Do you support a Libertarian Utopia?

[amadeus]

Where is this argument? Please repost. Your only replies in this thread are 1 and 2-sentence statements. That is not an argument.

I thought you meant there was no articulate libertarian arguments in general, not in these forum posts.

Answer a simple question or 2. In a libertarian society how do you prevent the accumulation of wealth from corrupting the system?

What system? I don't see the accumulation of wealth as being dangerous. From a moral perspective, I don't believe I have the right to confiscate anything that belongs to them. From a utilitarian standpoint, what are they going to do with that wealth? It will either be invested or spent. If they "hoard" their money and don't spend or invest it, all the better, because it makes every dollar I earn more valuable.

You agree there must be some laws regarding contracts. These must be made by people and implemented through the power of the state.

I can't answer because I disagree entirely with the idea that they must be implemented through the power of the state.

How do you prevent the first group of John Galt’s who are successful from using the acquired resources to change these laws and prevent anyone else from competing with them?

That's an argument used by some libertarian anarchists against having a state, and I can't say I disagree entirely with the premise. The Galts can go ahead and change whatever laws they would like, but as long as the people on the other end don't recognize them as legitimate, the Galts can't do anything.

Was the US circa 1900 a sufficiently libertarian society? If not, what were its flaws?

No, it was better in some ways and worse in others. Off the top of my head, the bad stuff includes state segregation, the railroad cartels and the ICC, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and high tariffs.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm aware that the whole libertarianism (as well as the whole "unregulated free-market" bonanza) stems from the ridiculous ideal situation where everyone takes completely rational decisions in a magical world where they have and know all the relevant informations.

It doesn't mean that humans can't take rational decisions (not they shouldn't strive to, at least, balance their emotional ones with rational ones), but it's a long way between "able to take rational decisions" and "basing an entire system on the virtual idea that people always take this kind of decisions".

This isn't actually a response to my post, this is just you repeating yourself at length. If you're going to critique libertarianism from a liberal perspective (in the broad sense, which at this point includes most so-called "conservatism"), then you have to acknowledge your philosophical common ground. Denouncing them as being fundamentally lunatic either gives the impression that you're attempting to give a false image of distance in that respect, or implies that your own position is merely half lunatic, neither of which you want. You should be saying to them "You're right about X, but you don't consider Y and Z", not "X is stupid and so are you".

I would say that it is both. Much of economics is the aggregate of individual behavior. We say that the market does this or that, but what we are really saying is that the aggregate of individual decisions adds up to this or that.

Right, but individual behaviour is taken within the terms of society as it exists. So even if it's true to say that on a very basic level there is some more or less intrinsic motivation- the pursuit of self-interest, basically- that alone doesn't really tell you very much about the form that self-interest takes.

 

[Mark1031]

That hinges on the notion that it is some intrinsic to humans as individuals that generate these systems as individuals, which I don't think is the case. Certainly, individual action plays its part, but what is that part, and what is its relationship to humans as a collective? Humans do not and have never existed outside a social context, so to take a transhistorical, individual man as your point of departure is to begin in entirely the wrong place.
.

I disagree with you method of analysis. It is impossible to understand the parameters you mention like the variation in human behavior and the influence of society on this behavior. Therefore I prefer the method of seeing how societies develop across time and the globe. If you can show me a society with significant private property in which some people (or more importantly corporations) do not seek to dominate financially others through hook or crook then we have a starting point for discussion. Whatever social structures led to this would be interesting indeed.

 

[Mark1031]

I can't answer because I disagree entirely with the idea that they must be implemented through the power of the state.

OK well I was not aware of this. If you don’t have a state to enforce laws how do I protect my accumulated property? The only thing I can think of is warlords with private armies. I don’t think that works out too well. Is this what you envision or voluntary restraint on taking others property? Those are the only 2 options I can think of.

