NationStates Jolt Archive

Gary Nolan and the Libertarians favor small government with economic and personal freedoms. What do you think of Gary Nolan?

I'm gonna wait until 2008. The end of the Bush presidency is a far greater priority for me than voting for who I think is the best candidate

I'm supporting Michael Badnarik.

one day somebody is going to have to explain to me how there are people who claim that they are deeply attracted to right-libertarianism and yet still stay in the republican party and vote for authoritarian culturally conservative warmongers who aren't even all that good at the whole free market thing.

Gary Nolan and the Libertarians favor small government with economic and personal freedoms. What do you think of Gary Nolan?

"economic freedom" means the freedom of a corporation to crush you under its boot and make you into a slave. Wow, I sounded like a communist there. One faction of the right wants to give corporations money, and the other faction wants to take away all the laws that protect you from them. There's a reason we have antitrust laws, minimum wage laws and other such regulations: because for a long period of time, corporations ruled America, turning even our leaders into their pawns. If you want to go back to the trusts, to workers dying of exhaustion on the assembly line, to bankers and robber barons being more powerful than the United States, vote Libertarian by all means.

Gary Nolan and the Libertarians favor small government with economic and personal freedoms. What do you think of Gary Nolan?

I think he is retarded. :)

Big government is the way to go. The government must provide for its people not allow retarded corporations to take over everything.

one day somebody is going to have to explain to me how there are people who claim that they are deeply attracted to right-libertarianism and yet still stay in the republican party and vote for authoritarian culturally conservative warmongers who aren't even all that good at the whole free market thing.

There are at least some libertarians in the Republican Party who know for a fact they are libertarian.

Take for instance Representative Ron Paul ( http://www.house.gov/paul/ ). Sure, technically he's in office as a Republican, but he also has a life time membership to the Libertarian Party and he has previously run as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. If I recall correctly, the only reason he ran as a Republican for the House was because ballot access laws at the time blocked Libertarians from running. So he switched over to Republican and got elected (even after fierce opposition from the Republican Party, as a matter of fact). So, in Ron Paul's case, running Republican was a means to get in the door, where, once inside, he votes on all issues as a real and fierce libertarian.

So, although their ideology is very different from that of the Republican Party, some libertarians feel that the only way to make a difference and really get into the decision making process is to temporarily take a label that will at least assist them in getting elected in the first place. Some may also feel that they can help start to guide a seriously lost party back on to the straight and narrow where it used to be long ago.

That there are Libertarians in the Republican Party is completely normal. The real question here is why there are so many authoritarian warmongers in a party in which, according to pure ideology anyway, they do not belong.

one day somebody is going to have to explain to me how there are people who claim that they are deeply attracted to right-libertarianism and yet still stay in the republican party and vote for authoritarian culturally conservative warmongers who aren't even all that good at the whole free market thing.

There are at least some libertarians in the Republican Party who know for a fact they are libertarian.

Take for instance Representative Ron Paul ( http://www.house.gov/paul/ ). Sure, technically he's in office as a Republican, but he also has a life time membership to the Libertarian Party and he has previously run as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. If I recall correctly, the only reason he ran as a Republican for the House was because ballot access laws at the time blocked Libertarians from running. So he switched over to Republican and got elected (even after fierce opposition from the Republican Party, as a matter of fact). So, in Ron Paul's case, running Republican was a means to get in the door, where, once inside, he votes on all issues as a real and fierce libertarian.

So, although their ideology is very different from that of the Republican Party, some libertarians feel that the only way to make a difference and really get into the decision making process is to temporarily take a label that will at least assist them in getting elected in the first place. Some may also feel that they can help start to guide a seriously lost party back on to the straight and narrow where it used to be long ago.

That there are Libertarians in the Republican Party is completely normal. The real question here is why there are so many authoritarian warmongers in a party in which, according to pure ideology anyway, they do not belong.

Well, Libertarians are pretty similar to the old Republican Party. They're isolationist, laissez-faire capitalists, pro-gun rights, pro-states rights. You'll probably see libertarian republicans decrease in number as the fascist wing of the party gains more influence.

Given that the two-party system is here to stay, I say America needs more Republicans like Ron Paul.


Well, Libertarians are pretty similar to the old Republican Party. They're isolationist, laissez-faire capitalists, pro-gun rights, pro-states rights. You'll probably see libertarian republicans decrease in number as the fascist wing of the party gains more influence.

Rumagistan,
Important distinction:
Pre-Christian Right Republicans were protectionists (pro-tariff). Libertarians are free-traders.

One faction of the right wants to give corporations money, and the other faction wants to take away all the laws that protect you from them.


See here for a description of the relationship between libertarians and corporations:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132766&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20#2917051

In addition to what I say above, let it be noted that corporations are an artificial construct of the state. If state power is taken away, corporate power is automatically reduced, as corporations would no longer be able to use the state to get their way. In fact, it could be argued that in a libertarian society the state would no longer be allowed or able to form corporations in the first place, and thus, in a libertarian society, the corporation as we know it today would no longer exist. They would exist in name only.

It is important to relize though that corporations have so much power because they are a direct creation of the state. If the state's power is reduced, then it only follows that corporate power will do likewise.


There's a reason we have antitrust laws...


Governments need some kind of excuse to levy penalities in order to increase their revenue, and anti-trust laws serve as a convienient mechanism for other corporations to extract protection money and crush competition.


minimum wage laws...


Because inflating wages and therefore reducing the competitive value of labor causes the poor to lose their jobs, a bad thing for the poor, but a good thing for government. Makes said poor more reliant on the government which then increases government power.


because for a long period of time, corporations ruled America, turning even our leaders into their pawns.


Because said leaders are given enough political power to make them attractive to corruption to being with. Reduce this allure, by reducing the state.


If you want to go back to the trusts, to workers dying of exhaustion on the assembly line, to bankers and robber barons being more powerful than the United States, vote Libertarian by all means.

If an employer is mistreating its employees, then employees have by all means the right to leave their job, strike, from unions, protest peacefully together for change, etc. Libertarians would not deny anyone the ability to demand, in a peaceful manner, good working conditions and such; the ability to do so is fully protected by the freedoms of speech and assembly which all true libertarians support.

In fact, reliance on the state to do these things will always fail as corrupt business can simply pay off corrupt political "leaders" to ensure that working conditions remain pitiful. By eliminating the state from business, the ability of corrupt business to pay off "leaders" like that is eliminated also, and the businesses become directly responsible to the people they employ.

It's fun to make out like corporations cannot be controlled, but it still remains a fact that the quickest way to bring down a corrupt corporation is by making them listen to the sound of a silent factory and to the sound of billfolds closing. You get neither sound by relying on the government. The only sould you get then is the laughing of corrupt business and corrupt politicians as they trot off together arm in arm.

one day somebody is going to have to explain to me how there are people who claim that they are deeply attracted to right-libertarianism and yet still stay in the republican party and vote for authoritarian culturally conservative warmongers who aren't even all that good at the whole free market thing.

There are at least some libertarians in the Republican Party who know for a fact they are libertarian.

Take for instance Representative Ron Paul ( http://www.house.gov/paul/ ). Sure, technically he's in office as a Republican, but he also has a life time membership to the Libertarian Party and he has previously run as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. If I recall correctly, the only reason he ran as a Republican for the House was because ballot access laws at the time blocked Libertarians from running. So he switched over to Republican and got elected (even after fierce opposition from the Republican Party, as a matter of fact). So, in Ron Paul's case, running Republican was a means to get in the door, where, once inside, he votes on all issues as a real and fierce libertarian.

So, although their ideology is very different from that of the Republican Party, some libertarians feel that the only way to make a difference and really get into the decision making process is to temporarily take a label that will at least assist them in getting elected in the first place. Some may also feel that they can help start to guide a seriously lost party back on to the straight and narrow where it used to be long ago.

That there are Libertarians in the Republican Party is completely normal. The real question here is why there are so many authoritarian warmongers in a party in which, according to pure ideology anyway, they do not belong.

Well, Libertarians are pretty similar to the old Republican Party. They're isolationist, laissez-faire capitalists, pro-gun rights, pro-states rights. You'll probably see libertarian republicans decrease in number as the fascist wing of the party gains more influence.

Just to be clear, libertarians are "isolationists" militarily speaking. However, when it comes to immigration and trade they are not isolationists in any degree of the term.

Given that the two-party system is here to stay, I say America needs more Republicans like Ron Paul.


Well, Libertarians are pretty similar to the old Republican Party. They're isolationist, laissez-faire capitalists, pro-gun rights, pro-states rights. You'll probably see libertarian republicans decrease in number as the fascist wing of the party gains more influence.

Rumagistan,
Important distinction:
Pre-Christian Right Republicans were protectionists (pro-tariff). Libertarians are free-traders.

Then they became pro-drugs...

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Given that the two-party system is here to stay, I say America needs more Republicans like Ron Paul.


Well, Libertarians are pretty similar to the old Republican Party. They're isolationist, laissez-faire capitalists, pro-gun rights, pro-states rights. You'll probably see libertarian republicans decrease in number as the fascist wing of the party gains more influence.

Rumagistan,
Important distinction:
Pre-Christian Right Republicans were protectionists (pro-tariff). Libertarians are free-traders.

Then they became pro-drugs...

Libertarians (I assume that the "they" above refers to libertarians) are not pro-drugs so much as they are anti-prohibition. Its an important distinction; I am a libertarian, and while I believe that all drugs should be legal, I have also never taken any drug that wasn't OK'd by a physician which I trust.

For those who are interested, here is a thread on the drug war where I explain the libertarian anti-prohibition position:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132751&start=20&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

The Libertarians and Republicans are pretty similar on economic issues on their party platforms (Bush is an exception in that he increased social spending), with things like free trade, lower taxes, less government, ect. Of course you have people who think that the Republicans are right-wing nazi evangical authoritarians, but people so out of touch with reality can't really be helped, anyway. On social issues Libertarians are less in touch with Republicans but there's still a lot of common ground - gun control, states rights, affirmative action, and heck even abortion is easily reconciled with the libertarian school of thought. Of course there's gay marraige and drugs where they won't match up, however I'd go and say the vast majority of people who would originally be under a big libertarian party would probably fit more into the Republicans than Libertarians.

