laisser faire capitalism.

LAZER CAPITALISM *PEW* *PEW*

You know, reading a summary of libertarianism makes me think that it's just a bunch of middle- to upper-class crackers who want to establish a ruling class.

Sounds good. Let's get started.

Ron Paul wants take you out to dinner.

earth calling LOki, Earth calling LOki, come in please......

should be any second now...

How do you figure that, Nocal?

They wanted to abolish the welfare state altogether and replace it with an 'opportunity society' or 'ownership society'.
...
The libertarians also targeted labour market regulation, calling for abolition of the minimum wage. This would be combined with mass immigration, which would drive down wages further.

Sounds like a step up from slavery, really.

Dude, you need Loki to explain free-markets to you, this was written by someone blinded by their bleeding heart.

Huh? He talks about the 'welfare state,' which I've never heard a bleeding-heart liberal say. It seems pretty even handed to me.

Besides, every 20-something on the internet with ausperger's has been touting libertarianism for ever since it got internet-popular a while ago. I understand it enough to know that it's basically white hermits who want guns and slaves and to live in the Alaskan wilderness with their 72 virgins :I

Not taking the bait.

Take the bait, fucker.

Who would want to live with a bunch of virgins? That wouldn't be much fun (or they wouldn't be virgins for long anyhow).

Good call, graycube.

And vigins usually don't know how to not use their teeths!

oh from the artickle:
'big-government conservatism'

now that my internet friends, is bait.

I don't know so much if I respect Loki's arguments anymore, as I feel like I've seen them all, but I want to point out it's a lot harder to defend something somebody else wrote about a philosophy you share (assuming loki agrees with the grist of the article) than it is to defend your own ideas.

Ouch - Loki getting bitch slapped over the net by Dinozoa?

Not likely. That first sentence reads like 'I've read all of philosopher's X books, and now that I can't find any new ones, I guess I hate him' which is abundantly retarded and hopefully not what he actually meant.

The assertion about creating a ruling class is absurd though, as essentially Libertarians want to eliminate as much of the government's control over (pretty much anything) as possible. A ruling class needs the means to rule, whereas the very paragraph nocal quotes also states:

'Libertarians proposed to privatise Social Security, replacing government pensions with individual savings accounts. Healthcare, too, would be provided by individual 'health savings accounts'. Public education, a legacy of the 19th century, was another target of the libertarian counter-revolutionaries, who proposed giving citizens vouchers for private schools. '

And the paragraph before it:

'Grover Norquist, famously said that government should be shrunk until it can be drowned in a bathtub.'

Ultimately Libertarian policies (while not going as far as anarchy) seek to LIMIT the power of government and those in power, and give as much power as is feasible, to the individual. And yes, those policies often eliminate safety-net's like Social Security and Welfare.

I spent a summer at Washington and Lee University many years ago, where I studied economics with a pretty-well respected economist. Here is how he explains why a minimum wage isn't necessary (assuming open borders):

Without a minimum wage, labor would be priced more reasonably -- market forces would determine what the value of your job was. If the supply of a particular profession is lower than the demand (ie, society's need for that profession), then the value of it would be high (this is already, often the case), if the supply is rather high in comparison to the demand, however, wages for that profession would drop to a level where the worker in this situation would have to make one of three choices:

1) You can stay where you are, and accept the wage, as offered.
2) You can learn additional skills and pursue a profession that has a supply-deficiency.
3) You can move to where your profession is in demand -- or in the case of unskilled labor (which will always have the largest supply, as ultimately everyone is in that group), you can move to where the cost of living is sufficiently low to support yourself.

Now, ultimately, everyone will chose one of these three options.

The situation is probably more complex than that, but there is your basic understanding right there. Ultimately, Libertarianism seeks to put everyone's life in their own hands, to do with it as you choose. Yes, it leaves open the possibility that you can choose wrong, but nobody can make those choices for you. If you want to stake your retirement savings on pork-bellies, you can take that chance.

Communism, Socialism and the like are more about a ruling class. The 'intellectual classes' feeling bad for their poor, dirty, uneducated neighbors and wanting to take care of them, because they don't trust them to be able to take care of themselves -- taking responsibility for their lives away from them by taking part of their paycheck for Social Security and giving them Welfare, and telling them where they can go to school... Socialism takes choice away from the people 'for their own good' and ultimately what results is an intellectual-uppper-class that rules over the poor workers.

