I think I get libertarian economics now

[dblack]

All the self-identified "Libertarians" that I've talked to think it's perfectly okay for one person to have unchecked power over his/her neighbors, so long as that power is purely economic.

Essentially, economics are their blind-spot.

There's nothing blind about, but economic freedom is the key distinction between a liberal and a libertarian.

Economic freedom is a fallacy. Macro-economies cannot exist without the state. Money is a creation of the state. Vast economic accumulation is power enabled by the state. It is no less prone to abuse than any other.

I can't make heads or tails of this. It's a collection of unrelated statements, some true, some not true, and some incoherent. The freedom to trade with others is not a "fallacy".

This notion that economic activities are separate from state power is the fallacy. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

I don't claim economic activities are separate from state power. I claim they should be. The state should have no power to interfere with mutually voluntary economic transactions.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Libertarian economics in action!

The debilitating economic disaster Louisiana?s governor left behind - Democratic Underground

(Should I mention Kansas, too?)

 

[dblack]

Libertarian economics in action!

The debilitating economic disaster Louisiana?s governor left behind - Democratic Underground

(Should I mention Kansas, too?)

... and don't forget Somalia!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Oh, hell, why not......

Kansas' Tax Cut Disaster

 

[Vandalshandle]

I was fortunate in that I left Louisiana in 2010. I guess some other poor fool will have to make up for Jindal's financial shortfall for me.

 

[dblack]

I was fortunate in that I left Louisiana in 2010. I guess some other poor fool will have to make up for Jindal's financial shortfall for me.

So, you left before the libertarians took over?

 

[Searcher44]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

I would describe that more as a description of the Ideal Capitalist State as conceived by the Koch Bros. and their ilk. I don't picture the average libertarian as being in the same class of hereditarily evolved predators.

 

[Agit8r]

All the self-identified "Libertarians" that I've talked to think it's perfectly okay for one person to have unchecked power over his/her neighbors, so long as that power is purely economic.

Essentially, economics are their blind-spot.

There's nothing blind about, but economic freedom is the key distinction between a liberal and a libertarian.

Economic freedom is a fallacy. Macro-economies cannot exist without the state. Money is a creation of the state. Vast economic accumulation is power enabled by the state. It is no less prone to abuse than any other.

I can't make heads or tails of this. It's a collection of unrelated statements, some true, some not true, and some incoherent. The freedom to trade with others is not a "fallacy".

This notion that economic activities are separate from state power is the fallacy. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

I don't claim economic activities are separate from state power. I claim they should be. The state should have no power to interfere with mutually voluntary economic transactions.

But it should provide the framework for commerce. And the results of this government action should be unchecked by any civil authority? See how absurd it sounds?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

Please don't say you "figured anything out"

 

[dblack]

There's nothing blind about, but economic freedom is the key distinction between a liberal and a libertarian.

Economic freedom is a fallacy. Macro-economies cannot exist without the state. Money is a creation of the state. Vast economic accumulation is power enabled by the state. It is no less prone to abuse than any other.

I can't make heads or tails of this. It's a collection of unrelated statements, some true, some not true, and some incoherent. The freedom to trade with others is not a "fallacy".

This notion that economic activities are separate from state power is the fallacy. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

I don't claim economic activities are separate from state power. I claim they should be. The state should have no power to interfere with mutually voluntary economic transactions.

But it should provide the framework for commerce. And the results of this government action should be unchecked by any civil authority? See how absurd it sounds?

Huh? What do you mean by "the results of this government action should be unchecked by any civil authority?"

 

[Agit8r]

Economic freedom is a fallacy. Macro-economies cannot exist without the state. Money is a creation of the state. Vast economic accumulation is power enabled by the state. It is no less prone to abuse than any other.

I can't make heads or tails of this. It's a collection of unrelated statements, some true, some not true, and some incoherent. The freedom to trade with others is not a "fallacy".