I support George Bush.

*wonders if that statement is flamebait*

I totally understand, I love killing things and screwing people over too. I just do it in video games instead of real life.

Aren't there any libertarian democrats.
After all libertarians are pro-choice in abortion and in favor of gay marriage(to my knowledge)

The Libertarians and Republicans are pretty similar on economic issues on their party platforms (Bush is an exception in that he increased social spending), with things like free trade, lower taxes, less government, ect. Of course you have people who think that the Republicans are right-wing nazi evangical authoritarians, but people so out of touch with reality can't really be helped, anyway. On social issues Libertarians are less in touch with Republicans but there's still a lot of common ground - gun control, states rights, affirmative action, and heck even abortion is easily reconciled with the libertarian school of thought. Of course there's gay marraige and drugs where they won't match up, however I'd go and say the vast majority of people who would originally be under a big libertarian party would probably fit more into the Republicans than Libertarians.

The Libertarians and Republicans differ economically in one key area... the Republicans talk about reducing government spending, but their track record is continuous increase of spending. Libertarians don't just talk about it... they have a clearly laid out plan for reducing it.

But since government and fast food are the only growth industries remaining in the United States, we have some serious economic issues to address before we start cutting government jobs. First and foremost, we've got to stop sending all our jobs overseas.

Personally, I'm a moderate libertarian. I believe the libertarians have it right when it comes to social issues, but they're a bit deluded on economic issues. Anyone who thinks anti-trust laws are unnecessary needs to take another look at the UK's mess of privatized rail service or California's recent disaster with deregulated power.

I think we should throw tomatoes at Gary Nolan.

Aren't there any libertarian democrats.
After all libertarians are pro-choice in abortion and in favor of gay marriage(to my knowledge)

Interestingly enough, the word "libertarian" actually means "liberal" in the classic Paine-Jefferson-Adams sense of the word, before it was warped into something unrecognizable by the hippies.

Today's "liberals" are really social democrats, who share libertarian ideals about lifestyle, but are determined to redistribute the wealth.

And this is why government grows no matter who is in charge... the Republicans build new programs for social control (like Homeland Defense) and the Democrats build new programs for economic control. And neither does anything to reduce the programs the other implemented.

In addition to what I say above, let it be noted that corporations are an artificial construct of the state. If state power is taken away, corporate power is automatically reduced, as corporations would no longer be able to use the state to get their way. In fact, it could be argued that in a libertarian society the state would no longer be allowed or able to form corporations in the first place, and thus, in a libertarian society, the corporation as we know it today would no longer exist. They would exist in name only.

Exactly, which is why anarcho-capitalism isn't possible. I'm a real libertarian who supports the freedom of the workers to organize their own work rather than the privilege of the capitalists to enslave them further.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Aren't there any libertarian democrats.
After all libertarians are pro-choice in abortion and in favor of gay marriage(to my knowledge)

Just to clarify, not all libertarians are "pro-choice." The official Libertarian Party Platform position on abortion:

"Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births." - ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#womerigh )

Many libertarians will argue that abortion is a woman's right, while many others (like me) will argue that an unborn child is entitled to the same rights to life, liberty and property (security in one's own body, in this case) as any other human being.

As far as gay marriage goes, the only mention of the word "marriage" I can find in the Libertarian Party platform is here:

"We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women." - ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#womerigh )

This would seem to imply that libertarians would oppose laws specifically banning gay marriage. However, note that this does NOT necessarly mean that a libertarian would support laws legalizing gay marriage as a specific institution either.

The typical libertarian position I have seen is that marriage, gay or not, should not even be an issue of the government at all, but is a matter between people and their religous institutions of choice. Also, libertarians are likely to advocate the right of people to make any sort of consentual contract reguarding their property and estate that they please.

Gary Nolan and the Libertarians favor small government with economic and personal freedoms. What do you think of Gary Nolan?

Personally I'm fond of Aaron Russo. But, after taking a look at Gary Nolan's site, he seems like he's running a nice campaign.

In addition to what I say above, let it be noted that corporations are an artificial construct of the state. If state power is taken away, corporate power is automatically reduced, as corporations would no longer be able to use the state to get their way. In fact, it could be argued that in a libertarian society the state would no longer be allowed or able to form corporations in the first place, and thus, in a libertarian society, the corporation as we know it today would no longer exist. They would exist in name only.

Exactly, which is why anarcho-capitalism isn't possible. I'm a real libertarian who supports the freedom of the workers to organize their own work rather than the privilege of the capitalists to enslave them further.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

You seem to assume that capitalism requires the existance of state-mandated corporations. The fact that you make this mistake tells me that you really have no idea what capitalism is at all. :wink:

All I said was that state-chartered corporations would cease to exist. I did not say that capitalism would cease to exist.

That there are Libertarians in the Republican Party is completely normal. The real question here is why there are so many authoritarian warmongers in a party in which, according to pure ideology anyway, they do not belong.

i guess that's my deeper confusion. it just seems to me that the various segments that make up the republican party should be fundamentally in conflict with each other. like, it makes sense (sort of) as an anti-leninist alliance, but what keeps it together in the post coldwar era?

I'm going for Kerry.

First and foremost, we've got to stop sending all our jobs overseas.


Ah...but why is it that businesses are seeking employees overseas in the first place? It is because here in the United States, businesses are over-regulated and over-taxed, both of which artifically inflate costs and force employers to seek employees overseas. If one wants businesses to stop doing this, then government is going to have to give businesses a break.


Anyone who thinks anti-trust laws are unnecessary needs to take another look at the UK's mess of privatized rail service or California's recent disaster with deregulated power.

I am not familiar with the issue in the UK, however, I am familiar with the "deregulation" that occured in California. Frankly, it wasn't "deregulation" at all. The government was still making exclusive contracts with power companies, the government was still forcing said companies to offer certain prices and deliver to only dictated areas. The government was still, reguardless of how many times the government called it "deregulation," entangled in the power market and not allowing the market to operate as it should. Now we are paying the price with a huge state deficit and still unimproved electrical service.

"Deregulation" in California failed because it never happened, as it was only intended as a scheme by the politicians to buy votes while only making things worse. Real deregulation, where the government actually got its hands out of the market and allowed the market to operate, would have ended very differently.

That there are Libertarians in the Republican Party is completely normal. The real question here is why there are so many authoritarian warmongers in a party in which, according to pure ideology anyway, they do not belong.

i guess that's my deeper confusion. it just seems to me that the various segments that make up the republican party should be fundamentally in conflict with each other. like, it makes sense (sort of) as an anti-leninist alliance, but what keeps it together in the post coldwar era?

It happens in both parties. In '92 and '96, part of the Republican party split off into the Reform party and it cost them the elections, this is essentially what keeps the Republican party together. Its the same way with the Democrats.

That there are Libertarians in the Republican Party is completely normal. The real question here is why there are so many authoritarian warmongers in a party in which, according to pure ideology anyway, they do not belong.

i guess that's my deeper confusion. it just seems to me that the various segments that make up the republican party should be fundamentally in conflict with each other. like, it makes sense (sort of) as an anti-leninist alliance, but what keeps it together in the post coldwar era?

Ah, but they are in conflict with each other. At least, the libertarian segments are greatly disliked anyway. For the most part, however, the Republican Party has been taken over by the authoritarian segment. The only reason the other segments, like the libertarians, stick around is because they believe they can still steer the Republican Party back to its real ideology.

You seem to assume that capitalism requires the existance of state-mandated corporations. The fact that you make this mistake tells me that you really have no idea what capitalism is at all.

Capitalism is an economic system in which owners of state-protected property, known as capital, use their ownership of the necessities of life to force those without capital to sell their labor to the capitalists. If there is no state, the capitalists have no one to enforce their ownership.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

You seem to assume that capitalism requires the existance of state-mandated corporations. The fact that you make this mistake tells me that you really have no idea what capitalism is at all.

Capitalism is an economic system in which owners of state-protected property, known as capital, use their ownership of the necessities of life to force those without capital to sell their labor to the capitalists. If there is no state, the capitalists have no one to enforce their ownership.


This assumes that the existance of private property relies on the existance of the state. Justly acquired private property must be defended from theft and force. The state does not and should not, according to many libertarians, have a monopoly on this protection.

Tell me, how would an "anarcho-communist" society protect the integrity of possessions? Please don't tell me that possessions wouldn't exist in such a society. If that was the case, all I'd have to do is take a loaf of bread from someone while they were eating it and chaos would break loose.

Also, people use their wealth generated by labor to invest and become property owners themselves. This is why the United States, a country founded and populated in the beginning by simple farmers and laborers, has become the richest country on the planet.

You seem to assume that capitalism requires the existance of state-mandated corporations. The fact that you make this mistake tells me that you really have no idea what capitalism is at all.

Capitalism is an economic system in which owners of state-protected property, known as capital, use their ownership of the necessities of life to force those without capital to sell their labor to the capitalists. If there is no state, the capitalists have no one to enforce their ownership.


Here is an excerpt from the Libertarian Party platform on the soverignity of the individual:

"The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights -- life, liberty, and justly acquired property -- against aggression, whether by force or fraud. This right inheres in the individual, who -- with his or her consent -- may be aided by any other individual or group." - ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#indisove )

It has long been a value of libertarians that the initiation of violent or coersive force against others is wrong, except as an act of self-defense against such actions. It is the right and responsibility of the individual to see to their own protection and to the protection of their rights and property. Based on this, many libertarians argue that the state should play a very reduced role, if any role at all, in the protection of private property.

EDIT: In fact, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides for just such protection in the form of citizen's militias. Now, before we go off laughing about strange men running around in woods, let us examine a real life example. Switzerland has one of, if not the greatest example of a citizen's militia administered by a very small and efficient state. It is through such a citizen's militia that the country as a whole is protected. Also, individuals there can use their arms, which they keep in their own homes at all times, to defend their own property and liberty as individuals.

The platform also says:

"We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees...Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary boycotts if they so choose. Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers, and innocent bystanders." - ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#uniocoll )

The above advocation of the right of workers to form unions and to strike and boycott, etc. coupled with the recognition of the soverignity of the individual as quoted above, means that libertarians are naturally against those who would abuse or enslave their employees. We simply recognize that such abuse and enslavement are NOT inherent in the system of capitalism, but rather are the result of the actions of individuals who do not respect the rights of others.