 

[Traitorfish]

I disagree with you method of analysis. It is impossible to understand the parameters you mention like the variation in human behavior and the influence of society on this behavior. Therefore I prefer the method of seeing how societies develop across time and the globe. If you can show me a society with significant private property in which some people (or more importantly corporations) do not seek to dominate financially others through hook or crook then we have a starting point for discussion. Whatever social structures led to this would be interesting indeed.

I don't really follow. What do you think that I am actually claiming, here? When have I ever expressed the idea that we can neatly delineate between nature and nurture? (Because I very much reject that position. I hold a broadly historicist perspective, so I don't think that it's even a meaningful distinction.) And, for that matter, how does your proposed method of historical comparison actually constitute a break from that? I would assume that I'm misunderstanding rather seriously, because at the moment it seems like you're accusing me of doing what I'm not, and then doing it yourself anyway.

 

[Mark1031]

I don't really follow. What do you think that I am actually claiming, here? When have I ever expressed the idea that we can neatly delineate between nature and nurture? (Because I very much reject that position. I hold a broadly historicist perspective, so I don't think that it's even a meaningful distinction.) And, for that matter, how does your proposed method of historical comparison actually constitute a break from that? I would assume that I'm misunderstanding rather seriously, because at the moment it seems like you're accusing me of doing what I'm not, and then doing it yourself anyway.

Let's avoid the methodological analysis and just answer this: Can you show me a society with significant private property in which some people (or more importantly corporations) do not seek to dominate financially others through hook or crook? If not then I argue that it is a natural behavioral tendency for whatever reason and that libertarianism would maximize this behavior.

 

[Traitorfish]

Let's avoid the methodological analysis and just answer this: Can you show me a society with significant private property in which some people (or more importantly corporations) do not seek to dominate financially others through hook or crook? If not then I argue that it is a natural behavioral tendency for whatever reason and that libertarianism would maximize this behavior.

There are two pretty gaping flaws in that. Firstly, that noting a consistent relationship between X social formation and Y behaviour doesn't tell you anything about "natural" human behaviour, because you haven't actually extracted humans from their social context (as if it were possible), you've just abstracted it away. It's begging the question. Secondly, as far as this goes, you're noting a correlation, not offering a casual relationship. It may well be possible that one exists- I would say that it does, and it would indeed render the libertarian model disastrous- but you aren't actually offering any coherent theory to that effect.

 

[Mark1031]

There are two pretty gaping flaws in that. Firstly, that noting a consistent relationship between X social formation and Y behaviour doesn't tell you anything about "natural" human behaviour, because you haven't actually extracted humans from their social context (as if it were possible), you've just abstracted it away. It's begging the question. Secondly, as far as this goes, you're noting a correlation, not offering a casual relationship. It may well be possible that one exists- I would say that it does, and it would indeed render the libertarian model disastrous- but you aren't actually offering any coherent theory to that effect.

I am well aware of these caveats. I am a scientist and we go with the data we have. You propose questions that are currently unanswerable, do not detract from the actula data we have, and are not relevant to my analysis. While correlation is not causation, correlation offers perfectly good predictive value just without knowledge of the underlying mechanism. So if every society in history displayed the behaviors I mention then I can make a very strong hypothesis that it will happen in society n+1. Given this data and the lack of any contradictory data it is perfectly safe to assume this, in fact it is required. And we can extrapolate how this would play out in a libertarian society as I have done.

 

[Akka]

This isn't actually a response to my post, this is just you repeating yourself at length. If you're going to critique libertarianism from a liberal perspective (in the broad sense, which at this point includes most so-called "conservatism"), then you have to acknowledge your philosophical common ground.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see your point here, not the link between pointing how libertarianism makes no sense and some kind of common ground between it and "liberalism" (whatever it means, considering how it can completely change meaning according to who's speaking, from "left-winger" in general to "hardcore capitalist").

Denouncing them as being fundamentally lunatic either gives the impression that you're attempting to give a false image of distance in that respect, or implies that your own position is merely half lunatic, neither of which you want. You should be saying to them "You're right about X, but you don't consider Y and Z", not "X is stupid and so are you".

