A Liberal's Constructive Criticism for Libertarians

[Elutherian]

In the 18th century, one panic occured in 1797. This was caused by deflation from the Bank of England, which was facing insolvency after it's involvement in the French Revolution.

In the 19th century, 23 panics and recessions occured. The frequency stood at every 5 years. On average, they lasted 2-3 years. The severity, on average, was moderate to minimal.

In the 20th century, 23 panics, recessions, and one general depression occured. The frequency stood at every 3-5 years. On average, they lasted 3-4 years. The severity, on average, was moderate to severe.

 

[Kushinator]

I already stated financial panics and bank runs occured in the 19th century. Fractional-Reserves are to blame for bank runs. The 1913 solution, a lender of last resort, did not solve the problem by merely providing a semblance of stability in eliminating these runs. Financial Panics have been just as, if not more, frequent. Their devestation, as shown in 1929, and again in 2008, are far more serious than anything seen in early American banking.

Fractional reserve banking is pillar of finance, and cannot be eliminated in a "free banking" system. Without FRB, it is simply unprofitable to operate a bank unless you charge a fee. Overall economic growth as made exponential leaps in the period of modern finance. Venture capital is then reserved for innovation.

The ultimate result of this fallacious system will be a recession that, regardless to currency inflation, the Federal Reserve will be unable to print it's way out of. This will inevitably end in hyperinflation and depression.

We heard the cries of hyperinflation in 2006, which turned out to be completely false. What do you expect to come from a school of thought who's most recent significant contribution is a call for socialism.

 

[Kushinator]

In the 18th century, one panic occured in 1797. This was caused by deflation from the Bank of England, which was facing insolvency after it's involvement in the French Revolution.

In the 19th century, 23 panics and recessions occured. The frequency stood at every 5 years. On average, they lasted 2-3 years. The severity, on average, was moderate to minimal.

In the 20th century, 23 panics, recessions, and one general depression occured. The frequency stood at every 3-5 years. On average, they lasted 3-4 years. The severity, on average, was moderate to severe.

The desire not to use a quality source tells volumes.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

 

[Paschendale]

Just to get this straight, we agree that some regulation is necessary for the common good. So we're slightly disagreeing on what needs regulation and what doesn't. So, I'll ask a few questions.

Should companies be required to accurately list the ingredients in food?
Should doctors be required to obtain informed consent from patients?
Should cigarette packages be required to print a skull and crossbones warning on their labels?
Should companies' emissions of polluting agents be restricted?
Should BP be held accountable for the damage it caused in Gulf in a real and substantive way?
Should sales of fast food and soda pop be restricted for public health reasons?
Should the minimum wage be raised to ensure that 40 hours a week of work will keep a person above poverty?

I would argue in favor of some of these regulations, but not all.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Just to get this straight, we agree that some regulation is necessary for the common good. So we're slightly disagreeing on what needs regulation and what doesn't. So, I'll ask a few questions.

Should companies be required to accurately list the ingredients in food?
Should doctors be required to obtain informed consent from patients?
Should cigarette packages be required to print a skull and crossbones warning on their labels?
Should companies' emissions of polluting agents be restricted?
Should BP be held accountable for the damage it caused in Gulf in a real and substantive way?
Should sales of fast food and soda pop be restricted for public health reasons?
Should the minimum wage be raised to ensure that 40 hours a week of work will keep a person above poverty?

I would argue in favor of some of these regulations, but not all.

Yes, except for the fast food one. In that case, I am seeing a market response to public concern about health, so its probably better to leave it alone. Also the skull and crossbones thing could be any widely recognized label.

 

[Demon of Light]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Aggression can be committed by any individual or entity. The State is the only organization which has it's very being in violence and coercion.

A person cannot buy every plot of land in any country without the consent of those from who he purchases.

The point is that the State represents whoever is in a position of authority over a territory. Also, what if you live in a renter's country where the wealthy already own all the land and they simply all entrust it to one of their own?

I've had this argument with you before. The hypothetical situation is impossible, and no libertarian is a supporter of monarchy.