Libertarians are in favor of defending themselves from such individuals. But they can also control their emotions and do not advocate throwing out an entire system based on the misbehavior of only a few.

I agree with Marineris Colonies. I myself consider myself a neoclassical liberal, which is basically a libertarian in today's terminology.

Specifically, I adhere to the teachings of Ayn Rand, who states that self-interest is the only real concern of human beings whether we realize it or not. Hence my diehard support for capitalism.

I myself am a former Socialist who realized after reading Orwell that collectivization only increases the risk of a society falling under authoritarianism. When the State is the greatest danger to freedom (an anybody who's given a hard, strong look at communism AND fascism knows this), enlisting the State to supposedly better the lives of people is like trying to fight fire with more fire. Capitalism is not authoritarian because it relies on the idea of a contract. It does not force you into an obligation in which you have no choice but to participate, like government often does ::cough cough:: TAXES ::cough cough:: No one should be MADE to do things for other people, and that is the fallacy of liberal thought today.

But Free Soviets is correct: The Republican party has lost it;s way. At least the Democrats are honest about being a big government party. In some ways the Republicans are worse because they claim to support small government, yet Bush has spent more government money then Clinto did his entire term.

I'm voting for Nolan, though if Bush really ticks me off in the next few months I might very well vote for that idiot Kerry.

I myself am a former Socialist who realized after reading Orwell that collectivization only increases the risk of a society falling under authoritarianism.


I also did the whole socialist thing, until I actually took a trip (5 to be exact) into third world Mexico and saw what real poverty looks like, and how it is created. Those trips caused me to despise excessive abusive government and convinced me beyond doubt that free market capitalism is the only way world poverty is going to be solved. The PRI was all the proof I needed that reliance on the state was doomed to failure.


I'm voting for Nolan, though if Bush really ticks me off in the next few months I might very well vote for that idiot Kerry.

I plan on voting for Nolan, as my concious will be clear either way. :wink:

I'm still voting for Badnarik.

I think libertarianism is basically misguided and inconsistent. But I do like the fact that at least libertarians are generally principled, not like democrats or republicans. I think they're really wrong in a lot of different areas (privatizing the education system seems like a nightmare to me) but quite right in others (free trade, small government).

I think libertarianism is basically misguided and inconsistent.


I am curious. Please expand on this.

I've done this on other threads. Basically the objectivist ideas which undermine libertarianism are fundementally flawed; it is impossible to show that a) natural rights exist and b) we should respect them (Hume's Law). If natural rights 'fail', that makes libertarianism effectively utilitarian (i.e. rights should be inalienable because it promotes general utility), and I don't think libertarianism is the best system in terms of general utility. I also think it totally ignores fairness problems. As far as I can tell, there is little explanation of the orginial holding of property (other than first come first serve which I don't think is very convincing). Finally, I think it is impossible to be a libertarian while supporting intellectual properties and land ownership.

Finally, I think it is impossible to be a libertarian while supporting intellectual properties and land ownership.


Those two issues are hardly written in stone, in reguards to libertarian philosophy. Even within the official American Libertarian Party, the issue of intelectual property rights is far from resolved. Many believe that they are necessary protection of property, while others believe they are abuses of government intended to secure monopoly. The Libertarian Party platform calls for the sanctity of private property, however, last I checked, it was totally silent on the issue of intelectual property.

Also, there are libertarians who question the current system of absolute government-granted title to land. Libertarians believe that whatever a person makes by the honest labor of their own hands is theirs absolutely to do with as they please. It is easy to see, however, that natural resources, like land, which were not created by the labor of man, do not fit this model. There are libertarians who acknowledge this fact:

"Private property derives its moral justification from the right of the individual to the fruits of his or her labor; but unlike houses, machinery, clothes, etc., land is (1) not the fruit of anyone's labor, (2) in fixed supply, and (3) the literal foundation upon which any exercise of individual liberty must take place. Thus, while there is a right to private possession of land, the right to possession must be limited by the equal right of others..." - ( http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geolib.htm )

These libertarians claim that exclusive government granted title to land creates a system by which land owners can extract guaranteed rent from others. This is often considered simply another form of unfair welfare for the rich by such libertarians. A proposed solution is a tax on land value, and therefore a tax on such rent, as they believe part of the profit extracted from the land itself as rent (NOT from the man-made improvements layed upon it -- income and real property taxes are still out) should be returned to society. Many libertarians, including the founder of the Libertarian Party, according to the article above, believe that such a tax is the only possible justifiable tax which a government could levy.

EDIT: in fact, it can also be argued that such a system is a possible solution to the issue of original ownership you mentioned.

Before the anarcho-communists start screaming "HA!" let me just make it absolutely clear that these libertarians are NOT against the private ownership/possession of land. They simply believe that the current system of government title does not accurately take into account the fact that land does not exist by the hand of man, and they simply search for a solution that can work within normal lassez-faire capitalist economics. They do NOT advocate the abolishment of private property in any way shape for form.

Ah...but why is it that businesses are seeking employees overseas in the first place? It is because here in the United States, businesses are over-regulated and over-taxed, both of which artifically inflate costs and force employers to seek employees overseas. If one wants businesses to stop doing this, then government is going to have to give businesses a break.


Business already has plenty of breaks. That's why productivity and GNP has increased over the last decade while the average income has actually decreased. Business is simply looking for the bigger, better deal. Exploiting workers in Mexico or Thailand is a lot more lucrative for them than keeping jobs here. It's got nothing to do with regulation, and everything to do with labor costs. A college graduated programmer in the United States will simply not accept the same wage a similarly qualified individual in India will accept.



I am not familiar with the issue in the UK, however, I am familiar with the "deregulation" that occured in California. Frankly, it wasn't "deregulation" at all. The government was still making exclusive contracts with power companies, the government was still forcing said companies to offer certain prices and deliver to only dictated areas. The government was still, reguardless of how many times the government called it "deregulation," entangled in the power market and not allowing the market to operate as it should. Now we are paying the price with a huge state deficit and still unimproved electrical service.

"Deregulation" in California failed because it never happened, as it was only intended as a scheme by the politicians to buy votes while only making things worse. Real deregulation, where the government actually got its hands out of the market and allowed the market to operate, would have ended very differently.

Deregulation in California failed because it was based on free-market principles in an industry that is, by definition, a trust. The customer has no choice but to do business with the provider who owns the electric lines running up to their home. When regulation was removed, the companies hid financial resources in other places and played Enron with their balance sheets and cried out that they were losing a fortune, in order to gain acceptance of quadrupled energy rates.

Those two issues are hardly written in stone, in reguards to libertarian philosophy. Even within the official American Libertarian Party, the issue of intelectual property rights is far from resolved. Many believe that they are necessary protection of property, while others believe they are abuses of government intended to secure monopoly. The Libertarian Party platform calls for the sanctity of private property, however, last I checked, it was totally silent on the issue of intelectual property.

Which I think is somewhat problematic; it would be like a Communist party who supported private ownership of some forms of capital but not others, and inherently contradictory. In my mind, support for Intellectual properties is implicitly utilitarian in nature, which is obviously problematic for libertarianists.

Also, there are libertarians who question the current system of absolute government-granted title to land. Libertarians believe that whatever a person makes by the honest labor of their own hands is theirs absolutely to do with as they please. It is easy to see, however, that natural resources, like land, which were not created by the labor of man, do not fit this model. There are libertarians who acknowledge this fact:

-snip for shortness-
EDIT: in fact, it can also be argued that such a system is a possible solution to the issue of original ownership you mentioned.

I'm familiar with geolibertarianism, and actually it remains one of the most attractive incarnations of libertarian thought in my mind. However, it does not resolve original ownership problems in and of itself; it still allows/ensures for a first come first serve system without taking account issues of fairness and estate, though I will agree that it significantly lessens these problems.

That being said, geolibertarianism is well outside the mainstream of classical liberal thought, and is, in my understanding, in no way endorsed by the American LIbertarian party, nor do I think it's likely to be (this same goes for intellectual properties). I realize that these things are under question, however at this point I do believe it's fair to protray the libertarian party as a whole being anti-LVT and pro intellectual properties.

Exploiting workers in Mexico or Thailand is a lot more lucrative for them than keeping jobs here.


How is providing work and income to people who would otherwise have nothing "exploting" them?

In the February 2004 issue of Reason Magazine (online version at http://www.reason.com ), Ronald Bailey talks about the real trends in wages overseas. In his article, Sweatshops Forever ( http://www.reason.com/0402/ci.rb.sweatshops.shtml ), Bailey cites "a new report by the National Bureau of Economic Research" which discovered that "multinationals generally paid more -- often a lot more -- than the wages offered by locally owned companies." In addition, the study found that "U.S. multinationals 'pay a wage premium that ranges from 40 percent in high-income countries to 100 percent, or double the local average wage, in low-income countries.'" Finally, Bailey said that the economists who conducted this study discovered that "indonesian workers in Nike subcontractor factories earned $670 per year, compared to the average minimum wage of $134" and that "in Mexico firms that exported more than 80 percent of their output paid wages that were 58 percent to 67 percent higher than wages paid by domestic firms."

Not only are people overseas employed by multinational companies payed more than those not so employed, but it was also found that "multinational investment 'is positively correlated with the right to establish free unions, the right to strike, the right to collective bargaining, and the protection of union members.'"

So, multinational companies going overseas have brought higher wages and labor rights with them. Again, this is exploitation how?


It's got nothing to do with regulation, and everything to do with labor costs.


Regulation causes excess cost to business. This coupled with increasing labor costs caused by minimum wage laws (wage inflation decreases the competitive value of labor and as such makes it more likely that workers will be fired) leads to companies finding employment in foreign countries, and the loss of jobs for local workers.


The customer has no choice but to do business with the provider who owns the electric lines running up to their home.


Incorrect. It is perfectly possible for individuals to provide their own power, via solar power or other forms of generation in their own homes. In fact, many people do this and end up selling power back to the power companies. There is nothing stopping a neighborhood or other community of people from forming their own power system and generating their own electricity...except government and others who spread this myth of "no choice" which creates and hardens anti-market monopoly.