Considering I've not even talked about my own beliefs, I don't really see what exactly you're trying to do or mean here.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am well aware of these caveats. I am a scientist and we go with the data we have. You propose questions that are currently unanswerable, do not detract from the actula data we have, and are not relevant to my analysis. While correlation is not causation, correlation offers perfectly good predictive value just without knowledge of the underlying mechanism. So if every society in history displayed the behaviors I mention then I can make a very strong hypothesis that it will happen in society n+1. Given this data and the lack of any contradictory data it is perfectly safe to assume this, in fact it is required. And we can extrapolate how this would play out in a libertarian society as I have done.

You're working with correlations of unknown significance, incomplete evidence, and, in the bolded case, demonstrably false assumptions, and you're calling this a scientific approach to anthropology? (I mean, before we even get into the question of whether you can simply transpose the methodology of one discipline onto another like this, you need to at least do it properly...)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see your point here, not the link between pointing how libertarianism makes no sense and some kind of common ground between it and "liberalism" (whatever it means, considering how it can completely change meaning according to who's speaking, from "left-winger" in general to "hardcore capitalist").

The point is that it's inaccurate to frame the errors of libertarianism as being derived from some utterly spurious premise, when in fact they derive from a relatively minor modification on the premises of the overwhelmingly dominant ideological terrain of contemporary society. Libertarians aren't unique in their conception of humanity, their unique in the degree to which they think this balances with irrationality, how they think the two relate, and what political implications they have.

And when I say "liberalism" I mean in the sense that it would be used in a political science class, not in whatever colloquial or rhetorical usages it might have in any given envirionment. That's not a particularly contentious usage.

Considering I've not even talked about my own beliefs, I don't really see what exactly you're trying to do or mean here.

Well, do you or don't you hold views that can be understood as broadly "liberal"? I may be mistaken in that, and perhaps I am, but from your posts here and elsewhere, this seems to be the case. Presumptuous on my part, maybe, but given the extent to which a broad liberalism dominates political thought in the modern world, it's fair to assume in the absence of any obvious contradictions.

 

[Akka]

The point is that it's inaccurate to frame the errors of libertarianism as being derived from some utterly spurious premise, when in fact they derive from a relatively minor modification on the premises of the overwhelmingly dominant ideological terrain of contemporary society.

I don't consider a completely fairy-tale-like idea of the human behaviour to be a detail, nor a fairyland where eveything just happens to magically go right just because there is not an evil government to coerce people to be a "minor modification".

Well, do you or don't you hold views that can be understood as broadly "liberal"? I may be mistaken in that, and perhaps I am, but from your posts here and elsewhere, this seems to be the case. Presumptuous on my part, maybe, but given the extent to which a broad liberalism dominates political thought in the modern world, it's fair to assume in the absence of any obvious contradictions.

I made some points in this thread. I didn't need to refer to my political opinion for these points to stand.
As such, I don't see how my political opinions on other subjects are in any way relevant - regardless of you being right or wrong about them.

In other words : that a man dislike calculus or not has nothing to do with his point being right or wrong when he says that "2+2 != 5".

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't consider a completely fairy-tale-like idea of the human behaviour to be a detail, nor a fairyland where eveything just happens to magically go right just because there is not an evil government to coerce people to be a "minor modification".

And that would be fair enough, if it was anything other than a strawman, seemingly constructed to avoid having to engage with the relevant political theory. So pity about that.

I made some points in this thread. I didn't need to refer to my political opinion for these points to stand.
As such, I don't see how my political opinions on other subjects are in any way relevant - regardless of you being right or wrong about them.

In other words : that a man dislike calculus or not has nothing to do with his point being right or wrong when he says that "2+2 != 5".

I'm not talking about political orientation, I'm talking about the philosophical anthropology that underlies political orientation. You can't invoke a relatively specific conception humanity and human behaviour, and then claim that you don't have such a conception. Social sciences are not, contrary to your analogy, a precise field, they invariably come down to interpretation; there is no scientific neutrality in which you can shelter.