That's a terrible defense. Really it is just an effort to write off a damning situation. It is impossible to defend a situation like I mentioned while claiming to uphold individual liberty. Saying it is impossible is a convenient excuse for not addressing the fact such power in one hand is antithetical to the values you claim to uphold and would come as a direct result of the same values.

Of course, in all actuality it is completely possible so even that defense fails.

Second, is a large land owner automatically the dictator over that land? Is he able to abuse the people who rent off his land and toil his land? Is he able to lock them up in political prisons and censor their freedom of speech and movement?

According to the principles of certain libertarians this person has every right to do that because it is that person's land. He or she can do what he or she likes with the property and the people living on the property live there at the owner's leisure and he or she has every right to tell them what they can and cannot do on the land. The owner certainly could control their movements and what they say on that land.

 

[Mensch]

That's a terrible defense. Really it is just an effort to write off a damning situation. It is impossible to defend a situation like I mentioned while claiming to uphold individual liberty. Saying it is impossible is a convenient excuse for not addressing the fact such power in one hand is antithetical to the values you claim to uphold and would come as a direct result of the same values.

Explain to me HOW, and under what circumstances, would a libertarian form of government ensure that a single individual would swallow up ALL the land? Given that the federal government only owns about 1/5 of the nation's land, how come a single individual has not yet purchased the other 4/5 of America?

Of course, in all actuality it is completely possible so even that defense fails.

No, it is impossible. It has never happened in the history of the world.

According to the principles of certain libertarians this person has every right to do that because it is that person's land. He or she can do what he or she likes with the property and the people living on the property live there at the owner's leisure and he or she has every right to tell them what they can and cannot do on the land. The owner certainly could control their movements and what they say on that land.

So then, in this country that values individual liberty and private land ownership, where are the gulags? Where are the prisons? Where are the wealthy dictators?

 

[Elutherian]

Fractional reserve banking is pillar of finance, and cannot be eliminated in a "free banking" system. Without FRB, it is simply unprofitable to operate a bank unless you charge a fee. Overall economic growth as made exponential leaps in the period of modern finance. Venture capital is then reserved for innovation.

Fractional-Reserves are unsustainable on the free market. It is an absolutely fraudulent system, based on an untenable promise. When a bank assures it's customers immediate and full reclamation of their deposits while lending out those assets to borrowers, you invite collapse. The only realistic system, and ultimately the only arrangement that will survive on a free banking market, is one in which safehouse banks and lender banks operate seperately. Fees are an unavoidable price to pay for stability.

A lender of last resort, however, does nothing to solve the problem. The Federal Reserve has only postponed the inevitable.

Modern Finance is based on a house of cards. The next decade will vilify Central Economic Planning in banking.

We heard the cries of hyperinflation in 2006, which turned out to be completely false. What do you expect to come from a school of thought who's most recent significant contribution is a call for socialism.

The dollar is worth 3 cents of it's original value. Gold and silver continue to climb at rapid rates. The dollar maintains it's sharp decline as China, India, and Saudi Arabia buy up gold and commodities, dumping U.S. currency by the bucket-load.

We have yet to learn the lessons hard earned by Germany and Zimbabwe.

Austrian Economists calling for socialism? I'll need a link showing this to be true... afterall, it's been a long while since an Austrian has converted to Keynesianism, if indeed it has ever happened.

 

[Elutherian]

The desire not to use a quality source tells volumes.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

Thank you for providing a source to the information I posted. That's very helpful.

 

[Elutherian]

The point is that the State represents whoever is in a position of authority over a territory.

Agreed. What is your point?

Also, what if you live in a renter's country where the wealthy already own all the land and they simply all entrust it to one of their own?

You mean Feudalism? Far superior to our current system, but unlikely in modern economic situations.

However, were this situation to present itself, my advice would be to leave, unless of course you could afford the rent and were happy to stay.

 

[Kushinator]

Fractional-Reserves are unsustainable on the free market. It is an absolutely fraudulent system, based on an untenable promise. When a bank assures it's customers immediate and full reclamation of their deposits while lending out those assets to borrowers, you invite collapse. The only realistic system, and ultimately the only arrangement that will survive on a free banking market, is one in which safehouse banks and lender banks operate seperately. Fees are an unavoidable price to pay for stability.

