient at distributing goods and services to where they are needed. In your Medicare example, just imagine a medical care system unburdened by billions and billions dollars spent on government inspired red tape and beurocrats. I had surgery several years ago and was informed that at least one third of the surgeons bill was needed to pay is malpractice insurance. Your example illustrates how the charitable nature of individuals could help pay the elderly's medical costs. How about envisioning a system where charitable donations are not necessary.

[Gorgo]

What would we expect a former member of the World Bank to say?

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp

http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf

Originally posted by donkrabbit, I have already disproved the claim that the "rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer";

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by Gorgo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gorgo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What would we expect a former member of the World Bank to say? [/b]

That's a fallacious argument. The fact that he is a former member of the World Bank does not prove that his study is wrong.

<!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo,


[/quote]

This website focuses on poverty statistics between the years 1820 and 1992. I could not find any data more recent than 1992. The website I linked to is specifically about how, between the years 1980 and 2000, world poverty has decreased. Although your website may be true, and the gap may have still been increasing in the year 1992, it is no longer widening today when trade is more globalized. I think that 1980-2000 is a more appropriate time period to look at if we're discussing the affects of globalization on world poverty because there was not much large-scale globalization happening before this time.

[Gorgo]

You didn't read the pdf file then?

[donkrabbit]

No, I didn't have time to read a 73 page document in search of a single statistic. Can you point out certain page numbers to me?

[Gorgo]

Page 1