In a Libertarian system, this could not happen, because the emphasis is on individual freedoms, both social freedoms and economic freedoms.

In a Libertarian system, this could not happen, because the emphasis is on individual freedoms, both social freedoms and economic freedoms.

I took Nocal's statement about a ruling class to be in the vein of the popular complaint that in a meritocracy, where people have to fend for themselves based on their ability to do so, that the bottom X% of citizens will sink, instead of swim.

Which I think is probably accurate, and hopefully awesome.

I took Nocal's statement about a ruling class to be in the vein of the popular complaint that in a meritocracy, where people have to fend for themselves based on their ability to do so, that the bottom X% of citizens will sink, instead of swim.

More or less. Here's how I see an 'ownership society': few to no restraints on business, and no oversight of any kind. We've had that before in society. Child labor, arrangements where companies forced employees to buy their groceries from them at inflated rates; it goes on an on. Now I'm guessing that Loki might argue that the government was really the culprit; that they were complicit and in fact enabled business to rule over their workers in that fashion. I just happen to see it the opposite way: without laws and enforcement, people are fucking assholes. Well they're assholes anyway, but at least they pretend not to be.

And this fucking argument:

1) You can stay where you are, and accept the wage, as offered.
2) You can learn additional skills and pursue a profession that has a supply-deficiency.
3) You can move to where your profession is in demand -- or in the case of unskilled labor (which will always have the largest supply, as ultimately everyone is in that group), you can move to where the cost of living is sufficiently low to support yourself.

is only ever argued by people with massive priveledge. It must be easy for a dude with advanced degrees and a steady high-paying job to say that shit.

Essentially this boils down to the nature vs nurture argument. I say that people are born into lives that they are essentially incapable of changing in the broader sense of things, while you might think that nurture plays a larger role, and that people can change their situation if they just try harder. Well nature has been proven through twin studies.

Socialism takes choice away from the people 'for their own good' and ultimately what results is an intellectual-uppper-class that rules over the poor workers.

Well libertarianism seems to me like a rich upper class rules over a poor working class through economic means rather than just governmental means. I guess it depends on which kind of asshole you want ruling you: an intellectual prick or a rich prick.

Well put nocal.

See? we can have libertarian discourses without L0ki.

Nocal, there is stratification in any society. No matter what you do, someone, or a group of people always have more power than everyone else.

I still don't really see Libertarianism as the Rich ruling the poor. We have that now, and we're not Libertarian at all.

The libertarian ideal has economics essentially governing. And yes, those with a lot of money will be able to have a lot of say in that economic system, but even that is limited. Think about it. Regardless of how rich you are, there is a limit to how much milk you're actually going to buy.

A rich person probably doesn't consume much more milk than someone of a more modest income. In this case, the masses actually control the market for milk. Why? Because ultimately, the majority will determine how they like their milk, and who they want to buy it from.

The same goes for a lot of things. Libertarianism doesn't support child labor or anything of the like, Libertarians believe in eliminating laws prohibiting Victimless crimes (smoking pot, for example), but still do not believe in allowing people to injure (figuratively or actually) one another. However, laws that intend to impede the natural economic processes that govern any free-market system are against Libertarian belief.

Here is some Reading material on 'exploitation.'

In a capitalist society, everyone has the systematic means to attain wealth. It is never beyond your control to better yourself financially. The business owners depend upon the workers to produce for them, and they will be forced to compensate them appropriately.

You're nature vs. nurture argument, is, I am assuming referring to the ability of people to attain the skills to qualify for the more demanded jobs. Essentially you are claiming that people are too stupid (and cannot fix this, as it is genetic) to gain skills beyond what they are born with. However, there are many people who are ultimately talented in a number of areas -- music, art, or who can learn to be a plumber, or an electrician, without excelling in a classroom. Ultimately, most people do end up in the unskilled labor market, thats just the way the world is going to be, and a minimum wage isn't going to make these people any richer...

The minimum wage actually CREATES unemployment (as an employer, I'd rather find a way to NOT hire you, than to pay a wage that was greater than your value to my company) and RAISES the costs of the products that you spend money on. Ever wonder why no sort of minimum wage increase ever helps the single-mom working at McDonalds support her two kids? The minimum wage can actually cause inflation.

