tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post115473081215269276..comments2023-08-18T04:37:47.001-04:00Comments on Byzantium's Shores: chronicling the misadventures of an overalls-clad hippie: Another Answer....Kelly Sedingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10704114189919711467noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-1155221834103958132006-08-10T10:57:00.000-04:002006-08-10T10:57:00.000-04:00Taken as a whole, yur post is an excellent brief f...Taken as a whole, yur post is an excellent brief for conservatism-the sensible middle ground between "liberals" (a misnomer if there ever was one, since true liberals believe in limited government), who think all problems are solvable by means of federal legislation, and libertarians, who see little need for any government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-1154868311574909102006-08-06T08:45:00.000-04:002006-08-06T08:45:00.000-04:00Wow -- this may be the most content-filled comment...Wow -- this may be the most content-filled comments thread ever on this blog! I should diss the Libertarians more often! (Though I'm surprised I haven't been attacked by any Objectivists yet. Come on, Randroids of the world! Here's something to get you started: a thing can be A and not-A at the same time!)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, just a couple of brief responses to points made above:<BR/><BR/>1. I don't think that the fact that Enron did lots of business with the government really makes a difference. My point wasn't to suggest that Enron was an example of the free market in action, but to point out that even in today's regulatory climate, a big company screwed a whole lot of people because it had a profit motive to do so. Remove regulation, and more big companies will screw more people.<BR/><BR/>2. I'm not sure that the fact that we didn't have an income tax until 1911 makes a difference -- did taxation only become theft on that date? Did government do only good works with their tax receipts before 1911?<BR/><BR/>3. Of course we had roads and stuff before the income tax. We also had a markedly different kind of economy (more agrarian based than industrial), different social structures (people would live out their whole lives within miles of a certain location), and different styles of commerce (much more highly localized). To suggest that the unregulated market worked just fine way back when the horse and wagon was the main means of transportation seems to me like suggesting that since a screwdriver works to do <I>this</I> job, it should be sufficient to do <I>that</I> job too. Never mind the fact that the carpenter knows that <I>that</I> job really calls for a sabre saw, a block plane, and a file. (And that's assuming I even grant the premise in the first place that everything was hunky-dory with the functioning of the Free Market back then, which I don't. The robber-baron era was not something I'd like to see recreated in today's economy.)<BR/><BR/>3. I'd like to reiterate that I'm not a blanket "government is better" liberal. There are many times when a market solution is preferable (see a perfect example upthread, Buffalo's waterfront). But again, I reject the notion that the Free Market can solve all problems, as well as the notion that a problem that can't be solved by the Free Market isn't a problem at all.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments, folks!Kelly Sedingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704114189919711467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-1154846231045915332006-08-06T02:37:00.000-04:002006-08-06T02:37:00.000-04:00Jaquandor, your attempt to understand Libertariani...Jaquandor, your attempt to understand Libertarianism is interesting.<BR/>I see one misconception that stands out loudly to me regarding the free market.<BR/>You associate the likes of Enron as being free market, as I would think you would say the same with Halliburton, Big Oil or something closer to home like NYSEG or National Fuel.<BR/>To a Libertarian, these corporations are not anything like free market, since they are all firmly in bed with government by choice or by the entrapment of regulation. They more resemble the old English mercantilism where the government guarantees its favorites a virtual monopoly in their industries in exchange for it being a cash cow for the politicians. <BR/>The free market exists only outside of government intervention. Corporations that exist and grow by way of government sanctioned monopoly, cartels or Corporate Welfare cannot be free market since they are essentially immune to the risks and responsibilities of market competition. In Enron’s case, it shows they are also more easily prone to corruption and waste just like government.<BR/>Are farmers who take federal subsidies free market? Are U.S. corporations that get guaranteed sales from foreign countries paid for with taxpayer dollars by way of so-called foreign aid free market? <BR/>The key to understanding the true meaning of the free market these days is understanding the difference between a Market-Entrepreneur (Capitalist) and a Political-Entrepreneur (Neo-Mercantilist). The failure of conservatives and modern liberals alike is not understanding there is a difference at all.<BR/>When a Libertarian say’s taxation is robbery, he is correct in that a majority of our tax dollars do not go to fund the legitimate operations of government, they are simply forced transfers of our wealth to politically connected corporations and special interest groups who vie for government largess and protection from competition.<BR/>The problem with people is they don’t recognize when their pocket is being picked, like a talented pickpocket, the government has been picking everybody’s pocket repeatedly in so many ways without most people even realizing it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-1154843716219406912006-08-06T01:55:00.000-04:002006-08-06T01:55:00.000-04:00Thanks for this post and for articulating your exc...Thanks for this post and for articulating your excellent points so well. This has made me think twice before cavalierly invoking libertarian ideals . . .Jaynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074268040905268502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-1154842978336058192006-08-06T01:42:00.000-04:002006-08-06T01:42:00.000-04:00He he. You opened a can of worms. :)When you say...He he. You opened a can of worms. :)<BR/><BR/>When you say:<BR/><BR/>"Who is going to build the roads in your society? Who is going to put out the fires? Who is going to defend your borders? Who is going to prosecute murderers?"<BR/><BR/>I would point out that our nation managed to accomplish all of this, and more, for over 130 years, without picking the pocket of the common man. The income tax was not introduced until 1911.<BR/><BR/>Hence the "stolen money" line you hear so often. <BR/><BR/>If government ended with those things, the libertarians would most likely shut up. I would. But it's when you're filling out a form to ask the government if you can keep a bit more of your income because you spend some of it in way that they approve (and saved the reciepts) that you start to ask yourself, "Is this how free people live?