A lender of last resort, however, does nothing to solve the problem. The Federal Reserve has only postponed the inevitable.

Modern Finance is based on a house of cards. The next decade will vilify Central Economic Planning in banking.

You have posted speculation dressed in opinion. How many bank runs can you name since the creation of the FDIC?

The dollar is worth 3 cents of it's original value. Gold and silver continue to climb at rapid rates. The dollar maintains it's sharp decline as China, India, and Saudi Arabia buy up gold and commodities, dumping U.S. currency by the bucket-load.

We have yet to learn the lessons hard earned by Germany and Zimbabwe.

Austrian Economists calling for socialism? I'll need a link showing this to be true... afterall, it's been a long while since an Austrian has converted to Keynesianism, if indeed it has ever happened.

http://www.gmu.edu/rae/archives/VOL15_1_2002/4_burczak.pdf

SpringerLink - The Review of Austrian Economics, Volume 22, Number 3

 

[Kushinator]

Thank you for providing a source to the information I posted. That's very helpful.

When peak to peak is relativly large, frequency decreases. rof

 

[Troubadour]

You've obviously spent too much time listening to long winded professors.

No comment on the substance of my advice?

No one cares to read a novel or term paper.

Or, apparently, a single page of respectfully-written constructive criticism. Nice.

If pretentious, professorial rhetoric could slaughter straw men, we'd have a bloody massacre on our hands here...

Null comment #2.

What the hell is this guy talking about? :lamo

Null comment #3.

Question: most libertarians feel it is absolutely necessary to deregulate the financial industry. Did this type of "policy" compel those on Capital Hill to "socialize" their losses in late 2008/early 2009?

Even Greenspan admitted as much.

I dont think youre gonna get anyone to listen, amigo.

I didn't think so, but that's on them - I've done my part.

All criticisms of Libertarianism rely on a sole fiction

All criticisms of libertarianism are fictitious? Its ideas are pure, infallible perfection that would yield the ideal world if implemented? Where have we heard this before? (*cough*Communism*cough*).

That the State is proficient, or has any interest, in protecting the defenseless.

It is and it does, as every functional state and chaotic collapse in the history of the world attests.

A conservative's constructive criticism for a liberal trying to constructively criticize libertarians....kindly STFU

A perfect statement of conservative values. Thank you for the reminder.

Dear President Obama,

Please see below:

This seems like a non sequitur. I don't see how you could possibly think President Obama's mistakes are identical to those of libertarians.

I don't think this critique is very fair. There are plenty of things that harm me in my daily existance to address problem that I have no stake in. However, I do have a moral right to be concerned with any possible harm caused by the solution to someone else's problem.

The fallacy is believing in the first place that you have no stake - everything is connected to some degree. All decisions are therefore a matter of priority, and anyone who rates solving other people's problems as an absolute zero priority is simply abdicating policy decisions to people who disagree. So one way or another, other people's problems are your problems - you will either help them on your own terms, or help them on someone else's, but you will pay somehow. Even if there is no government policy to address those problems, you will still pay in the form of higher costs of living, packed prisons, and absence of opportunities for your children.

my general impression from most debate I have had with libertarians is that they don't consider the natural fallout of their philosophy to be a bug, but more of a feature.

Yes, I've noticed. They bear that in common with Marxism - judging consequences by what policies gave rise to them rather than their intrinsic reality. Poverty resulting from laissez-faire marketplace is considered a good thing by definition, because if the almighty marketplace deems someone unworthy of prosperity, then they should be poor. Exact same mentality as the late Communist states, where if someone couldn't hack it in a Byzantine Soviet bureaucracy, then they "deserved" to languish. Libertarianism and Marxism both make human beings servants of some ideological construct rather than the other way around.

Personally, I think such a world would be dystopian (even though, I suspect I would do very well in such a world, but a grown up should always be concerned with more than just themselves), but thats just me.

It's not just you, it's pretty much everybody. People generally don't look at Somalia and say "Wow, look at all the freedom!"

I am not sure about the context of this one, so I will decline from adding my two cents.

The context is that people who believe their ideas are perfect and infallible are not capable of being constructive.