Essentially, by legislating the value of the lowest rung of labor, the market just re-sets all other values in relation. You can't ignore economics -- you can't pretend that market forces don't exist. Unless you suppose that the government should set an official wage for every job and a price for all goods?



...When what the big announcement that NATURE WON anyway? I don't remember reading that one.

The 'nature won' argument is revealed in twin studies. They're old news now, so you probably won't be reading news stories about them for a while.

Ever wonder why no sort of minimum wage increase ever helps the single-mom working at McDonalds support her two kids?

Because inflation, the increase of and prevalence of credit (how many people bought houses on credit 60 years ago? now you can't afford one without it), and the fact that minimum wage increases haven't happened for quite a few years now (federally, anyway).

It's just interesting to me that my grandfather worked construction his entire life and owned a house, cars, put his kids through school, went on vacations, and his wife didn't work. Construction is unskilled labor; or at least he was still doing the unskilled labor portion when he bought his house.

You can't ignore economics -- you can't pretend that market forces don't exist. Unless you suppose that the government should set an official wage for every job and a price for all goods?

When does that cross the line into mob rule? Beyond that, you also can't tell me that all people can decide where they want to shop, etc. Example: poor people pay more for groceries because they buy them from corner stores. You say: stupid fuck, go to Costco. They say: I don't have a car and don't have enough money to buy in bulk.

Uart: it is inappropriate to consider libertarianism as an alternative to socialism or communism. It is more an alternative to american capitalism. You then proceed to say wrong things about socialism and communism.

I heard an argument that a flat tax would be best for America right now because most corporations are getting away with paying next to nothing, or nothing. Forcing a flat tax would put everybody, rich or poor, in the same basket, which I'm ideologically opposed to, but would at least provide budget relief, which I am for, and punish corporations, which I am for, so here I agree with the libertarians.

It's inappropriate? So you think Libertarianism can coexist happily with socialism? Because I sure think its the opposite.

Dino, Libertarians prefer a Flat Tax to a graduated income tax, usually, but the Libertarian Ideal would be to follow the original wording of the constitution and eliminate the federal income tax altogether.

You're right, Urban poor usually can't shop at Costco, but the Libertarian would say that you have to pay that cost to live in a city. If you can't afford the higher cost of living, you should move to where you will be able to afford to live. Ultimately this becomes difficult, but remember also, that the corner store in Harlem costs more because the Government taxes the shit out of everything in big cities -- the City Gov't gets their cut, the state, etc., everyone gets a piece -- Libertarians believe in a low-tax state, so the costs of living would be greatly reduced. Additionally, with the elimination of a minimum wage, we wouldn't be artificially inflating the cost of goods by overvaluing unskilled labor.

In your grandfathers case, Nocal, perhaps you should look at the situation he was living in. What was the job market like? Right after WWII, there was an economic boom. EVERYTHING was IN DEMAND, including unskilled labor. One of my grandfathers worked for American Airlines, on the fire crew, the other was a pattern-maker by trade, but drove a limo when he came to the USA. They both did just fine -- they weren't rich, they weren't even close -- but they survived and supported a family. Since then, we've done nothing but increase the minimum wage and these days unskilled labor can't make a living. Obviously the 'living wage' concept isn't working.

When you make labor more expensive, business has to compensate for the increased cost, so they either lay off workers (thereby creating unemployment) or raise the cost of their products. Trying to legislate economics doesn't work, you can stimulate the economy, but you can't demand it act nice, the economy is global, and it's bigger than the government.

The solution to the problems of a 'living wage' has nothing to do with some magic number that congress or your state legislature votes on, it has everything to do with finding a way to stimulate the labor economy, and make the workers themselves more valuable, or to make the money they are earning more valuable.

For all your talk of labor booms and such:

US max unemployment = 4% under clinton during the 90s internet boom. Clinton = the post-FDR king of welfare statism.

also, I meant it's inappropriate to say, 'libertarianism will do x, but socialism will do y, and y is worse than x, so we better be libertarians.'

Also, I realize this is not a good argument, but mainstream economic theory says all you libertarian guys are wrong about what you say about minimum wage, and they've said it's been wrong for 80 years or so. The fight over the economics is dead. Of course, since when has economic theory mattered to anyone?

