German guy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 5,187
- Reaction score
- 4,255
- Location
- Berlin, Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I think the common beliefs that markets naturally create monopolies and giant firms, is misplaced.
That is where a lot of people seem to have problems with freer market ideology.
When we examine firms, we come to find that a lot/most of their "giantness" is stemmed from government favor and not from the natural growth of the firm itself.
....
I think I've made some pretty rigorous arguments, so either you must have simply ignored them or you're looking for something more. What more would you like?
Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism by making institutions weak and vulnerable to private violence?
I'll give you two names and two hard references, although I could give you hundreds. Bush admits to torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
George W. Bush Admits Torture, Says He Would 'Do It Again' | CommonDreams.org
Abu Zubayda's account of torture was confirmed by a CIA source.
Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of The Dark Side?By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)
As to the murders, the most concrete were two deaths under torture-interrogation. The ICRC (International Committee of The Red Cross) brought them to the attention of the CIA Inspector General, who wrote a classified report saying that the program under which they were interrogated was illegal, and that their deaths probably constituted war crimes. Dick Cheney summoned the report's author to a meeting, despite having no official authority over him or his agency, and the investigation was terminated shortly thereafter (ibid). There many other deaths under torture, but those were the most egregious, and went the furthest toward official recognition.
Now, will you acknowledge the simple human truth of these atrocities?
Umm first of all, one of the defining characteristics of being libertarian, is that is doesn't just stop at the ballot box but it is a pathway to walk. Your life is changed in total because of the belief system.
No one believes that zero taxation brings in revenue
but of course I rarely if ever see anyone try to "debunk" there economic policy suggestions.
It's definitely a think tank, much like that of the Brookings Institute.
But I do see the danger that expanding markets, with the side effect of allowing inequality to increase and democratic participation to be curbed, has the unwanted side effect of turning more people towards demagoguery. That can be fascist demagoguery, communism or anything else. In these regards, maybe you can say that implementation of libertarian free market ideas has the side effect of pushing more people in the arms of demagogues, although this is the exact opposite of what libertarians intend. I see that danger.
Something that is more than just your conjecture and supposition based on your personal bigotries; that would be a good place to start.
given that fascism is statist in nature, and of necessity involves extremely powerful state insitutions, almost by tautology the answer would have to be no.
How about the fact that Obama broke his promise never to allow the outsourcing of torture? Obama has not repealed the executive order giving the president almost unlimited power to conduct covert warfare. We STILL ship terrorist suspects to other countries, in the dead of night, so that they may be "interrogated" for information. And who is giving the direct order to bomb and shoot thousands of people in Afghanistan, all for the crusade to capture one man? Is it REALLY worth it?
Regarding the OP....
Can you explain the distinction?
This is written unclearly, so I'm not sure what you're saying.
Probably you are right, but my skepticism towards too unregulated markets is another problem: While the libertarian ideal of a really free market may sound nice on the paper, I don't think it is realistic. No matter how small government, there will always be some attempt of circumventing free market principles by both corrupt officials and corrupt private actors (yes, they often work against free market principles too, because they are more interested in rent seeking). It's simply not realistic to expect this to vanish entirely.
And my second point is that while genuinely free markets may not create monopolies and/or multinational companies by default, the market still creates a situation where there is extreme inequality. That's because some people simply have less to sell on the market (skills, workforce, etc) than they need to make for a living (think of ill, handicapped, elderly, very unintelligent people and so on). And markets create a situation where it's not really your effort and hard work that pays off, but you get rewarded for your possessions you have already: When you have few money, it's very difficult to make a little more, but when you have a lot already, it's very easy to make more -- in some cases, you can just let your money work for you, without investing much effort yourself. Maybe it's indeed the system with the smallest possible amount of coercion, but when your belly is empty, you can't fill it with that freedom. Freedom is not everything, satisfying basic needs is at least just as important.
The free market may be efficient, but in my personal opinion, this does not satisfy what I believe is an inherent human instinct: An instinct for fairness. It also flies in the face of the normative conviction that human beings all have an equal value, regardless of skills and traits -- on the market, their value is reduced to what they can sell, or on how many possessions they have. That's too Darwinist for my taste.
And because an inherent sense of fairness is indeed a probably even genetic trait in humans (many studies found that the common human instinctively tolerates only limited inequality), it's unrealistic to expect that there can ever be a true consensus for extirely free, unleashed markets without any limits. Those who are disadvantaged materially by such a free market will always turn to alternative ideologies.
That's why I am not quite as fond of free markets as libertarians, and why I believe limited redistribution, and the possibility for democratic participation and positive freedom are necessary. Also, I believe some libertarians often underestimate the problem that private actors too are often not really interested in respecting the free market, when it comes to expanding their profits. But I agree with libertarians insofar that they emphasize the efficiency of markets, and are warning of regulating it too much: Many left-leaning people seem to lack the awareness that markets are indeed very efficient, and go way too far when it comes to curbing markets, or redistribution. That's why I think it's good libertarians exist, and make their voices heard in the debate, because the debate often is dominated by voices who don't seem to really appreciate the strengthes of free markets, that indeed exist.
Yes, that is often the case. But you also see private actors violating free market principles, by exploiting externalities and information assymmetry, by cancelling out true competition by conspirative agreements, and so on. Libertarians I met often don't seem to take this into account enough, IMHO.