I think you are wrong here. But I should let libertartians speak for themselves on it I think,

You don't think they spend way more time and energy ranting against taxation than upholding basic human rights?

So, how long did it take to type up this laughable list of exceptionally hypocritical hooey? Or is this a copy/paste job?

Null comment #4. Unrestrained contempt in response to constructive, respectful dialog...what a surprise.

Libertarians share a number of principles when it comes to striving towards the maximum amount of liberty for the individual; value his natural right to self ownership, his right to acquire property (reap the benefit of his own labour). When libertarians translate these principles to political positions we find there are many different types of libertarians. I believe that the State needs to secure these 'natural' rights and nothing else, but I could easily justify force; the price to liberty is.. what was it again.

I don't see how this statement addresses my criticisms.

Just out of curiosity...since the democrats and republicans and their supporters have spent us into a 14 trillion dollar hole and have destroyed the economy and body politic, do you have the integrity to all resign, acknowledge your failure, and get out of the way and let others govern?

First, I dispute the premise - Democrats and Republicans have not cooperated to create this situation. Ronald Reagan inherited a relatively miniscule national debt and bequeated the largest in history up to that point thanks to low-tax policies largely favored by libertarians. Bill Clinton, with the aid of a tax increase passed by the Democratic Congress he inherited - which ironically helped sweep Republicans to power - balanced the budget and began to pay down the national debt. Then with Bush 2, Republicans once again inherited an economy and a budget in a favorable position and proceeded to reverse them both with abandon, turning budget surpluses into budget deficits by once again cutting taxes without any economic basis (it was a purely political action) and spending a trillion dollars murderously conquering a country that had not attacked us. The cost of fixing that disaster was further deficit spending, albeit this time on economic stimulus, and the deficit has been continuously going down for several months now. Secondly, what do you mean "get out of the way"? You mean we should stop advocating our own positions because the American people prefer them over libertarianism?

But thanks so much for your concern on what 'we' should do.

You didn't address a single point I made in the OP.

 

[Elutherian]

You have posted speculation dressed in opinion. How many bank runs can you name since the creation of the FDIC?

As I stated quite clearly, since the lender of last resort was implemented (FDIC included in that system) there have been no bank runs. Runs are a symptom of the problem. Ensuring a symptom does not occur does not cure the disease, in fact, in this particular case, it makes matters much worse.

http://www.gmu.edu/rae/archives/VOL15_1_2002/4_burczak.pdf

SpringerLink - The Review of Austrian Economics, Volume 22, Number 3

Do you not believe individuals can enter into voluntary socialistic cooperatives? Would you use aggression to ensure they do not? You have grossly misinterpreted the position taken by this economist.

I question your political assertion, claiming to be a Libertarian, when you so obviously have reverence for aggressive State policies in the form of central economic planning in banking.

 

[Elutherian]

When peak to peak is relativly large, frequency decreases. rof

When an institution can readily create credit and money out of thin air, it becomes more likely that bubbles will be sustained for longer periods of time. Bubbles, of course, are the problem. Prolonging the solution, which is the recession, does nothing to warrant praise.

 

[Elutherian]

All criticisms of libertarianism are fictitious? Its ideas are pure, infallible perfection that would yield the ideal world if implemented? Where have we heard this before? (*cough*Communism*cough*).

You are taking my statement out of context. Yet, whether false of not, I am sure you cannot deny the validity of my assertion that the foundation of anti-libertarian arguments relies on the State's inherent benevolency.

It is and it does, as every functional state and chaotic collapse in the history of the world attests.

I have not seen, in history or current events, a single situation where the State has done something for the common good, and not that which was politically expedient.

 

[Kushinator]

As I stated quite clearly, since the lender of last resort was implemented (FDIC included in that system) there have been no bank runs. Runs are a symptom of the problem. Ensuring a symptom does not occur does not cure the disease, in fact, in this particular case, it makes matters much worse.

A bank run signals insolvency. Just because you do not agree with the composition of the financial industry, on an ideological level, does not equate to the system being systemically weak.

Do you not believe individuals can enter into voluntary socialistic cooperatives? Would you use aggression to ensure they do not? You have grossly misinterpreted the position taken by this economist.