If you really cared, you'd realize that the 90's boom was probably/possibly fueled by Reagan's free-market policies, while our current state is the result of Clinton's welfare state. It takes a while for the economy to be affected sometimes, but it happens.

If I were president right now, and announced that I was raising taxes, you aren't going to not go out and buy shit right NOW, because you haven't really been hit by the new income tax rate yet, but you might cut back your spending in April, when you see the bottom line on your tax return...

LAL
(Laughing At Libertarianism)

If you really cared, you'd realize that the 90's boom was probably/possibly fueled by Reagan's free-market policies, while our current state is the result of Clinton's welfare state. It takes a while for the economy to be affected sometimes, but it happens.

oh ok. good = conservative, bad = liberal. i suppose that 30 years from now when we have some kind of amazing economic boom, it will be from bush!

vasudeva:'Take the bait, fucker.'

>:D

dinoza:'I don't know so much if I respect Loki's arguments anymore, as I feel like I've seen them all, but I want to point out it's a lot harder to defend something somebody else wrote about a philosophy you share (assuming loki agrees with the grist of the article) than it is to defend your own ideas.'

Despite your having seen them all, your lack of coherent refutation of my arguments places your lack of respect for my arguments firmly in the 'who gives a fuck?' category.

Stump:'Ouch - Loki getting bitch slapped over the net by Dinozoa?'

I agree; If we are going to dream, we should certainly dream as big as we can dream.

nocal:'Here's how I see an 'ownership society': Here's how I see an 'ownership society': few to no restraints on business, and no oversight of any kind. We've had that before in society. Child labor,...'

Stated as if the unfounded presumption that children with jobs is wrong, is true.

nocal continues:'...arrangements where companies forced employees to buy their groceries from them at inflated rates; it goes on an on.'

Subjecting us to his guilt ridden tranferrence of the sins of his own statist preferrences as being the result of libertarian principles.

nocal:'Now I'm guessing that Loki might argue that the government was really the culprit; that they were complicit and in fact enabled business to rule over their workers in that fashion.'

LOki does make that argument--and historical record, indeed supports the very assertion.

swarmerX:'I just happen to see it the opposite way: without laws and enforcement, people are fucking assholes. Well they're assholes anyway, but at least they pretend not to be. '

'Fascism/corporatism = capitalism' is the very argument that socialists/communists insist is the case.

It is bullshit on it's face, and this LOki will call such bullshit argumentative strategy to the carpet, every time it is presented as fact.

nocal:'And this fucking argument:

1) You can stay where you are, and accept the wage, as offered.
2) You can learn additional skills and pursue a profession that has a supply-deficiency.
3) You can move to where your profession is in demand -- or in the case of unskilled labor (which will always have the largest supply, as ultimately everyone is in that group), you can move to where the cost of living is sufficiently low to support yourself.

is only ever argued by people with massive priveledge. It must be easy for a dude with advanced degrees and a steady high-paying job to say that shit.'

It's time for you to own up and recognize your monumentally over-developed sense of entitlement.

nocal:'Essentially this boils down to the nature vs nurture argument. I say that people are born into lives that they are essentially incapable of changing in the broader sense of things, while you might think that nurture plays a larger role, and that people can change their situation if they just try harder. Well nature has been proven through twin studies.'

Yeah, but so has this 'nurture' of yours.

But let's grant you, momentarily, for argument's sake, that this 'nature ' business of yours takes precident-- so what? What is it exactly about someone's bad luck in the gene pool lottery that makes someone-else obligated to promoting the existence of this incurably incompetent (by YOUR definition) life support system for a mullet? What is it exactly that makes that obligation, that you seem so fond of, the universally all consuming moral imperative such that you feel so self riteously justifed in forcing, by threat of injury, imprisonment or death, the 'naturally' competent to promote the lives of the 'naturally' incompetent?

nocal:'Well libertarianism seems to me like a rich upper class rules over a poor working class through economic means rather than just governmental means.'

Nonsense. See 'fascism = capitalism' above.

cockroach:'Well put nocal.

See? we can have libertarian discourses without L0ki.'

Eat chain, pinko.

nocal:

Ever wonder why no sort of minimum wage increase ever helps the single-mom working at McDonalds support her two kids?

'Because inflation, the increase of and prevalence of credit (how many people bought houses on credit 60 years ago? now you can't afford one without it), and the fact that minimum wage increases haven't happened for quite a few years now (federally, anyway).'

