Re: Re: Capitalism, libertarianism

[Guest guest]

wholphin48 wrote:

>

>> I replied to a post on AutAdvo, and went off on a tangent that is

>too off topic

>> for that list. I would like to pursue the topic further, so I

>naturally

>> thought of this community..

>>

>> I would love to hear what everyone here thinks of libertarianism,

>particularly

>> regarding economic issues.

>>

>> Libertarianism naively suggests that the private sector will

>come to the rescue, out of the goodness of its heart and eliminate

>the need for all social services, for example. They oppose minimum

>wage laws, unions and taxation in general.

>

> The most attractive part of libertarianism is its stance

>against victimless crimes ( like getting high ), government

>interference with personal lifestyles (alternative sexuality) and

>needless military adventures (Iraq).

>

> Most elected Libertarians hide their social agenda and get

>elected as law and order republicans. They usually don't get further

>than city council type offices because their social agenda finally

>gets revealed.

>

> One good thing about these folks is that they love

>discussions. They run a " toastmasters " program in many cities that

>helped me and many others speak publicly.

>

> Jerry Newport

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

wholphin48 wrote:

> > Libertarianism naively suggests that the private sector will

> come to the rescue, out of the goodness of its heart and eliminate

> the need for all social services, for example. They oppose minimum

> wage laws, unions and taxation in general.

If we had not grown up in a post-Roosevelt America, a place where the

government was thought of as sort of a meta-parent for everyone, and

where high rates of taxation to support such things were normal, we may

not need government-funded social services. Right now, we have grown up

thinking of the government as the natural source of social support

money, and we know that taxes are paid to support that. So why give to

charity now? That's what the government is there for, in part; that's

the idea that most people have.

If people did not have to pay such high taxes, and if they knew that the

government did not provide such supports, they would be much more likely

to donate money to charities. The private sector always does a better

job of managing money than the bloated and bureaucratic government. If

there was social pressure to donate to charity, rather than to pay one's

taxes (which is, in part, a charity of sorts, as it stands now), the

result would be much more donation than we see now.

Minimum wage laws should be abolished. Prices are set by the market;

the market value of a given job is what it is. You can't make a law

declaring that a given job is worth any more than it is worth (just as a

law declaring that a chicken is a sparrow will not make it so). The

" invisible hand " of the market will always adjust out any interferences;

a new equilibrium will be reached, and the people that the minimum wage

was supposed to help would be no better off.

The first result of laws that attempt to set the market price for

low-end jobs that is to reduce the number of unskilled entry-level

jobs... if the market price of a given job is $4.00 an hour, but the

minimum wage law says that an employer must pay no less than $5.25, then

many employers will simply decide not to hire the entry level workers,

and to have existing employees (perhaps on a salary or who already have

been promoted to a level where they make at least the minimum wage)

cover for the job that is otherwise not getting done.

You see this a lot in places like Mc's, where salaried low-level

managers often work monstrous hours, doing work that is typically done

by the minimum-wage workers that they do have, in addition to their

managerial duties. As such, a person who may have used that $4.00 an

hour job to start moving upward on the ladder, toward a job where a

" living wage " is paid, won't have that opportunity.

Minimum wage laws raise the bar, so to speak, over the heads of the very

people they are supposed to help. If you cannot lawfully pay less than

$5.25 an hour, why not hire more skilled or experienced people whose

work is worth $5.25 an hour, or more, according to the market? The

unskilled worker (and that is the person that minimum wage laws are

trying to help, right?) is given fewer opportunities to work. Being

unemployed is not better than having a poor-paying job that will give

work experience, in turn leading to better paying jobs.

In short, it is not for the government to decide how much any given job

is worth. The market decides that. When the government starts meddling

with matters like that, the market adjusts. Ultimately, the result of

minimum wage laws is inflation... the dollars become worth less, until

the real value of the $5.25 an hour (or whatever) mandated by the

government is the same as the market price. The person making the $5.25

an hour would be no better off, because the inflation will have caused

everything he needs to buy to cost more too. At that point, another

minimum wage increase would be needed, and the cycle is repeated.

The libertarian ethos may not favor unions per se, but a libertarian

would never suggest that they be abolished. The right of the people to

assemble for any peaceful purpose is something that a libertarian would

never question. Nor would they question the right of the employer to

hire replacement workers, or to summarily dismiss the striking

(non)workers. Such matters are firmly in the domain of the private

sector, and the government has no business regulating them, one way or

another (the same could be said of minimum wage laws).

The bottom line, as seen by the libertarian, is that a person is

sovereign in his person, and is owned by no one but himself. If a

person owns himself, then he owns all of his labor, and all of the

compensation for that labor. No person, nor any group of people, has

the right to take anything from that person without his consent. Taking

things from people without their consent is called stealing. That does

not change if a majority of the people within the political subdivisions

in which that person lives have decided that they may have a portion of

his income. Take it without consent, and that is theft, no matter how

good or just the cause for which that money will be used.

In other words, there is no more legitimacy to a bunch of elected

representatives deciding to take someone's money or property (against

his will, by force if necessary... and threats of capture and

incarceration for noncompliance *certainly* qualifies as force) than if

a street gang or a bunch of Mafia wiseguys demanded that he pay tribute

( " protection " money) or face the consequences.

The single thing that gives transfers of ownership (of anything)

legitimacy is CONSENT. Convince someone to pay, and it is legitimate;

force him to pay under duress, and it is not. The only exception to

this is in assigning penalties to criminal matters (where an actual

crime has been committed). Most " crimes " are not... as described below.

> The most attractive part of libertarianism is its stance against

> victimless crimes ( like getting high ), government interference with

> personal lifestyles (alternative sexuality) and needless military

> adventures (Iraq).