I question your political assertion, claiming to be a Libertarian, when you so obviously have reverence for aggressive State policies in the form of central economic planning in banking.

I really do not pay TB much mind, nor do i care what anarcho-capitalists question about my political beliefs. The "all or nothing" attitude is what keeps your school of thought on the fringe.

 

[Kushinator]

When an institution can readily create credit and money out of thin air, it becomes more likely that bubbles will be sustained for longer periods of time. Bubbles, of course, are the problem. Prolonging the solution, which is the recession, does nothing to warrant praise.

So you admit you purposefully posted false information regarding the frequency of economic downturns.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

I dont think youre gonna get anyone to listen, amigo.

I didn't think so, but that's on them - I've done my part.

GL yo............

 

[Elutherian]

A bank run signals insolvency. Just because you do not agree with the composition of the financial industry, on an ideological level, does not equate to the system being systemically weak.

You are exactly correct! A bank run signals insolvency! Does removing the signal remove the insolvancy? Can counterfiet currency ensure solvency will last?

Arguing that the system is strong, at this date, is rather like a passenger on the Titanic standing on the bow criticizing his panicked brethren, assuring that despite the iceberg and rising water, the ship could not possibly sink.

I really do not pay TB much mind, nor do i care what anarcho-capitalists question about my political beliefs. The "all or nothing" attitude is what keeps your school of thought on the fringe.

Non-Aggression is the core of Libertarian thought. If you support aggression, you are not a libertarian.

 

[Elutherian]

So you admit you purposefully posted false information regarding the frequency of economic downturns.

If I made a mistake in my posting, it was inadvertent. I thought I had stated the facts as they were. I will review my original post and make the proper corrections.

EDIT: I reviewed my previous post and found nothing irreconcilable with the statistics you posted. If the math were done thoroughly, I would be closer to correct than not in my estimates.

 

[Kushinator]

You are exactly correct! A bank run signals insolvency! Does removing the signal remove the insolvency? Can counterfeit currency ensure solvency will last?

You can always send me your counterfeit currency,or you can purchase gold at its historic nominal price. :2razz:

Arguing that the system is strong, at this date, is rather like a passenger on the Titanic standing on the bow criticizing his panicked brethren, assuring that despite the iceberg and rising water, the ship could not possibly sink.

If the system was weak, the bid to cover in US treasury auctions would not be greater than 3:1 on a consistent basis. If the system was weak, the long end of the yield curve would not be flirting with 4%.

Non-Aggression is the core of Libertarian thought. If you support aggression, you are not a libertarian.

Have i made any comments regarding aggression? Not sure how this negates the fact that the biggest contribution from the Austrian school in the last 25 years was a call for socialism.

 

[Kushinator]

In the 19th century, 23 panics and recessions occured. The frequency stood at every 5 years. On average, they lasted 2-3 years. The severity, on average, was moderate to minimal.

In the 20th century, 23 panics, recessions, and one general depression occured. The frequency stood at every 3-5 years. On average, they lasted 3-4 years. The severity, on average, was moderate to severe.

The bold is either incomplete or incorrect.

 

[Demon of Light]

Explain to me HOW, and under what circumstances, would a libertarian form of government ensure that a single individual would swallow up ALL the land?

That is not what I was saying. It is about investing one person with a great deal of power over many people. Your philosophy naturally results in one person having considerable authority over a great number of people.

No, it is impossible. It has never happened in the history of the world.

You know, I really don't care what you claim is impossible.

So then, in this country that values individual liberty and private land ownership, where are the gulags? Where are the prisons? Where are the wealthy dictators?

This country has put many checks on the power of wealthy individuals. I find it odd that you would consider this country to be even remotely close enough to your desires to make for a valid example.

Agreed. What is your point?

The point is that business can be the State and thus any talk of giving business greater independence and the State less power in order to have liberty is flawed.

You mean Feudalism? Far superior to our current system, but unlikely in modern economic situations.

Did you seriously just say that you would rather have the U.S. become a feudal state? :doh

 

[FederalRepublic]

This seems like a non sequitur. I don't see how you could possibly think President Obama's mistakes are identical to those of libertarians.

Apparently, VF500 was right about nobody wanting to read a novel or term paper, including you.