Minimum wage causes inflation, unemployment, devaluation of labor, and erosion of productivity--that is why minimum wage never helps those who it's supposed to help. It always helps the entrenched labor; well entrenched by racist culture, seniority, or political pull.

nocal:

You can't ignore economics -- you can't pretend that market forces don't exist. Unless you suppose that the government should set an official wage for every job and a price for all goods?

'When does that cross the line into mob rule?'

When force and fraud are the legitimate moral standard for conducting a relationship between individuals--comrade.

nocal continues:'Beyond that, you also can't tell me that all people can decide where they want to shop, etc. Example: poor people pay more for groceries because they buy them from corner stores. You say: stupid fuck, go to Costco. They say: I don't have a car and don't have enough money to buy in bulk.'

No one is forcing them to pay higher prices at the corner store; no one is keeping them away from the Costco; no one is preventing them from buying a car, except, of course, themselves.

What makes you so sure everyone is so entitled? Upon what rational premise do you insist that everyone should be able to afford cars, Costco, bulk food(?), etc...?

dinoza:'Uart: it is inappropriate to consider libertarianism as an alternative to socialism or communism. It is more an alternative to american capitalism. You then proceed to say wrong things about socialism and communism.'

As well as being an alternative to american mixed capitalism, Libertarianism is a fully appropriate alternative to to socialism or communism.

And Uart said nothing incorrect about socialism and communism.

dinoza:'...but mainstream economic theory says all you libertarian guys are wrong about what you say about minimum wage, and they've said it's been wrong for 80 years or so.'

Nonsense. The 'mainstream economic theory' you cite places the cart in front of the horse without failure. And inevitably, consistent with the wefare-statist party line, fails to consider the losses in GDP, and wealth opportunity their bullshit socio-economic engineering most likey caused.

I always wonder which part of letting the dumbs feel the full magnitude of the pain of their dumb, that so frightening to you socialist types.

:D

Although i'm not prone to hero-worship, L0ki is invited to my birthday party, my debate team, my paintball team, chess club and knitting workshop.

Loki had me at 'eat chain'.

Hmmm...my points were not that anyone is entitled. It's just factual that some people can't afford things. I also was just saying that many people are, by definition, of 'below average' intelligence. There is no amount of 'trying' that most of them can do to fix that.

Now I never suggested that any political system could fix that. My point is more along the lines of: when I hear someone going 'well why don't people in the inner city just, like, get a good job and like shop at Costco?' I cringe. There are some people whose lives are not changeable because they were born into a certain life, even under the auspices of the utopia of libertarian world!!!!!!!

nocal:Hmmm...my points were not that anyone is entitled.

Your points implied entitlement(in so far as 900' tall blinking neon letters might imply) to some minimum wage, protection from being a contributing member of society (particularly if you have not reached the age of franchise), and all the things that 'rich' people have.

Stop beating around the fucking bush, you redistributionist, political power ponzi schemer.

nocal:It's just factual that some people can't afford things.

If you are not needling at entitlement, what the fuck is your point?

nocal:I also was just saying that many people are, by definition, of 'below average' intelligence.

Well that's just brilliantly mediocre statistical analysis! BRAVO!!!!!!

nocal:There is no amount of 'trying' that most of them can do to fix that.

But paying them a living wage for being of 'below average' intelligence is a solution to what problem exactly, Mr. I'm-not-talking-about-entitlement?

nocal:Now I never suggested that any political system could fix that.

Just what the fuck do you think you are suggesting then?

nocal:My point is more along the lines of: when I hear someone going 'well why don't people in the inner city just, like, get a good job and like shop at Costco?' I cringe.

OH!!!! This is all about your 'cringing' then? Minimum wage, and transportation to Costco, and a bulk food account for every useless fucktard who can reach his hand out and gink some anonymous rich guy's cash, or get someone else to do it for them, is the only solution you can come up with for your cringing malediction? Have you tried holding your breath......forever?

nocal:There are some people whose lives are not changeable because they were born into a certain life, even under the auspices of the utopia of libertarian world!!!!!!

I still say, 'So What?' And I'll add just exactly how are you justified in making this condition my problem? How do you rationalize the use of coercive force upon others to assuge your cringing fits?