This notion that economic activities are separate from state power is the fallacy. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

I don't claim economic activities are separate from state power. I claim they should be. The state should have no power to interfere with mutually voluntary economic transactions.

But it should provide the framework for commerce. And the results of this government action should be unchecked by any civil authority? See how absurd it sounds?

Huh? What do you mean by "the results of this government action should be unchecked by any civil authority?"

The modern state of commerce is dependent upon state recognition of a medium of exchange, legal guarantee of contract and the protection of private property by a coercive force. Can we then excuse the great expenditure upon these functions, unless the same government curbs the evils that afflict society because of commercial activities? I dare say we cannot. To do so, would be to treat the different economic classes inequitably.

 

[dblack]

The modern state of commerce is dependent upon state recognition of a medium of exchange, legal guarantee of contract and the protection of private property by a coercive force. Can we then excuse the great expenditure upon these functions, unless the same government curbs the evils that afflict society because of commercial activities? I dare say we cannot. To do so, would be to treat the different economic classes inequitably.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following. Can you rephrase this perhaps? Particularly the bolded part. What does "excuse the great expenditure upon these functions" mean?

 

[Agit8r]

The modern state of commerce is dependent upon state recognition of a medium of exchange, legal guarantee of contract and the protection of private property by a coercive force. Can we then excuse the great expenditure upon these functions, unless the same government curbs the evils that afflict society because of commercial activities? I dare say we cannot. To do so, would be to treat the different economic classes inequitably.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following. Can you rephrase this perhaps? Particularly the bolded part. What does "excuse the great expenditure upon these functions" mean?

Can we justify extracting money from tax-payers, if it only benefits the few, and not the many? Frankly, no. Such a society has always ended in revolution.

 

[boedicca]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

You are confusing Statism with Liberarianism, bub. Hardly a surprise there.

 

[sealybobo]

Loserterianism is nothing more then anarchy that wants to bomb other countries!!!!

Seriously, they don't give a damn if America has no roads, science institutions, police or regulations protecting the worker.

These people are every man for himself to the core.

A libertarian America would have roads, science institutions, and police. They would simply be privately owned.

So would the Grand Canyon and it would be a corporate dump.

Yellowstone would be privately owned too

 

[dblack]

The modern state of commerce is dependent upon state recognition of a medium of exchange, legal guarantee of contract and the protection of private property by a coercive force. Can we then excuse the great expenditure upon these functions, unless the same government curbs the evils that afflict society because of commercial activities? I dare say we cannot. To do so, would be to treat the different economic classes inequitably.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following. Can you rephrase this perhaps? Particularly the bolded part. What does "excuse the great expenditure upon these functions" mean?

Can we justify extracting money from tax-payers, if it only benefits the few, and not the many? Frankly, no. Such a society has always ended in revolution.

I wholeheartedly agree. The government shouldn't serve as a mechanism to 'benefit' any particular class or individual. It should protect equal, universal rights.

 

[Agit8r]

The modern state of commerce is dependent upon state recognition of a medium of exchange, legal guarantee of contract and the protection of private property by a coercive force. Can we then excuse the great expenditure upon these functions, unless the same government curbs the evils that afflict society because of commercial activities? I dare say we cannot. To do so, would be to treat the different economic classes inequitably.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following. Can you rephrase this perhaps? Particularly the bolded part. What does "excuse the great expenditure upon these functions" mean?

Can we justify extracting money from tax-payers, if it only benefits the few, and not the many? Frankly, no. Such a society has always ended in revolution.

I wholeheartedly agree. The government shouldn't serve as a mechanism to 'benefit' any particular class or individual. It should protect equal, universal rights.

Do you accept that, for all the good that has come with free markets, there are also side affects that diminishes the good? And for a considerable portion of society, these affects may indeed outweigh the good?