I realize that these things are under question, however at this point I do believe it's fair to protray the libertarian party as a whole being anti-LVT and pro intellectual properties.

This is probably a fair assessment, yes. I just think that reguardless of any official position of the Libertarian Party, individual opinions will vary greatly, and so to base the pass or failure of libertarian philosophy in general on only the official party line (EDIT: or on only one single version there of) might be unfair.

I just don't know what to think of Libertarians. Most of the Libertarians I know are still out there protesting the war in Iraq, several months after it began and ended, :roll: and I have also seen a number of pro-war Libertarians. In fact, there was a Libertarian running for a seat in The House in 2002 whose main platform was that he wanted to decimate Iraq with nuclear weapons.

Regardless, I'm still voting for Bush, and I hope everyone else does, too.

Now THAT'S flamebait, AND trolling! :lol:

-Emperor Jim.

I realize that these things are under question, however at this point I do believe it's fair to protray the libertarian party as a whole being anti-LVT and pro intellectual properties.

This is probably a fair assessment, yes. I just think that reguardless of any official position of the Libertarian Party, individual opinions will vary greatly, and so to base the pass or failure of libertarian philosophy in general on only the official party line (EDIT: or on only one single version there of) might be unfair.

Okay, mostly; I think the is/ought problem is inherent in libertarian thought, as it is in any 'universal'moral or political doctrin. Other than that I agree almost entirely.

Most of the Libertarians I know are still out there protesting the war in Iraq, several months after it began and ended, :roll:


Considering the current security situation in Iraq, I'd say that military conflict there is far from over, reguardless of Bush's declaration that the "official" war is over. At any rate, the war truely isn't over until all our troops come home.


In fact, there was a Libertarian running for a seat in The House in 2002 whose main platform was that he wanted to decimate Iraq with nuclear weapons.


I think its safe to say that most libertarians would reject this person's credibility as a libertarian and as a representative in general. Do you remember what this person's name is? At any rate, it is important to remember that a label does not necessarly reflect the actual beliefs of the person in question.

I think its safe to say that most libertarians would reject this person's credibility as a libertarian and as a representative in general. Do you remember what this person's name is? At any rate, it is important to remember that a label does not necessarly reflect the actual beliefs of the person in question.

Agreed. I'm a Republican, but I'm also an athiest. Many Republicans would say I'm going to hell. :lol:

No, I don't remember the guy's name, I only saw him breifly on the news. However, he did have a mullet haircut and a Yosemite Sam mustache. Seriously. 8)

-Emperor Jim.

Capitalism is based on orders and the threat of starvation. The whole "individual rights" thing is just a distraction. It takes more work to commit armed robbery than own a business.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Dems all the way.

I wonder if republicans accuse libertarians of pulling away their voters, just like the democrats accuse the greens? :D

Yes.

Capitalism is based on orders and the threat of starvation. The whole "individual rights" thing is just a distraction. It takes more work to commit armed robbery than own a business.

That is so absurd and so ignorant I don't even know where to begin...

I could say the same about your whitewashed form of capitalism where the business owners' goal is to provide pleasant jobs to well-to-do workers rather than make profit.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Umm...who said their goal was anything but making profit? What's wrong with making profit?

Gary Nolan and the Libertarians favor small government with economic and personal freedoms. What do you think of Gary Nolan?

I'm all for him. We have the same surname. :D :P

Umm...who said their goal was anything but making profit? What's wrong with making profit?

Trying to make the most profit results in sacrificing working conditions and such to reduce costs. Money becomes more important than people. Hence cigarettes.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Sweet zombie Jesus, where do I start?

Libertarianism is not Objectivism. I'm a libertarian but I can't stand that evil and idiotic witch Ayn Rand.

On Hume, he rightly said you can't prove moral assertions but that doesn't mean you can't have strong moral beliefs and principles. For instance, Hume himself was in most ways libertarian.

Open markets create jobs and wealth and in the long run are better for everyone, including those whose jobs are "exported". There hasn't been a respectable intellectual criticism of free trade since Adam Smith destroyed the mercantilists arguments' centuries ago.

As for "exploiting" cheap foreign labour, if they were better off without that job they wouldn't take it. The same people who complain about western workers' jobs being exported usually have no problem with taxing their wages and sending those away instead.

I bet those Chinese workers with their rapidly rising standards of living feel really exploited. Maybe they need more government.......

On abortion: if an unborn child has the same rights as a fully grown adult then which fully grown adult has the right to exist as an unwanted parasite in the body of another?

On free markets exploiting the workers (because only the poorly paid do any work, right?) who's more exploited, the American or the Soviet worker? Anybody who's deprived of their rightful property is exploited. (taxation, anyone?)

Most criticism of free markets is based on sheer ignorance.

Free markets (emphasis on the word "free") are the natural state of affairs and don't require a government to enforce them. On the contrary whenever law and order has been privately enforced property rights have been stronger than in our societies today. Examples are: England before the Norman invasion, England around the beginning of the 19th century, the European "law merchants" around the medieval period, medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland, the not-actually-so-wild west and various African tribes. By contrast, socialist anarchism in Spain rapidly decended into bloody violence and the murder of thousands of nuns, monks and businessmen.

Cigarettes are around because people like smoking, not because "businesses are evil". Of course, Letila, I'm sure in your "true libertarian" society there'd be somebody who made sure people understood they were only to use their freedom in ways that were good for them.....

The whole "individual rights" thing is just a distraction.


Considering that one claims to be an "anarcho"-communist, it would have been my assumption that individual rights were everything. Reguardless of what one believes about the communal nature of society, communes are formed by individuals, and so the protection of the rights of individuals automatically protects the freedom and rights of the entire society.

One of the key attributes about free market capitalism, as I have been attempting to explain, is that all relationships between people are based on voluntary contract. When this contract is broken (abusive employers, failure to provide a working condition as agreed upon at time of employment, failure to deliver payment, etc.) then peaceful personal or legal action can be taken. The voluntary contract is a key result of a focus on individual rights.

To consider such rights (EDIT: which form the basis of the protection of the worker and society as a whole) simply a distraction is to reveal the true nature of the so called "freedom" that one would find in an "anarcho"-communist society.

Does anyone know what percentage of the vote Libertarians got in the elections in 2000?
Is it more or less then Greens?
Do they actually have a seat in the house of reps?

Do they actually have a seat in the house of reps?


Yes, as a matter of fact, we do!

Representative Ron Paul ( http://www.house.gov/paul ) of the 14th District, Texas. Technically, Paul is in as a Republican, however, he is as Libertarian as they come: he has run as the Libertarian Party presidental candidate and he is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party.

(EDIT: If I recall correctly, ) when he decided to run for the House office, Libertarians could not be listed on the ballot in his district because of the condition of ballot access laws and such at the time, so he ran as a Republican to get around that. This doesn't mean he sacrificed any of his libertarian values, however, as a visit to the site linked above will prove.

I cant believe the only libertarian in the house of reps is a Texan (possibly the most anti liberal, authoritatian state in the US.)

Ever heard of the Americans for a Free Republic (http://www.afr.org)? They seem to want Ron Paul and Walter Williams to run for the Candidacy under a new party.

I cant believe the only libertarian in the house of reps is a Texan (possibly the most anti liberal, authoritatian state in the US.)

I can... libertarianism isn't in any way associated with 'AMerican Liberalism', which is effectivley an unprinciple hodgepodge of classical liberalism, keynesianism and Rawlsian welfare liberalism. Libertarianism is essentially, as I understand it, Lockean classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is quite conservative in this day and age, though certainly not authoritarian.

I cant believe the only libertarian in the house of reps is a Texan (possibly the most anti liberal, authoritatian state in the US.)

If I read the numbers from the Federal Election Commission ( http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm ) correctly, the most votes for the Libertarian candidate (Browne) in the 2000 General Election came from California, Georgia, and Texas.

Perhaps the reputation Texas seems to have comes only from the fact that the current president hails from that state. Surely, basing the beliefs of an entire state on only one man's policy is incredibly unfair.

Thats not true, Texas has always had a reputation in foreign countries for backwardminded thinking way before Bush came to power. THis is probably due to their racist reputation in the 60s and their staunch anti-gay stance now brings back sad memories.

Thats not true, Texas has always had a reputation in foreign countries for backwardminded thinking way before Bush came to power. THis is probably due to their racist reputation in the 60s and their staunch anti-gay stance now brings back sad memories.

Either way, such generalization is unfair because, as has just been shown, not all Texans share "their" beliefs. :wink:

True but if any state deserves to be generalised (is that a word) it's Texas

I personally support Aaron Russo.

What does Aron Russo stand for?

I personally support Aaron Russo.

I've heard more than a few libertarians say so...what makes him different from Nolan and Badnarik?

Open markets create jobs and wealth and in the long run are better for everyone, including those whose jobs are "exported". There hasn't been a respectable intellectual criticism of free trade since Adam Smith destroyed the mercantilists arguments' centuries ago.

As for "exploiting" cheap foreign labour, if they were better off without that job they wouldn't take it. The same people who complain about western workers' jobs being exported usually have no problem with taxing their wages and sending those away instead.

I bet those Chinese workers with their rapidly rising standards of living feel really exploited. Maybe they need more government.......



Unfortunately, we don't have a global free market. If we did, then exporting jobs would not be a big deal, since everyone around the world would have a similar standard of living and the price of labor would not have a wide disparity in different parts of the world. But when jobs are exported, the company saves a fortune in labor costs. We have not seen, as free market principles dictate, a parallel drop in product costs. Those same Nikes that were made in Ohio (or wherever) for $90 are now made in Thailand and sold for $110. Rather than cutting prices to defeat their competitors, Nike just pumps the savings into more advertising... which basically says that Nike thinks we're stupid and easily manipulated, and in general they're right.

Foreign workers are being exploited by our standards. Just because the alternative is even worse doesn't mean they still aren't being exploited.

As I said before, I'm a libertarian, but a moderate one. We have to live in the real world. Where it makes sense to deregulate, we should. Where it makes sense to regulate, we should keep on doing it.

Manufacturing overseas, whether by American-owned companies or not, should be treated as imports, and subject to import duties. If the companies want to pay the lower wages overseas, they should be more than willing to pay the increased unemployment claims that result.