 

[Cutlass]

No, it was better in some ways and worse in others. Off the top of my head, the bad stuff includes state segregation, the railroad cartels and the ICC, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and high tariffs.

You oppose the railroad cartels and the opposition to the railroad cartels in the same sentence?

Right, but individual behaviour is taken within the terms of society as it exists. So even if it's true to say that on a very basic level there is some more or less intrinsic motivation- the pursuit of self-interest, basically- that alone doesn't really tell you very much about the form that self-interest takes.

No, you get to learn what form self interest takes observationally. Some of understanding economics is more akin to a naturalist observing animals in the wild than it is to philosophy or experimental sciences. And some of it is experimental sciences, in the same manner that psychology can be experimental.

 

[Ajidica]

You oppose the railroad cartels and the opposition to the railroad cartels in the same sentence?

The enemy of his enemy must not be his friend.

 

[amadeus]

OK well I was not aware of this. If you don’t have a state to enforce laws how do I protect my accumulated property? The only thing I can think of is warlords with private armies. I don’t think that works out too well. Is this what you envision or voluntary restraint on taking others property? Those are the only 2 options I can think of.

Well, they wouldn't be warlords any more than mall security or ADT are warlords. In most cases, people do exercise voluntary restraint in taking others' property.

You oppose the railroad cartels and the opposition to the railroad cartels in the same sentence?

The ICC was the opposition?

 

[Cutlass]

Well, they wouldn't be warlords any more than mall security or ADT are warlords. In most cases, people do exercise voluntary restraint in taking others' property.


The ICC was the opposition?

Without the ICC and anti-trust, there would be either one railroad charging 3 times the rate, or a cartel of railroads charging 3 times the rate. Those are the "free market" options.

 

[Mark1031]

Well, they wouldn't be warlords any more than mall security or ADT are warlords. In most cases, people do exercise voluntary restraint in taking others' property.

Well you are a very optimistic person regarding human nature. The US had 7.5 million (fully reported) property crimes last year. There are many more not reported. I had a DVD player stolen from my car just last night and have no intention of reporting it. Oh and this is way down from previous years.

The idea that private security in the absence of government would not simply devolve into brutal gangs is I think naive.

 

[Mark1031]

You're working with correlations of unknown significance, incomplete evidence, and, in the bolded case, demonstrably false assumptions, and you're calling this a scientific approach to anthropology? (I mean, before we even get into the question of whether you can simply transpose the methodology of one discipline onto another like this, you need to at least do it properly...)

Please demonstrate the falseness by providing : A society with significant private property in which some people (or more importantly corporations) do not seek to dominate financially others through hook or crook? I ask for the 3rd time but you continue to blow smoke with fancy sounding verbiage.

 

[amadeus]

Without the ICC and anti-trust, there would be either one railroad charging 3 times the rate, or a cartel of railroads charging 3 times the rate. Those are the "free market" options.

Railroad regulation stifled competitiveness and the railroads, through the ICC, fixed rates and shut out possible competitors. The same thing later happened with the CAB and the trucking industry.

Well you are a very optimistic person regarding human nature. The US had 7.5 million (fully reported) property crimes last year.

There are +300m people in the U.S. and about 7.5 million reported property crimes. So, even if each crime was committed by only one person, it would still be less than 3% of the population. I don't think that would be a good number, but I think my general statement of people respect other people's property holds.

The idea that private security in the absence of government would not simply devolve into brutal gangs is I think naive.

What's the argument that governments do not do the same? Governments are in an even better position because they have territorial monopolies and most of the time respect each others' claims. I believe a private crime-fighting force would be better at fighting off any armed gangs because the honest protection agency would get business.

 

[Cutlass]

Railroad regulation stifled competitiveness and the railroads, through the ICC, fixed rates and shut out possible competitors. The same thing later happened with the CAB and the trucking industry.

Railroad regulation lowered prices, stopped predatory pricing, and prevented the monopolization of the entire industry, which would have caused even higher prices and even more predatory pricing.