A Liberal's Constructive Criticism for Libertarians

[Mensch]

What do you call the relationship between employer and employee? How about the relationship between landlord and tenant?

The employer does not have control over the employee. When we discuss power and control, ultimately it means the powerful have all absolute control over the controlled. A dictator has absolute control over his subjects. A master has absolute control over his slaves. An employer forms a mutual agreement with an employee to work for a common purpose. A partnership is not a master-slave relationship. You are free to work anywhere you'd like, but you are not entitled to a job from an employer who has the resources to employ you. A homeowner is not the master over his tenant<s>. It is another partnership. There's a major difference.

I gave you a clear example of such a situation with the Congo Free State. That the individual who owned it was a monarch is quite irrelevant. However, many private corporations have controlled territories or states throughout history. That is a central element of European colonialism.

I win again! Yes, you did bring up that ridiculous example, and then ridiculously claimed the fact that he was a monarch from Belgium had nothing to do with it! We're talking about libertarianism and their love for a free market. You, and many others, are predicting that if libertarians had their way and we instituted a free market, then private individuals would be able to privately control huge swaths of people using free-market methods. That's what we're talking about. Now, it's kind of pointless to bring up a GOVERNMENT (ie PUBLIC, not private) dictator who uses PUBLIC money forced out of the hands of his subjects to buy up all the land in a far away place. That has nothing to do with a libertarian model government or the free market. That's a scenario of government control over private people. Find me an example of a private corportion controlling private people in a market society where the government governs least. It's impossible, because all sources of force come directly from government. You can't have state-sanctioned imperialism and colonialism without the state government running the show. Private corporations controlled people and resources in other terriroties precisely because their government put them in charge of the resources.

That rationale works if you are talking about a single-family domicile and the grounds around it. However, when you are talking about apartment complexes or business chains it becomes a lot different.

Again, the landlord is not a dictator. He does not control his tenants. His/her tenants are free to make the contract and they're free to break it (though breaking any contract always comes with consequences).

Defense of property is used to justify a great deal. Also, you neglect to mention that the property owner would be allowed to expel anyone from the land as well, for any reason. Someone refusing to leave could be removed by force. People can be detained by private individuals as well.

The property owner is allowed to expel anyone from the land as they wish, provided that they feel threatened or what have you. A landowner cannot invite someone onto their land and then give them five seconds to vacate or die. If they do, they go to prison for murder, regardless if the murder took place on their property. It's a different story when the landowner actually invites the person onto the land. Once you're invited onto the land, the only way off the land (through force) is by calling the police. It is illegal to invite someone onto the land and then to kill them or injure them because they won't get off. In that case, you have to call the police. And when are private citizens allowed to detain other private citizens?

 

[Demon of Light]

Sigh. Obviously you don't understand in the least what I'm saying.

In order for a government to be a government... follow me?... it HAS... again, follow me?... HAS to aggress against property through taxation, and against person through coercive monopoly on force. Get it? If either, or both, of those characteristics are absent, it IS NOT a government.

A business CAN... follow me?... a business CAN aggress against person and property, but it does not HAVE TO in order to be a business.

Please tell me you follow, because I simply can't make it any clearer.

You are clearly mixing up the terms here. The State refers mainly to the institutions or organizations that control and administrate a territory. It can be a public government or private business. In a sense a business with such power is a government, but the point is that any suggestion of business as inherently separate from the State is simply mistaken belief.

What? It's as if we're having seperate conversations, I have no idea what relevance this comment has to the statement you have quoted.

That you consider feudalism a better system than the current one proves you are so committed to your view of things that you are not capable of discussing this subject rationally.

The employer does not have control over the employee. When we discuss power and control, ultimately it means the powerful have all absolute control over the controlled. A dictator has absolute control over his subjects. A master has absolute control over his slaves. An employer forms a mutual agreement with an employee to work for a common purpose. A partnership is not a master-slave relationship. You are free to work anywhere you'd like, but you are not entitled to a job from an employer who has the resources to employ you. A homeowner is not the master over his tenant<s>. It is another partnership. There's a major difference.

You anti-state rhetoric ignores the fact that the Founders rightly considered government to be such a relationship as well.

I win again!

:roll:

Yes, you did bring up that ridiculous example, and then ridiculously claimed the fact that he was a monarch from Belgium had nothing to do with it!

It does have nothing to do with it. He literally owned an entire country and he was far from the wealthiest person in history so your claim that it is impossible is just nonsense.

You can't have state-sanctioned imperialism and colonialism without the state government running the show. Private corporations controlled people and resources in other terriroties precisely because their government put them in charge of the resources.

Your position is so divorced from reality it is pathetic. The notion that private business is some feeble, weak little puppy that can't do no wrong without a politician's say-so is just absurd.

 

[Mensch]

You anti-state rhetoric ignores the fact that the Founders rightly considered government to be such a relationship as well.

For the 100th time, I'm not an anarchist anymore than you're the reincarnation of Chairman Mao. And though you could argue that the founders government was a partnership of sorts, it certainly wasn't unless you met certain criteria. The founders were not Gods, but their ideas were better than most.

It does have nothing to do with it. He literally owned an entire country and he was far from the wealthiest person in history so your claim that it is impossible is just nonsense.

What is your ultimate point? That dictators can buy out other countries? I have no argument there. However, your average wealthy individual cannot BUY himself an entire country. A dictator of a country, who has the power to steal every dollar from his subjects, is not your average wealthy individual. He's a POLITICIAN!