There is not really any such thing as a victimless crime. Crimes

require a discrete victim. This notion has its basis in the English

common law upon which our government is based. For something to be a

crime, there must be a person that can act as complainant (except in

cases of homicide or in cases where a person is the victim of a crime,

but is otherwise unable to complain about it), a person that was

personally victimized.

There is no victim if a person decides to get high-- even if he ends up

dead as a result. You cannot victimize yourself. There is no victim

when a person solicits a prostitute, and they both consent to sex in

exchange for money or other property. There is no victim when a person

reads (or writes) material that may have been designated as " obscene. "

There is no victim when a person builds a room addition onto his house

without a permit. There is no victim when a person chooses to purchase

and carry a firearm (again, with no permit). None of these things have

a victim... and " the victim is society at large " does not cut it. The

" society is the victim " yarn has been used to criminalize all sorts of

things that have no victim.

In other words, as the libertarian sees it, the government does not have

carte blanche to make any law it sees fit. The legitimacy of a law is

not determined by the fact that it has come from a goverment, whether

that government is democratic or not.

> Most elected Libertarians hide their social agenda and get elected as

> law and order republicans. They usually don't get further than city

> council type offices because their social agenda finally gets

> revealed.

The two-party system has ensured that we don't get any " real " choices

when it comes to major elected offices. With a few notable exceptions

(Rep. Ron , R-TX, for one), no one who fails to toe the Republican

or Democratic party line gets far in state or national politics. The

voters get a choice (at the primary and the general election levels)

between whichever candidates have already been approved by one of the

two parties. Third party candidates don't have a chance.

> One good thing about these folks is that they love discussions.

I had not noticed

[Guest guest]

> If we had not grown up in a post-Roosevelt America, a place where the

> government was thought of as sort of a meta-parent for everyone, and

> where high rates of taxation to support such things were normal, we may

> not need government-funded social services. Right now, we have grown

> up

> thinking of the government as the natural source of social support

> money, and we know that taxes are paid to support that. So why give to

> charity now? That's what the government is there for, in part; that's

> the idea that most people have.

>

> If people did not have to pay such high taxes, and if they knew that

> the

> government did not provide such supports, they would be much more

> likely

> to donate money to charities. The private sector always does a better

> job of managing money than the bloated and bureaucratic government. If

> there was social pressure to donate to charity, rather than to pay

> one's

> taxes (which is, in part, a charity of sorts, as it stands now), the

> result would be much more donation than we see now.

I remember saying exactly the same thing to you on Treehouse a couple

of years ago, and back then, you were arguing that that wasn't the

case. Glad to see you're coming around. :-)

{snip minimum wage theory}

As with so many other financial matters, the libertarians have a theory

that sounds good but that doesn't bear out in practice. The big one

here is that, contrary to what the theory holds, in practice, increases

in the minimum wage have never produced commensurate increases in

unemployment, which means that the theory is either incorrect or

incomplete.

This is a problem for libertarians in other areas as well. For

example, libertarians oppose child labor laws on the grounds that only

a child's parents should be making " parental " decisions, such as

whether the child is ready and fit to work. Again, in theory, that

sounds great -- recognizing parental sovereignty regarding this kind of

decision -- but child labor laws exist for a reason and did not simply

spring up out of a vacuum.

> There is not really any such thing as a victimless crime. Crimes

> require a discrete victim. This notion has its basis in the English

> common law upon which our government is based. For something to be a

> crime, there must be a person that can act as complainant (except in

> cases of homicide or in cases where a person is the victim of a crime,

> but is otherwise unable to complain about it), a person that was

> personally victimized.

It really is surprising how many people don't understand that. As you

rightly point out, there are no victims for quite a few so-called

" crimes " , and in a few cases (such as carrying a concealed firearm),

not only is it victimless, no one other than the so-called

" perpetrator " even knows about it. It's quite beyond me how anyone can

say that carrying a concealed firearm should be a crime when no one

even knows that it's occurring.

> The two-party system has ensured that we don't get any " real " choices

> when it comes to major elected offices. With a few notable exceptions

> (Rep. Ron , R-TX, for one), no one who fails to toe the Republican

> or Democratic party line gets far in state or national politics. The

> voters get a choice (at the primary and the general election levels)

> between whichever candidates have already been approved by one of the

> two parties. Third party candidates don't have a chance.

All very true. And that's not going to change unless and until we have

a better-informed electorate, which is unlikely to happen any time

soon.

[Guest guest]

Clay could u please explain to me about capitaism , as im unsure what it means

.. If u want to pvt me by email that is fine , if not thats ok too :)JEAN

Clay wrote:

chaos bunny wrote:

> I still don't understand why anyone feels they

> have the right to try to stop that, though..

I would recommend reading " The Jungle " or " King Coal " ,

both by Upton Sinclair. They have a bit to say about

capitalism, and how it affects the masses of people.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Try reading a little Milton Freedman. He makes a whole lot of sense.

Re: Capitalism, libertarianism

> Ladybear wrote:

>

> > Clay could u please explain to me about

> > capitalism, as im unsure what it means.

>

> Who, me? I'm Really not the one to expound on

> economic theory, and if I tried, would cut

> me to pieces! ;-) I'm afraid all I could do is

> provide the dictionary definition, as it's much

> too complicated for me to explain. In addition to

> the books I already recommended, there's " Equality "

> by Bellamy. A very old book, it provides a

> viable alternative to capitalism.

>

> Clay

>

> > chaos bunny wrote:

>

> > > I still don't understand why anyone feels they

> > > have the right to try to stop that, though..

>

> > I would recommend reading " The Jungle " or " King Coal " ,

> > both by Upton Sinclair. They have a bit to say about

> > capitalism, and how it affects the masses of people.

>

> > Clay

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>