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-1154831268489165412006-08-05T22:27:00.000-04:002006-08-05T22:27:00.000-04:00Imperfection is never going to be eliminated. The...Imperfection is never going to be eliminated. The best one can hope for is a system that exploits people the least. The main reason I believe the market can do things faster and cheaper than government is that government, through the act of regulation, creates a new level of bureaucracy. That has both direct and indirect costs which affect development and the cost to consumers. If you look at most major inventions throughout history, I think you will find that there was no government involvement or very little. The atomic bomb is a notable exception to my previous statement, governments are very good at developing destructive weapons. The government also creates the needs for those weapons.<BR/><BR/>Even though you haven't endorsed a libertarian free market philosophy, the dialogue you have sparked is a relevant and useful one. Your perception of the current short-comings of our government helps to focus on the cause rather than typical band-aid solutions. You mentioned <I>unintended consequences</I> in the original post and that is one of my biggest criticisms of government solutions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-1154821978809461092006-08-05T19:52:00.000-04:002006-08-05T19:52:00.000-04:00Thanks for the comment, but I am in no way convinc...Thanks for the comment, but I am in no way convinced. The market is not rational because <I>people</I> are not rational, and the idea that the market will rush in to fill every need strikes me as little more than hand-waving faith. Governments are imperfect because <I>people</I> are imperfect; governmental imperfection does not imply that the market is better.<BR/><BR/>Also, the idea that the market can always do things quicker or cheaper than the government is at odds with established history (the market tends to be largely ambivalent about the kinds of basic research that often end up underpinning unforeseen technological developments many years later) and, well, an unprovable article of faith. Sure, you can look for some partial governmental cause for just about every problem that faces a society, because societies always organize themselves into governments.<BR/><BR/>(You'll note that despite my refusal to adopt a Libertarian faith in the free market, I've never claimed that government is always better or more efficient at doing things than the free market. Your example of the Buffalo waterfront is a perfect example: all they need to do to develop that area is set some zoning requirements so we don't end up with a big pile of crap out there, sell off the land, and let the developers go to town.)Kelly Sedingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704114189919711467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-1154815464377831752006-08-05T18:04:00.000-04:002006-08-05T18:04:00.000-04:00Libertarians do value liberty highly. It is a liv...Libertarians do value liberty highly. It is a <I>live and let live</I> approach as you say. I fail to see how it is necessary to curtail someone’s <I>freedom</I> in the cause of <I>equality and justice</I>. Equality refers to equal opportunity not redistribution of wealth schemes. Libertarians do advocate a minimal set of laws preventing harm to others. Outside of harming others, what other curtailments to freedom would be necessary for <I>justice</I>? Liberty is the absence of coercion of a human being by any other human while causing no harm to others.<BR/><BR/>Most Libertarians do acknowledge the need for a limited government to perform some basic services. Whether that includes building roads and putting out fires is debatable. Let’s assume for a moment it does not, just for the sake of speculation. In this type of libertarian world I hardly think people would just stand by and watch their houses burn down. There would be a need to address. Many communities across this country function quite well with volunteer fire departments. The main tenant of libertarianism regarding government is that it has grown vastly beyond its necessary scope. This has had a stifling effect on real economic growth and innovation. The issue of public property is debatable and is more a matter of degree. Saying there should be absolutely no public property is an extreme statement not representative of all libertarians. That being said, there are many instances of public property leading to abuse by the government and being detrimental to the citizens. A perfect example would be our un-developed waterfront that has been owned by the NFTA for many years. Had the area been private property, I am sure that a free market would have developed it long ago. Private property has value and the market responds to real value. Public property has no real value because the people in charge have no risk or financial incentive to develop the property. The current plans for development have resulted from years of voters’ disgust with the lack of progress. The motivation is re-election. As it is, another government bureaucracy has been created to oversee (good patronage jobs here) the development.<BR/><BR/>Overall, the free market solves problems more efficiently and in a less costly manner than the government. Enron is more an example of government gone bad than it is the result of a free market economy. The problem was not the lack of government involvement with Enron, but rather the close relationship between Enron and government. Enron in fact was deeply involved with the federal government throughout the 1990s, both through its lobbying efforts and as a recipient of large amounts of corporate welfare.<BR/><BR/>While you speculate on whether or not the free market would have put men on the moon, you need to answer the following question. Was there a need to put men on the moon? If the answer is yes, the market would have responded. As far as satellites and global communication goes, the free market would have done it quicker and cheaper. The same goes for digital computers and the internet, which just happens to be facing more threats of government regulation and interference. Those example are exactly the type of innovation a free market thrives on. I am not going to get into the Hitler question now, it is much too complicated and my response is already lengthy. I will only say that the factors leading to Hitler’s rise to power predate him by many years and resulted from policies of government interventionism.<BR/><BR/>The concept that Libertarians are only looking out for number one is a myth, mainly due to a lack of understanding. No individualist or libertarian denies that people influence each other all the time, and surely there is nothing wrong with this inevitable process. What libertarians are opposed to is not voluntary persuasion, but the coercive imposition of values by the use of force and police power. Libertarians are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory pseudo-"cooperation" imposed by the State.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-1154809485279100602006-08-05T16:24:00.000-04:002006-08-05T16:24:00.000-04:00Interesting! First, I am not offended. Thanks fo...Interesting! First, I am not offended. Thanks for taking the time to compose this answer. You raise some excellent points, ad yuo also raise a few I'd like to discuss further. Rather than post "War and Peace" in your comments, I'll address them over at my place.LC Scottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09372776060364698141noreply@blogger.com