Your position is so divorced from reality it is pathetic. The notion that private business is some feeble, weak little puppy that can't do no wrong without a politician's say-so is just absurd.

When did my logic EVER imply that private business was some feeble, weak little puppy without a politician's say-so? I said that a business cannot effectively cannot be dictators in their own right unless they've been charged with such dictatorial powers through some governmental process. In other words, if a corporation were to violently overthrow the government, then that corporation would become the ruling class. If the government voluntarily merged government and business interests by means of implementing a collectivist state, then the corporation becomes the ruling class. The point is, is that ALL legal force is derived from the government. A business cannot legally do harm to citizens unless that harm was legally permissable under the law. If it's not, then the government's main purpose (which libertarians agree) is to help protect the citizen's rights.

 

[Demon of Light]

For the 100th time, I'm not an anarchist anymore than you're the reincarnation of Chairman Mao. And though you could argue that the founders government was a partnership of sorts, it certainly wasn't unless you met certain criteria. The founders were not Gods, but their ideas were better than most.

Government is a partnership as much as any of the business examples you can provide.

What is your ultimate point? That dictators can buy out other countries? I have no argument there. However, your average wealthy individual cannot BUY himself an entire country. A dictator of a country, who has the power to steal every dollar from his subjects, is not your average wealthy individual. He's a POLITICIAN!

Exactly how much do you think a country costs?

When did my logic EVER imply that private business was some feeble, weak little puppy without a politician's say-so? I said that a business cannot effectively cannot be dictators in their own right unless they've been charged with such dictatorial powers through some governmental process.

There is no need for a governmental process and your failure to understand that is what I am talking about.

 

[Kushinator]

While the pieces include opinion, the fact that Japan and China have stopped buying U.S. Debt remains. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post a link to support your claim.

My claim was that the BOJ was not purchasing gold. You must have made that up to support your ideology.

Japan Government Bonds Yield & Interest Rates - Bloomberg

I have facts, followed by speculative opinion, one which I do not even agree with. You would do well to post links proving mine wrong, rather than simply claim their innacuracy. Your words are as fiat as your currency.

It takes a heroic leap of faith to believe those "facts" support your speculation.

I am well aware that Bernanke wishes to increase inflation, which will raise the cost of living, which will in turn stymy spending, which will lead to less money in the hands of business, which creates more unemployment, not less of it.

You are assuming stagflation. Inflation leads to increases in wages. rof

You would do well to think these things through, rather than simply repeat axioms out of a public school economics hand-book. Bernanke would do well to abandon his failed economic theories.

Again, speculation for something you know little about. FWIW, the difference between public/private college economics programs is the level of mathematical applications in the curriculum. In large public Universities, they tend to have honors econ programs that possess the same level of mathematical exposure.

I think the U.S. Government should default on it's debts, but that's for another discussion. You say I wish to create a fall in monetary velocity, I say you wish to lessen the purchasing value of money hard-earned by the people, that is a form of theft. Perhaps you could explain in greater detail how an increase in the value of dollars, and thus a decrease in the cost of living, would be a bad thing for the average citizen.

Pardon my bluntness, but who cares what you think about government default. You don't own treasuries. Wait..., would you directly benefit from US default? Seems you are in the extreme minority. We should allow the country to collapse because a few conspiracy theory nuts have been paying record prices for gold. :roll:

The Taylor Rule? Jesus, we're pulling out all the stops now aren't we? lol

Draining resources? Via open market operations? What?

You are correct that monetary expansion occurs in the banks themselves, through lending. The Federal Reserve shores up those reserves by printing more dollars. Therein lies the problem.

Get back to me when prices are out of control.

I think Japan is well on it's way to a recovery, especially as it's dumps the dollar in favor of gold. I don't see deflation as a bad thing, and I'm glad Japan is beginning to change course, including it's abandonment of the 0% rate of interest, and dumping of toxic assets.

Again, you made that up. BOJ Statement

On the first page, it reads:

The Bank of Japan will encourage the uncollateralized overnight call rate to remain at around 0 to 0.1 percent.

Right under that it reads:

The Bank decided the principal terms and conditions governing operational details of purchases of ETFs and J-REITs, such as the specifics of those to be purchased and the method of purchase in which the Bank appoints a trust bank as trustee (see Attachment).

Because you seem to be clueless, an ETF is similar to a mutual fund, but has properties of an equity. A J-REIT is a Japanese real estate trust.

Yes, I'm driven by doing what is right as opposed to what is profitable to me... how horrible of me.

Your view of "what is right" is driven by your ideology.

 

[Mensch]

Government is a partnership as much as any of the business examples you can provide.

Yes, but businesses do not have the authority to control you, your body, or your financial decisions. The business does not draft you into the military. It does not legally murder you. It does not put you in prison for making decisions regarding your own body. It does not forcibly take money out of your pocket in order to invest in a ponzi scheme. And so forth.

Exactly how much do you think a country costs?

Why is that relevant? I think this whole debate between us began with the issue of property rights. Why are you against property rights because a politician decided to buy out an entire country from funds he acquired through forcible taxation? The latter has nothing to do with the former.

There is no need for a governmental process and your failure to understand that is what I am talking about.

Then what are we talking about? I'm championing for privatization, for a free market economy and for individual liberty (not anarchy). When I champion for these things, your only response seems to be that such ideas will materialize with privately-run dictatorships. It has never happened, so I don't understand why you keep using it as your primary argument. There is no private dictatorship. There is only a government dictatorship.