True but if any state deserves to be generalised (is that a word) it's Texas

I don't see why. Texas is hardly alone when it comes to past racism and gay-rights issues.

I personally support Aaron Russo.

I've heard more than a few libertarians say so...what makes him different from Nolan and Badnarik?

He's taking a harder stance against the PATRIOT Act, War on Drugs, the Draft, etc. than Nolan and Badnarik. He is slightly more liberal than they are, and seeing as we have a right-wing authoritarian regime in power right now, that slant I believe would be helpful.

Capitalism isn't voluntary. The workers are at an extreme disadvantage.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Unfortunately, we don't have a global free market. If we did, then exporting jobs would not be a big deal, since everyone around the world would have a similar standard of living and the price of labor would not have a wide disparity in different parts of the world...

Foreign workers are being exploited by our standards. Just because the alternative is even worse doesn't mean they still aren't being exploited.


http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=134739&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40#2959080

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how actually improving conditions and lifestyles for the poor is exploitation. Especially considering how this improvement is exactly what will create a "similar standard of living." It might not happen overnight, but it is happening.

One needs also to keep in mind that the "disparity" in wages comes not from employer exploitation but from simple differences in purchasing power of currencies from nation to nation. In developing nations, the currency is not hyper-inflated and the economy not hyper-developed like here in the United States, and as a result, foreign currency (the dollar) in said developing nation actually has a higher purchasing power than one would find in the United States. The wages that multinational companies pay may seem very low, by the standard of an already developed and rich nation like the United States. However, in the foreign local economy, such a wage can make its recipient quite rich indeed. In short, applying the standard of a rich and developed nation to a poor underdeveloped nation is simply dishonest and will only produce false indications. Each individual economy must be considered on its own, until the foreign economy is able to build itself up to the point were it can be accurately compared with the United States.

I personally support Aaron Russo.

I've heard more than a few libertarians say so...what makes him different from Nolan and Badnarik?

He's taking a harder stance against the PATRIOT Act, War on Drugs, the Draft, etc. than Nolan and Badnarik. He is slightly more liberal than they are, and seeing as we have a right-wing authoritarian regime in power right now, that slant I believe would be helpful.

Is it possible to take a harder stance than "completely do away with?"

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how actually improving conditions and lifestyles for the poor is exploitation. Especially considering how this improvement is exactly what will create a "similar standard of living." It might not happen overnight, but it is happening.

Authoritarian states often don't reflect an increase in trade and production onto their populace. IMO, free trade makes perfect sense, but only when the traders are liberal democratic regimes, not authortiarian dictators.

Each individual economy must be considered on its own, until the
foreign economy is able to build itself up to the point were it can be accurately compared with the United States.

Free trade is not a very good method of growth, at least on its own. Even the formulators of the Washington consensus agree on this at this point. Trade-not-aid coupled with deregulation has proven to be at the very best a mixed success, and certainly not a sure fire method towards developement. Almost no developement success this century can be attributed to free market and deregulation.

Capitalism isn't voluntary. The workers are at an extreme disadvantage.


And yet a system which demands ultimate loyalty to the commune and labor without any compensation (no money, remember) is voluntary and advantageous?

Authoritarian states often don't reflect an increase in trade and production onto their populace. IMO, free trade makes perfect sense, but only when the traders are liberal democratic regimes, not authortiarian dictators.


It is probably safe to assume that the countries engaging in real free trade are most likely liberal democratic nations to begin with, however, the impact that free trade, or just the offer there of, can have on authoritarian regimes cannot be denied. Just look at China. China's economy has been booming as a result of it's joining the world market. Along with the economic development have come ideas of human freedom in general, most notibly the ideas of private property and human rights, provisions for which the Chinese government has recently added to its constitution. Such an act may just be for looks, or it could reflect a real impact that open trade has had. At any rate, China stands as an exellent example of how free trade, or any trade at all, can begin to open authoritarian regimes to the ideas of freedom in general.


Almost no developement success this century can be attributed to free market and deregulation.

But only because real free trade and deregulation on a worldwide scale are fairly new concepts, at least in practice. Granted, the development that comes with them will not happen overnight. It is going to take dedication and hard work to aleviate world poverty and such. At any rate, taking the opposite road and locking up the wealth in rich countries certainly doesn't help at all; if world poverty is going to be reduced or even eliminated, then the wealth must be allowed to move to poor and underdeveloped countries. Free trade, globalization, and deregulation certainly assist in that process.

Is it possible to take a harder stance than "completely do away with?"

"Completely do away with... faster"?

And yet a system which demands ultimate loyalty to the commune and labor without any compensation (no money, remember) is voluntary and advantageous?

There are other forms of compensation than money. Society is in a lot more trouble than I thought if people have forgotten how to appreciate the respect and admiration of others. The US seems to demand ultimate loyalty from us. Communes in the Spanish revolution didn't have selective service or anything.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Is it possible to take a harder stance than "completely do away with?"

"Completely do away with... faster"?

:lol:

Ah well, I figure getting a president that believes in just "completely doing away with it" to begin with is probably good enough.

It is probably safe to assume that the countries engaging in real free trade are most likely liberal democratic nations to begin with, however, the impact that free trade, or just the offer there of, can have on authoritarian regimes cannot be denied. Just look at China. China's economy has been booming as a result of it's joining the world market. Along with the economic development have come ideas of human freedom in general, most notibly the ideas of private property and human rights, provisions for which the Chinese government has recently added to its constitution. Such an act may just be for looks, or it could reflect a real impact that open trade has had. At any rate, China stands as an exellent example of how free trade, or any trade at all, can begin to open authoritarian regimes to the ideas of freedom in general.

Maybe, but on the other hand you have relatively authoritarian governments like the South Korean government that did just fine under free-ish trade. China is possibly a good example, but I we should keep in mind it is in no way what hte Washington consensus has in mind, and is certainly not engaging in 'free trade' in any significant way. If anything, it's quite clearly mercantilist at this point. It's definitely not a success of neo-liberal development.


But only because real free trade and deregulation on a worldwide scale are fairly new concepts, at least in practice. Granted, the development that comes with them will not happen overnight. It is going to take dedication and hard work to aleviate world poverty and such. At any rate, taking the opposite road and locking up the wealth in rich countries certainly doesn't help at all; if world poverty is going to be reduced or even eliminated, then the wealth must be allowed to move to poor and underdeveloped countries. Free trade, globalization, and deregulation certainly assist in that process.

Something of a false dichotomy, IMO. 'Trade not aid' has been the development mantra for the last 20 years or so, and I think it's proven quite ineffective. Trade AND aid, as well as flexibility in regards to deregulation, will no doubt turn out to be more effective than pure capitalist 'one size fits all' liberalization. Deregulation has NOT been very sucessful in many cases, particularly Asia 97. Free trade is a positive force, but it cannot be the only force if we're really interested in development.

There are other forms of compensation than money.


Like what? Warm fuzzy feelings, being permitted to eat, being permitted to live?


Society is in a lot more trouble than I thought if people have forgotten how to appreciate the respect and admiration of others.


Respect and admiration are nice, but they don't fill stomachs.


The US seems to demand ultimate loyalty from us. Communes in the Spanish revolution didn't have selective service or anything.


Most, if not all, capitalist libertarians are not in to compulsory military service either.

I mentioned "ultimate loyalty" because that is the only possible thing that can sustain a system that has no form of tangible, valuable compensation. Even then it won't last very long as people being to realize that warm fuzzies have no taste. So as the system falls apart, one is left to wonder how "ultimate loyalty" or "respect and admiration" will be maintained...

Like what? Warm fuzzy feelings, being permitted to eat, being permitted to live?

Look at all the stuff people produce for free. Look at how much effort is put into free creative endeavours on the internet alone. Look at linux, look at freeware... there's no need to deride the efficacy of gift economies.

China is possibly a good example, but I we should keep in mind it is in no way what hte Washington consensus has in mind, and is certainly not engaging in 'free trade' in any significant way. If anything, it's quite clearly mercantilist at this point. It's definitely not a success of neo-liberal development.


Surely, any step in the direction of world trade is better than the all out communist policy that the country was founded on. I don't mean to claim that China is a free and open country now. All I meant to claim is that world trade is providing the means necessary to make it so. Granted, total victory is still far away (the collapse of the Communist Party USSR style would most certainly help), but it is certainly a lot closer than before. The "success of neo-liberal development" is on its way and will arrive if relationships are continued with China and allowed to develop into free trade.

I support Michael Badnarik for the libertarian candidate. Hasn't Nolan won most of the libertarian primaries though?

Look at all the stuff people produce for free. Look at how much effort is put into free creative endeavours on the internet alone. Look at linux, look at freeware... there's no need to deride the efficacy of gift economies.

In my mind, there is a very large difference between a community of hobbyists and turning the entire economy of a nation into a "gift economy."

Sure, people contribute freely to projects like Linux. These same people also have jobs by which they earn money so that they can eat and have shelter. Without such sustinance, I'm sure it would be very difficult for anyone to contribute to such freeware projects. :wink: (EDIT: without the system of capitalist employment and economy which some seem to hate so much, such projects would not be possible. If anything, capitalist employment and economy is required in order to sustain such projects.)

Look at all the stuff people produce for free. Look at how much effort is put into free creative endeavours on the internet alone. Look at linux, look at freeware... there's no need to deride the efficacy of gift economies.

In my mind, there is a very large difference between a community of hobbyists and turning the entire economy of a nation into a "gift economy."

Sure, people contribute freely to projects like Linux. These same people also have jobs by which they earn money so that they can eat and have shelter. Without such sustinance, I'm sure it would be very difficult for anyone to contribute to such freeware projects. :wink:

I don't disagree, but I was just pointing out that it doesn't make sense to claim that money is the only valuable compensation (which I think you were sort of claiming) when that's so obviously not true.

Well.... I really don't see any motivation for most people to work if they will not get anything in return.

Look at all the stuff people produce for free. Look at how much effort is put into free creative endeavours on the internet alone. Look at linux, look at freeware... there's no need to deride the efficacy of gift economies.

In my mind, there is a very large difference between a community of hobbyists and turning the entire economy of a nation into a "gift economy."