 

[dblack]

The modern state of commerce is dependent upon state recognition of a medium of exchange, legal guarantee of contract and the protection of private property by a coercive force. Can we then excuse the great expenditure upon these functions, unless the same government curbs the evils that afflict society because of commercial activities? I dare say we cannot. To do so, would be to treat the different economic classes inequitably.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following. Can you rephrase this perhaps? Particularly the bolded part. What does "excuse the great expenditure upon these functions" mean?

Can we justify extracting money from tax-payers, if it only benefits the few, and not the many? Frankly, no. Such a society has always ended in revolution.

I wholeheartedly agree. The government shouldn't serve as a mechanism to 'benefit' any particular class or individual. It should protect equal, universal rights.

Do you accept that, for all the good that has come with free markets, there are also side affects that diminishes the good? And for a considerable portion of society, these affects may indeed outweigh the good?

I suppose so, yep. But before you go there, I'll restate my position: The job of government is to protect our freedom, not ensure "the good" life.

 

[Agit8r]

The modern state of commerce is dependent upon state recognition of a medium of exchange, legal guarantee of contract and the protection of private property by a coercive force. Can we then excuse the great expenditure upon these functions, unless the same government curbs the evils that afflict society because of commercial activities? I dare say we cannot. To do so, would be to treat the different economic classes inequitably.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following. Can you rephrase this perhaps? Particularly the bolded part. What does "excuse the great expenditure upon these functions" mean?

Can we justify extracting money from tax-payers, if it only benefits the few, and not the many? Frankly, no. Such a society has always ended in revolution.

I wholeheartedly agree. The government shouldn't serve as a mechanism to 'benefit' any particular class or individual. It should protect equal, universal rights.

Do you accept that, for all the good that has come with free markets, there are also side affects that diminishes the good? And for a considerable portion of society, these affects may indeed outweigh the good?

I suppose so, yep. But before you go there, I'll restate my position: The job of government is to protect our freedom, not ensure "the good" life.

The good life is subjective. I'm talking about the essential freedoms of the many, versus the license of the few.

"In the state of nature, every man hath an equal right by honest means to acquire property, and to enjoy it; in general, to pursue his own happiness, and none can consistently controul or interrupt him in the pursuit. But, so turbulent are the passions of some, and so selfish the feelings of others, that in such a state, there being no social compact, the weak cannot always be protected from the violence of the strong, nor the honest and unsuspecting from the arts and intrigues of the selfish and cunning. Hence it is easy to conceive, that men, naturally formed for society, were inclined to enter into mutual compact for the better security of their natural rights. In this state of society, the unalienable rights of nature are held sacred:--And each member is intitled to an equal share of all the social rights. No man can of right become possessed of a greater share: If any one usurps it, he so far becomes a tyrant; and when he can obtain sufficient strength, the people will feel the rod of a tyrant. Or, if this exclusive privilege can be supposed to be held in virtue of compact, it argues a very capital defect; and the people, when more enlightened, will alter their compact, and extinguish the very idea."
-- Samuel Adams; to the legislature of Massachusetts (Jan. 17, 1794)

 

[JakeStarkey]

The modern state of commerce is dependent upon state recognition of a medium of exchange, legal guarantee of contract and the protection of private property by a coercive force. Can we then excuse the great expenditure upon these functions, unless the same government curbs the evils that afflict society because of commercial activities? I dare say we cannot. To do so, would be to treat the different economic classes inequitably.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following. Can you rephrase this perhaps? Particularly the bolded part. What does "excuse the great expenditure upon these functions" mean?

Can we justify extracting money from tax-payers, if it only benefits the few, and not the many? Frankly, no. Such a society has always ended in revolution.

I wholeheartedly agree. The government shouldn't serve as a mechanism to 'benefit' any particular class or individual. It should protect equal, universal rights.

Do you accept that, for all the good that has come with free markets, there are also side affects that diminishes the good? And for a considerable portion of society, these affects may indeed outweigh the good?

I suppose so, yep. But before you go there, I'll restate my position: The job of government is to protect our freedom, not ensure "the good" life.

Why should it not do both?