That's not an answer, that's just a blanket-dismissal. I've addressed your comments and questions in detail while your responses to me become increasingly vague, superficial, and avoidant of specifics. From my experience arguing with right-wing commenters, this tells me you recognize the strength of my arguments and do not wish to engage them, but also do not wish to concede anything. I hope you change your mind and decide to discuss this issue substantively.
As Haymarket said earlier, and I agree, you are correct to say that libertarianism is a belief system - in fact, it has more in common with religion than political philosophy. I mean this entirely as observation and not as insult, but in the libertarian community the "free market" takes on aspects of the godhead: It's treated as a mysterious, sacred, and impenetrable force that must not be desecrated by the impure hand of government. It's as valid as any other religion, but as a set of ideas for improving the quality of American life it's basically moribund and sock-puppeted by fascistic elements merely trying to weaken current institutions.
Plenty of libertarian arguments boil down to that - you can find them everywhere politics is debated, including here. Categorical statements like "cutting taxes increases revenue" and "raising taxes reduces revenue" are commonplace among libertarians (and conservatives), and there is little recognition that these statements inherently involve a claim that zero taxes would bring in maximum revenue. The vast majority of libertarians have no specific proposal for an optimum taxation level, and those who do just hit on 10% because it's a round number and sounds low relative to current rates, but be realistic: If taxes were 10% and another round of Republican politicians came along offering more tax cuts, it's a pretty safe bet that libertarians would support the proposal. The distinction between libertarianism and anarchism is almost entirely academic rather than practical.
How does one debunk a religious belief enough to convince its believers? The Cato Institute's work consists of deducing facts from predetermined conclusions, not the other way around - like Middle Age philosophers investigating the nature of the world by reading the Bible rather than just looking at the world. The difference between good work and shoddy work in such a context is merely how artful one's sophistry is - beyond that, there can be no surprises and no change in viewpoints. Cato promulgates a religion beneficial to a lot of elite interests, and as with the medieval Church, those interests are quite generous in supporting its efforts.
I'm not as well-acquainted with Brookings as Cato, but I seriously doubt it.
There is nothing else in this world that has improved the livelihood of so many people than a more open market.
Sorry but there isn't, it isn't a godhead, it is the actions of millions of people facilitating mutual aid, out of self interest.
But that isn't true, no self respecting libertarian would argue that, it's hyperbole.
No there is a huge difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
Libertarianism is a smaller, logically and rationally implemented government.
Anarchism is absolutely no government what so ever.
The divide between the two is enormous.
It isn't a religious belief.
For it to be religious, there would have to be only faith supporting it, which isn't the case.
Cato documents, practically, all the stances they take with fact based evidence.
Almost any libertarian, worth their salt, can defend themselves quite well on policy with documented facts.
Practically all the attacks against libertarianism are hyperbolic or appeals to ridicule.
It's a center left think tank, they have some decent, reasonable stances.
I don't agree with everything, put forth by them, but their intent is good.
Brookings - Quality. Independence. Impact.
The Keith Olbermann thread offers ample evidence that when libertarians have the choice, they will weaken government even at the expense of strengthening the power of the corporation. Their predisposed mindset to loathe government is strong and nearly instinctual. Its like a knee jerk response with some of them. The greatest threat to our freedom is NOT the US Government. It is international corporations. The fight for our freedoms and way of life between average folks and corporate interests will be the major struggle of the next few decades until it is decided one way or the other.
The Keith Olbermann thread offers ample evidence that when libertarians have the choice, they will weaken government even at the expense of strengthening the power of the corporation. Their predisposed mindset to loathe government is strong and nearly instinctual. Its like a knee jerk response with some of them. The greatest threat to our freedom is NOT the US Government. It is international corporations. The fight for our freedoms and way of life between average folks and corporate interests will be the major struggle of the next few decades until it is decided one way or the other.
The greatest threat to freedom has ALWAYS been the tyranny of government. Corporations do not impose limits to freedom. If they do, they will be punished by even a libertarian government. What you really mean to say is that the freedom of speech should be limited to only certain groups, and the government should impose speech restrictions on other groups. Let's discuss Citizens United, shall we? Even the Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Steward, admitted that such restrictions, before the overturn made by the Supreme Court in the above case, included pamphlet and book material. BOOKS! People who opposed the court case decision claim that even books and pamphlets, published by corporations (which most of them are already), that include some "magical" phrases, should be banned during primary and election seasons. And these jokers don't even realize that the vast majority of those who are incorporated are non-profit groups and small businesses!
here is an article that identifies a least ten different types of libertarians
What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism
maybe people are confused because libertarians themselves can be very confusing.
and of course the famous cartoon giving us a full two dozen libertarian types -- humorously of course
The 24 Types of Libertarian | Progressive Political Cartoon by Barry Deutsch
You seem to miss the point ... again ... as nearly always. Some here have complained that non-libertarians do not really know what libertarians stand for, what they believe, what the support or do not support. This seems to be a continual and nearly constant complaint from libertarians going back years.
So why does this exist? One reason is that there are so many varied types of libertarians that you need a scorecard and guide book to keep them apart. This is not the fault of non-libertarians.
Does using words like asinine make you feel better about yourself rev? Do you think you raise the intellectual level of the debate by resorting to continually having to judge the worth of those who disagree with your ideology?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?