Sure, people contribute freely to projects like Linux. These same people also have jobs by which they earn money so that they can eat and have shelter. Without such sustinance, I'm sure it would be very difficult for anyone to contribute to such freeware projects. :wink:

I don't disagree, but I was just pointing out that it doesn't make sense to claim that money is the only valuable compensation (which I think you were sort of claiming) when that's so obviously not true.

Sure, philanthropy and such has value, I don't contest that. What I do contest is that philanthropy and such can alone sustain an entire system of economics, which is what the advocates of "anarcho"-communism and similar philosophies seem to suggest.

People can certainly find reward in philanthropy and other feelings of good will, but at the end of the day, a system based on physical tangible value is going to be necessary to sustain any system in which smaller systems based on philanthropy exist.

I am a libertarian, and I support Aaron Russo!

Like what? Warm fuzzy feelings, being permitted to eat, being permitted to live?

I guess you could say that.

Respect and admiration are nice, but they don't fill stomachs.

Neither does money. Respect and admiration will encourage people to give things that cost nothing to make, anyway.

Sure, philanthropy and such has value, I don't contest that. What I do contest is that philanthropy and such can alone sustain an entire system of economics, which is what the advocates of "anarcho"-communism and similar philosophies seem to suggest.

People can certainly find reward in philanthropy and other feelings of good will, but at the end of the day, a system based on physical tangible value is going to be necessary to sustain any system in which smaller systems based on philanthropy exist.

Why? If there is no money, then it makes more sense to earn the respect of others by sharing than to hoard things.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

...

I support and will vote for whoever wins the Libertarian candidacy. Any party platform which shares about 90% of my views is excellent in my book.

I consider myself to be a moderate Libertarian Nationalist. I disagree with unlimited immigration. I think libertarian freedom should be standardized across the nation so one state is not left tyrannical while its neighbor is free. If that is not possible, I support a union of libertarian states to break away from U.S.A. and form their own nation.

As for the moderate part, I'm not into total anarcho-capitalism. Sales tax should be left in a flat reduced form. A number of regulatory organizations like the FDA should be left as well.

Neither does money. Respect and admiration will encourage people to give things that cost nothing to make, anyway.


What costs nothing to make? Unless people plan to sleep in dirt and eat twigs, shelter and food both require labor to manufacture. Are people really supposed to accept "respect and admiration" as the only payment for their labor? If people are expected to trade things they manufacture, then you just might as well use money, as money is simply a token that stands in for such trade, making it more efficient.


Why? If there is no money, then it makes more sense to earn the respect of others by sharing than to hoard things.


Because people require a tangible token which they can see and hold to serve as a system that keeps track of trade. This practice goes all the way back to the earliest cave, when primitive man began punching holes in pieces of stone to keep tally of trades. Even if a system could be based only on metaphysical concepts like "respect," I'd be willing to bet that people would start printing little green "respect notes" with which they would trade each other for goods and services.

Of course, such a system of currency would quickly become worthless as "respect" is an intangible commodity, and therefore can be reproduced relentlessly until the (EDIT: currency ) in question becomes hyper-inflated and collapses.

Like what? Warm fuzzy feelings, being permitted to eat, being permitted to live?
I guess you could say that.


Say that payment would be warm fuzzies, or that payment would be (EDIT: permission) to continue living?

If it is the first, then don't be surprised when such a system fails miserably. If it is the second, then I truely begin to wonder which is really the oppressive system in question here.

Unfortunately, we don't have a global free market. If we did, then exporting jobs would not be a big deal, since everyone around the world would have a similar standard of living and the price of labor would not have a wide disparity in different parts of the world...

Foreign workers are being exploited by our standards. Just because the alternative is even worse doesn't mean they still aren't being exploited.


http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=134739&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40#2959080

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how actually improving conditions and lifestyles for the poor is exploitation. Especially considering how this improvement is exactly what will create a "similar standard of living." It might not happen overnight, but it is happening.

One needs also to keep in mind that the "disparity" in wages comes not from employer exploitation but from simple differences in purchasing power of currencies from nation to nation. In developing nations, the currency is not hyper-inflated and the economy not hyper-developed like here in the United States, and as a result, foreign currency (the dollar) in said developing nation actually has a higher purchasing power than one would find in the United States. The wages that multinational companies pay may seem very low, by the standard of an already developed and rich nation like the United States. However, in the foreign local economy, such a wage can make its recipient quite rich indeed. In short, applying the standard of a rich and developed nation to a poor underdeveloped nation is simply dishonest and will only produce false indications. Each individual economy must be considered on its own, until the foreign economy is able to build itself up to the point were it can be accurately compared with the United States.

I've actually travelled the world, and I can tell you that buying power is a fallacy. If it takes a third more in Australian dollars to equal one American, then they just mark up the price by a third. I've seen it in industrialized and third-world countries alike. When you convert the price you paid into your own currency, you find that it's pretty much the same as you would have expected to pay at home... local specialties notwithstanding.

That means if the guy working in Indonesia makes the equivalent of $630 a year, it has the same buying power as... $630 a year. Quite rich indeed?

Rich and poor are all relative. If the average standard of living is a bare sustenance level, and a company comes into your town that pays a higher wage, it just means you can add a little meat to your diet. Meanwhile, the poor conditions and repetitive motions are taking the years off your life the enriched diet is adding. And those years are being spent in dank, mildewed, noisy rooms for 12 hours a day. And we should be proud of this?

I didn't know the Libertarian party still existed...

Libertarian party is the third largest party in United States. They consistently put up more candidates for local, state, and national level than Greens, Reformists,Nazis, Constitutionalists, and Communists.

Green party perhaps gets more attention with their presidential race but Libertarians got more people running on all levels of government.

Open markets create jobs and wealth and in the long run are better for everyone, including those whose jobs are "exported". There hasn't been a respectable intellectual criticism of free trade since Adam Smith destroyed the mercantilists arguments' centuries ago.

As for "exploiting" cheap foreign labour, if they were better off without that job they wouldn't take it. The same people who complain about western workers' jobs being exported usually have no problem with taxing their wages and sending those away instead.

I bet those Chinese workers with their rapidly rising standards of living feel really exploited. Maybe they need more government.......



Unfortunately, we don't have a global free market. If we did, then exporting jobs would not be a big deal, since everyone around the world would have a similar standard of living and the price of labor would not have a wide disparity in different parts of the world. But when jobs are exported, the company saves a fortune in labor costs. We have not seen, as free market principles dictate, a parallel drop in product costs. Those same Nikes that were made in Ohio (or wherever) for $90 are now made in Thailand and sold for $110. Rather than cutting prices to defeat their competitors, Nike just pumps the savings into more advertising... which basically says that Nike thinks we're stupid and easily manipulated, and in general they're right.

Foreign workers are being exploited by our standards. Just because the alternative is even worse doesn't mean they still aren't being exploited.

As I said before, I'm a libertarian, but a moderate one. We have to live in the real world. Where it makes sense to deregulate, we should. Where it makes sense to regulate, we should keep on doing it.

Manufacturing overseas, whether by American-owned companies or not, should be treated as imports, and subject to import duties. If the companies want to pay the lower wages overseas, they should be more than willing to pay the increased unemployment claims that result.
*begin sarcasm* Oh, you're talking about the real world? I thought we were talking about fairy tale land :evil: *end sarcasm*

If Nike keep the savings as profits then the people who own shares in Nike have more money which they spend on other things which generate jobs and income for people. If they spend it on advertising then advertising companies make more money and hire more workers.

Net result: We still have the shoes + extra goods. The jobs lost to US shoe manufacturers are compensated by jobs making whatever it is the extra money is spent on. Not to mention foreign workers enjoying a more tolerable standard of living which doesn't even seem to enter into your flawed fascist/nationalist "do whatever's best for America and screw the rest of the world" analysis.

Do you know what I think is exploitation? Using the threat of violence implicit in lawmaking to forcibly prevent foreigners from earning better wages in the (ruefully mistaken) expectation that this will prop up the wages of American workers.

Also, what about all the things your country EXports? If you put up big trade barriers punishing foreign countries they will of course reciprocate meaning that your country loses jobs.

I've got an idea. Why don't we forbid all trade between everybody? Then everyone will have plenty of jobs to do eeking out a life if you can call it that supplying their own food, cloathes, shelter and medicine.

Well.... I really don't see any motivation for most people to work if they will not get anything in return.
i wouldn't. and i certainly wouldn't work just to earn respect or "warm fuzzy feelings." i don't want my sustanence to be dependent on the gifts of others, i want my own work to pay for it. frankly, i wouldn't accept gifts at all if they came from anyone other than my friends and family, because i think that's shady and there is always a catch.

Capitalism isn't voluntary. The workers are at an extreme disadvantage.

I have some sympathy for this point. At the moment there are more people than jobs so employees are forced to be defferent towards emplyers. The reason for this job shortage is of course govt restrictions (taxes, regulations, duties etc)

If the govt would stop destroying jobs there would be more jobs than people to do them and employers would then be at a disadvantage. The labout market would be a sellers market.

*begin sarcasm* Oh, you're talking about the real world? I thought we were talking about fairy tale land :evil: *end sarcasm*.

The real world comment had more to do with the Marineris Colonies fantasy world where neighbors can band together and build a wind farm along the street or a nuclear power plant in the park than with anything you said.


If Nike keep the savings as profits then the people who own shares in Nike have more money which they spend on other things which generate jobs and income for people. If they spend it on advertising then advertising companies make more money and hire more workers.

They generate jobs and income, yes. But what kinds of jobs are we talking about? Would you like fries with that?


Net result: We still have the shoes + extra goods. The jobs lost to US shoe manufacturers are compensated by jobs making whatever it is the extra money is spent on. Not to mention foreign workers enjoying a more tolerable standard of living which doesn't even seem to enter into your flawed fascist/nationalist "do whatever's best for America and screw the rest of the world" analysis.

Slightly less than subhuman lifestyles... hoorah. Meanwhile we're devaluing labor in the US, so we can sink down to their level. We're not improving world living standards... we're just levelling them. In the global, unregulated market, every worker's lives will suck equally... American or otherwise.


Do you know what I think is exploitation? Using the threat of violence implicit in lawmaking to forcibly prevent foreigners from earning better wages in the (ruefully mistaken) expectation that this will prop up the wages of American workers.

Threat of violence implicit in lawmaking? That's the most meaningless, blatantly propagandist statement I've read for some time. We already have import duties (not to be confused with tariffs), and corporations are basically exploiting a loophole by manufacturing overseas. Products manufactured overseas are imports, whether the parent company is registered in the US or not. Close the loophole and you make a little more revenue for the government and make it slightly more attractive to keep manufacturing jobs at home.

-------------

Sit down with Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" for some real perspective on unregulated capitalism and its affect on the working class. And then consider that this is what US companies are doing all over the world right now. And consider that this is what extreme libertarians like Harry Browne have been peddling for some time. The LP will never be more than a fringe party if it doesn't come to the realization that in the ultimate free market, corporations seek to close it, with monopolies, extortion, and collusion. The LP states that the government exists to protect the citizens and that is all. Protection from corporate abuse falls under that umbrella.

*begin sarcasm* Oh, you're talking about the real world? I thought we were talking about fairy tale land :evil: *end sarcasm*.

The real world comment had more to do with the Marineris Colonies fantasy world where neighbors can band together and build a wind farm along the street or a nuclear power plant in the park than with anything you said.


If Nike keep the savings as profits then the people who own shares in Nike have more money which they spend on other things which generate jobs and income for people. If they spend it on advertising then advertising companies make more money and hire more workers.

They generate jobs and income, yes. But what kinds of jobs are we talking about? Would you like fries with that?


Net result: We still have the shoes + extra goods. The jobs lost to US shoe manufacturers are compensated by jobs making whatever it is the extra money is spent on. Not to mention foreign workers enjoying a more tolerable standard of living which doesn't even seem to enter into your flawed fascist/nationalist "do whatever's best for America and screw the rest of the world" analysis.

Slightly less than subhuman lifestyles... hoorah. Meanwhile we're devaluing labor in the US, so we can sink down to their level. We're not improving world living standards... we're just levelling them. In the global, unregulated market, every worker's lives will suck equally... American or otherwise.


Do you know what I think is exploitation? Using the threat of violence implicit in lawmaking to forcibly prevent foreigners from earning better wages in the (ruefully mistaken) expectation that this will prop up the wages of American workers.

Threat of violence implicit in lawmaking? That's the most meaningless, blatantly propagandist statement I've read for some time. We already have import duties (not to be confused with tariffs), and corporations are basically exploiting a loophole by manufacturing overseas. Products manufactured overseas are imports, whether the parent company is registered in the US or not. Close the loophole and you make a little more revenue for the government and make it slightly more attractive to keep manufacturing jobs at home.

-------------

Sit down with Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" for some real perspective on unregulated capitalism and its affect on the working class. And then consider that this is what US companies are doing all over the world right now. And consider that this is what extreme libertarians like Harry Browne have been peddling for some time. The LP will never be more than a fringe party if it doesn't come to the realization that in the ultimate free market, corporations seek to close it, with monopolies, extortion, and collusion. The LP states that the government exists to protect the citizens and that is all. Protection from corporate abuse falls under that umbrella.
a) It didn't sound to me like that's what Marineris Colonies was suggesting. He/she was just saying that small scale energy production would be cheaper and greener. It's quite sad that you are so reliant on government that you find the idea of people cooperating without the threat of coercion unrealistic.

b) *more sarcasm* I'm sure the average Nike share owner or advertiser would spend any extra money on big macs. *end sarcasm* Surely having more money would lead to people spending LESS on fast food?

c) Americans earn more because they're more productive. This is due to being well educated and living in a country with lots of capital (factorys, machinery etc). Americans will always earn more as long as other countrys cannot match their capital, if other countries can then we'd all be as rich. Again, you don't seem to know or care that as well as making America better off this free trade is doing so much for poorer countries. "Evil" corporations have put more money into the 3rd world in the last 10 years than all the govt aid in the last 50 years.

d) Try violating one of the plethora of laws your govt has passed to see how "meaningless" the implicit threat of violence is. Smoke a little pot and you get kidnapped by armed men. It's not a difficult or ridiculous concept. I never said they weren't imports. But who cares? Why should somebody be robbed just for crossing a line on a map? Again I ask, why don't we just forbid all trade and then everyone will have lots of jobs? It is obviously ridiculous in this extreme situation but ask yourself why and apply the same reasoning to the international situation.

I've never heard of this Upton Sinclair chap but if he's the source of your arguments then I propose that he is an ignorant asshat. All of your arguments have been consistently and thoroughly dismissed by competent economists for centuries.

"Corporate abuse" is a vague catchall term. If you get robbed or injured by a corporation then they ought to be subject to the same laws as everybody else, if they don't do this then stop whinging. Wanting to destroy free trade because someone is buying/selling/hiring in ways you object to is as authoritarian and evil as wanting to destroy free speech because someone is saying things you don't like.

just as a quick side note, I think it's important to realize that if we're advocating free trade, we're also obliged to advocate open borders- closed borders are just a different kind of trade barrier. Let's not forget that labour is a market as well, and it's absurd to suggest we should open capital markets without opening labour markets.

Indeed.

I have no problem with that.

I've actually travelled the world, and I can tell you that buying power is a fallacy. If it takes a third more in Australian dollars to equal one American, then they just mark up the price by a third. I've seen it in industrialized and third-world countries alike. When you convert the price you paid into your own currency, you find that it's pretty much the same as you would have expected to pay at home... local specialties notwithstanding.

That means if the guy working in Indonesia makes the equivalent of $630 a year, it has the same buying power as... $630 a year. Quite rich indeed?


This isn't true. Prices for goods & services (especially the non-tradable one, like haircuts or pizza delivery) do vary a great deal between nations at different stages of development. So a sweatshop salary is worth more than its US dollar value would suggest precisely b/c price level in that Indonesia, Vietnam or whateverstan is lower than in the US.

One of the more famous examples price level differences is Economist's Big Mac Index. See for yourself:
http://www.oanda.com/products/bigmac/bigmac.shtml

If you had travelled, you'd know that not all Big Macs are equal.

a) It didn't sound to me like that's what Marineris Colonies was suggesting. He/she was just saying that small scale energy production would be cheaper and greener. It's quite sad that you are so reliant on government that you find the idea of people cooperating without the threat of coercion unrealistic.

If it were so much cheaper to produce energy on the small scale, everyone would be doing it... everyone except the majority of the population who don't own their own homes and don't have the rights to hang solar panels everywhere, nevermind the capital, but those people don't exist in your fantasy world either. They've all got 2 acres and a white-picket fence just like yours.

As for the "it's so sad" comment, it doesn't deserve a response. More meaningless, propagandist noise.

b) *more sarcasm* I'm sure the average Nike share owner or advertiser would spend any extra money on big macs. *end sarcasm* Surely having more money would lead to people spending LESS on fast food?

Of course. They'll be dining in fine restaurants. Would you like a salad with that?

c) Americans earn more because they're more productive. This is due to being well educated and living in a country with lots of capital (factorys, machinery etc). Americans will always earn more as long as other countrys cannot match their capital, if other countries can then we'd all be as rich. Again, you don't seem to know or care that as well as making America better off this free trade is doing so much for poorer countries. "Evil" corporations have put more money into the 3rd world in the last 10 years than all the govt aid in the last 50 years.

How can they be productive when they don't produce anything anymore? We don't have any factories or machinery anymore. Take a drive through the Great Lakes states sometimes and see if you can count all the deserted towns. The ones the people haven't quit on altogether are looking like Mexico in a severe cold spell.

And don't think industry is the only area affected. India has free education through college... a libertarian no-no. They've got a ton of well-educated programmers and technical support people who need a job. Corporations are training them out of their accents and teaching them American culture, and paying them a third of the wage the Americans would command. If it can be handled by technical support over the phone, it's becoming increasingly likely you're talking to an Indian. I already know a lot of people who have no jobs because of it. They're flooding the labor market and accepting jobs they're overqualified for at much lower pay. That labor market is becoming depressed. And how can US workers compete with Indian wages when we have to pay for our own education?

The US economy is hanging on by its fingernails trying to avoid plunging into recession, and this despite record-low interest rates that have been maintained for a ridiculously long time, a war, and the fat reconstruction contracts that followed. Inflation is beginning to take off, while wages have been at the same level for the past 10 years.

We're already on our way to the equalization of economies. We're headed for Mexico's level, rather than raising theirs to ours.

d) Try violating one of the plethora of laws your govt has passed to see how "meaningless" the implicit threat of violence is. Smoke a little pot and you get kidnapped by armed men. It's not a difficult or ridiculous concept. I never said they weren't imports. But who cares? Why should somebody be robbed just for crossing a line on a map? Again I ask, why don't we just forbid all trade and then everyone will have lots of jobs? It is obviously ridiculous in this extreme situation but ask yourself why and apply the same reasoning to the international situation.

And where is the "threat implicit" in an import tax, drama queen?

I've never heard of this Upton Sinclair chap but if he's the source of your arguments then I propose that he is an ignorant asshat. All of your arguments have been consistently and thoroughly dismissed by competent economists for centuries.

And that shows your educational level, since he's pretty much required reading for high school students. All he does is show you what life is like in the 1920's for immigrant workers in Chicago stockyards. Then he gets preachy in the end, but it doesn't take away from the historical value of the piece. If you had had an education in history you might have recalled that the government didn't get busy in the field of government regulations until the 1920s. Shortly after "The Jungle" was published, actually. Immediately after Teddy Roosevelt finished reading it, to be more precise.

"Corporate abuse" is a vague catchall term. If you get robbed or injured by a corporation then they ought to be subject to the same laws as everybody else, if they don't do this then stop whinging. Wanting to destroy free trade because someone is buying/selling/hiring in ways you object to is as authoritarian and evil as wanting to destroy free speech because someone is saying things you don't like.

Sure, they OUGHT to be subject to the same laws. But this is the real world, and I know better. And so should you, but that's more than can be hoped for. Justice belongs to those who can pay for it... just ask OJ Simpson. So let's just deregulate all business and let them decide what's best for us.

It doesn't matter if your car might explode when you turn the key... the cost of settling a civil suit with all the surviving families will be less than the cost of a recall, and that's what's really important.

You probably won't notice that rat hair in your sausages, and if you do, it's too ground up for you to know what it came from.

If you had travelled, you'd know that not all Big Macs are equal.

Big Mac, by definition, is a lousy piece of fast-food. Surely, a 37% difference in price of British and American Big Mac does not mean that the British one is 37% better, eh?

This wasn't addressed to me but I'll barge in: :twisted:

How can they be productive when they don't produce anything anymore? We don't have any factories or machinery anymore. Take a drive through the Great Lakes states sometimes and see if you can count all the deserted towns.

Take a drive thru Southern states. - Quite a few new auto factoreies there. But, overall, the US is increasingly a service economy; agriculture and manufacturing matter less and less.

And don't think industry is the only area affected. India has free education through college... a libertarian no-no. They've got a ton of well-educated programmers and technical support people who need a job. Corporations are training them out of their accents and teaching them American culture, and paying them a third of the wage the Americans would command. If it can be handled by technical support over the phone, it's becoming increasingly likely you're talking to an Indian. I already know a lot of people who have no jobs because of it. They're flooding the labor market and accepting jobs they're overqualified for at much lower pay. That labor market is becoming depressed. And how can US workers compete with Indian wages when we have to pay for our own education?

Indian gov't chooses to subsidise American consumption by supplying low-cost highly qualified employees? As a consumer, I say: great!

Undoubtedly, transition of manufacturing and of some service jobs from (post)industrialised countries to the developing world is painful for the workers who lose jobs in the process, but the solution for them is to keep moving up the skill ladder (news flash: America's gov't, too, subsidises education through low-interest student loans), -- not to cling on to employment in uncompetitive industries and pray for tarrifs.

The US economy is hanging on by its fingernails trying to avoid plunging into recession,

Change in real GDP at annual rates:

2003 Q1 1.9669
2003 Q2 3.0869
2003 Q3 8.2034
2003 Q4 4.1417
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg

Total for 2003: 4.14%

- Looks somewhat better to me than "hanging on by fingernails".

...and this despite record-low interest rates that have been maintained for a ridiculously long time, a war, and the fat reconstruction contracts that followed. Inflation is beginning to take off,

Monthly CPI inflation at annual rates:

2003 01 4.038
2003 02 6.789
2003 03 5.368
2003 04 -3.844
2003 05 -0.652
2003 06 1.317
2003 07 1.980
2003 08 4.667
2003 09 3.973
2003 10 -1.289
2003 11 -1.930
2003 12 1.968
2004 01 6.000
2004 02 3.278
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/inflation-ar-cpiu

Total for 2003: 1.817%

Again, a very moderate number. 2004 inflation rate will, in all likelihood, exceed the 2003 figure, but that is due to the economic recovery under way. Note also that inflation tends to spike in the first two quarters of the year b/c of seasonal rise in energy costs.

...while wages have been at the same level for the past 10 years.

NO!

Wages & Salaries Index:
1993 115.750
...
2003 160.850
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/tmp/24-160-126-45!20040331003136

-> W&S change over 10 years = 160.85/115.75 = 1.3896 = 39%

CPI (that's consumer price index):
1993 144.5
...
2003 183.8
http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/hist1913.cfm

-> CPI change over 10 years = 183.8/144.5 = 1.2724 = 27.2%

->> Inflation-adjusted increase in wages & salaries, 1993-2003: 1.3896/1.2724 = 9.25%

Yes, job creation has been rather slow so far, but that's the point you chose not to make, for some reason :wink:

P.S. Are you sure you're a "moderate libertarian"? You sound like Dick Gephart to me :mrgreen:

a) It didn't sound to me like that's what Marineris Colonies was suggesting. He/she was just saying that small scale energy production would be cheaper and greener. It's quite sad that you are so reliant on government that you find the idea of people cooperating without the threat of coercion unrealistic.

If it were so much cheaper to produce energy on the small scale, everyone would be doing it... everyone except the majority of the population who don't own their own homes and don't have the rights to hang solar panels everywhere, nevermind the capital, but those people don't exist in your fantasy world either. They've all got 2 acres and a white-picket fence just like yours.

As for the "it's so sad" comment, it doesn't deserve a response. More meaningless, propagandist noise.

b) *more sarcasm* I'm sure the average Nike share owner or advertiser would spend any extra money on big macs. *end sarcasm* Surely having more money would lead to people spending LESS on fast food?

Of course. They'll be dining in fine restaurants. Would you like a salad with that?

c) Americans earn more because they're more productive. This is due to being well educated and living in a country with lots of capital (factorys, machinery etc). Americans will always earn more as long as other countrys cannot match their capital, if other countries can then we'd all be as rich. Again, you don't seem to know or care that as well as making America better off this free trade is doing so much for poorer countries. "Evil" corporations have put more money into the 3rd world in the last 10 years than all the govt aid in the last 50 years.

How can they be productive when they don't produce anything anymore? We don't have any factories or machinery anymore. Take a drive through the Great Lakes states sometimes and see if you can count all the deserted towns. The ones the people haven't quit on altogether are looking like Mexico in a severe cold spell.

And don't think industry is the only area affected. India has free education through college... a libertarian no-no. They've got a ton of well-educated programmers and technical support people who need a job. Corporations are training them out of their accents and teaching them American culture, and paying them a third of the wage the Americans would command. If it can be handled by technical support over the phone, it's becoming increasingly likely you're talking to an Indian. I already know a lot of people who have no jobs because of it. They're flooding the labor market and accepting jobs they're overqualified for at much lower pay. That labor market is becoming depressed. And how can US workers compete with Indian wages when we have to pay for our own education?

The US economy is hanging on by its fingernails trying to avoid plunging into recession, and this despite record-low interest rates that have been maintained for a ridiculously long time, a war, and the fat reconstruction contracts that followed. Inflation is beginning to take off, while wages have been at the same level for the past 10 years.

We're already on our way to the equalization of economies. We're headed for Mexico's level, rather than raising theirs to ours.

d) Try violating one of the plethora of laws your govt has passed to see how "meaningless" the implicit threat of violence is. Smoke a little pot and you get kidnapped by armed men. It's not a difficult or ridiculous concept. I never said they weren't imports. But who cares? Why should somebody be robbed just for crossing a line on a map? Again I ask, why don't we just forbid all trade and then everyone will have lots of jobs? It is obviously ridiculous in this extreme situation but ask yourself why and apply the same reasoning to the international situation.

And where is the "threat implicit" in an import tax, drama queen?

I've never heard of this Upton Sinclair chap but if he's the source of your arguments then I propose that he is an ignorant asshat. All of your arguments have been consistently and thoroughly dismissed by competent economists for centuries.

And that shows your educational level, since he's pretty much required reading for high school students. All he does is show you what life is like in the 1920's for immigrant workers in Chicago stockyards. Then he gets preachy in the end, but it doesn't take away from the historical value of the piece. If you had had an education in history you might have recalled that the government didn't get busy in the field of government regulations until the 1920s. Shortly after "The Jungle" was published, actually. Immediately after Teddy Roosevelt finished reading it, to be more precise.

"Corporate abuse" is a vague catchall term. If you get robbed or injured by a corporation then they ought to be subject to the same laws as everybody else, if they don't do this then stop whinging. Wanting to destroy free trade because someone is buying/selling/hiring in ways you object to is as authoritarian and evil as wanting to destroy free speech because someone is saying things you don't like.

Sure, they OUGHT to be subject to the same laws. But this is the real world, and I know better. And so should you, but that's more than can be hoped for. Justice belongs to those who can pay for it... just ask OJ Simpson. So let's just deregulate all business and let them decide what's best for us.

It doesn't matter if your car might explode when you turn the key... the cost of settling a civil suit with all the surviving families will be less than the cost of a recall, and that's what's really important.

You probably won't notice that rat hair in your sausages, and if you do, it's too ground up for you to know what it came from.
I have 0 acres and 0 fences. Small scale energy production cannot handle the mountains of regulations. Just like the majority of the population can't afford homes because a big chunk of the cost is due to building regs and restrictions on building new homes.

Americans still do productive work. This is the sole reason for their wealth. The towns look like Mexico? But isn't that where all the factories are? Do you realise that Mexican workers complain that they can't compete with US productivity?

You confuse wages with wealth. If your wages fall but the price of goods fall more then you are wealthier. This is why free trade makes you richer even if your wages fall. If Indians get state education then they will pay higher taxes making it a LESS attractive place to invest and therefore less competitive, not to mention poorly educated.

The threat implicit in import taxes. Okay, I'll try spoonfeeding you. Open wide....

Govt: I've drawn an arbitrary line on this map and an arbitrary list of goods and anyone who crosses the line with these goods must pay me money.
Oppressed citizen: That doesn't seem very fair. I try and help people out by giving them affordable goods and you stop me to help make American business owners richer at the public expense. What happens if I don't pay?
Govt: Then I take it anyway and THROW YOU IN A SMALL CONCRETE ROOM WHERE YOU WILL STAY FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND IF YOU TRY TO LEAVE I'LL SHOOT YOU!

If anyone but the govt did this it would immediately be denounced as a violent crime, armed robbery and kidnapping. But since it's good ol' uncle sam it's somehow moral and anyone who says different is a hysterical drama queen.

Then you argue that since the govt is ineffective at enforcing it's own laws it should create more laws to catch them further down the line.

Businesses don't decide on the market, consumers do. A firm that made exploding cars wouldn't survive very long (not to mention they'd be subject to laws on fraud and possibly manslaughter, except they probably wouldn't be since the law doesn't presently hold individuals accountable if they work for a coorporation. How corrupt of the govt. What a good job they don't do of protecting us.) Would you buy that car, or is it just everyone else who's that stupid?

You assume every businessman is like the bad guy in "captain planet". Most of them are honest human beings and those that aren't should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. If they aren't it's a form of discrimination.

Regulations can be provided on the market if the govt doesn't impose them. An example would be the AA guide to hotels, 1 star to 5 star, here in the UK. The trick is to let consumers decide whether it's worth the hassle.

My congratulations on managing to regurgitate high school pseudo-economics. You need the govt, they told you so, right? I bow to your obviously superior education.