[Eauz]

In another thread...

I am not asking you to ignore the problems of historic capitalism. I am rather asking you to understand the actual origin of those problems, namely government intervention (often on behalf of capitalists), rather than the free market as such. An understanding of the source of problems, I'm sure you'll agree, is an essential first steps to identifying and then promoting a solution.

If, as I contend, the problems you associate with capitalism are all due to pro-capitalist government interventions, the solution is to remove government (as much as possible) rather than the one component of such societies that did work to improve the lot of workers, namely free markets.

Link

I am having trouble understanding the whole concept of how one can have a free-market economy, with a minimalist government? I can understand the potential for the initial development of such a society, but taking history into account, any minimalist system has gradually moved towards more control by the state over the economy and policies. If it hasn't seen more state control, it has seen external influences encouraging favourable policies. All of the "liberal democracies" moved deeper and deeper into greater government control over society (partly due to the voting system) and societies with minimal government intervention are due to a weak state, which has not seen any serious economic development. At the same time, we can't assume that a minimalist state could exist in a vacuum, because one state has an influence over another state. This would erode the minimalist government state ability to be minimalist and sustain absolute free-market policies, due to possible sanctions, blockades, bans or regulations on imports from this country (due to lower standards). Just as with the argument amongst socialist over "Socialism in one country", is it possible for a society to create "Minimalist Government - Free Market Policies in one country", without having some form of authoritarianism influencing the sustainability of such a system?

[Rei Murasame]

No, it is impossible. I like to use the example of Robert Peel and his creation of the police force, after realising that the Watch and Ward Act was insufficient to put down the disturbances that were being created by workers, because applying it would place weapons into the hands of the very people who had a grievance against the government.

And also, another slice of history from the same time period:

None of the personal rights attaching to Englishmen possessed any reality for the working classes. The magistrates and their clerks recognized no limit to their powers over the freedom and the movements of working men. The Vagrancy Laws seemed to supersede the entire charter of an Englishman's liberties. They were used to put into prison any man or woman of the working class who seemed to the magistrate an inconvenient or disturbing character. They offered the easiest and most expeditious way of proceeding against any one who tried to collect money for the families of locked-out workmen, or to disseminate literature that the magistrates thought undesirable.

But then, given that the whole of industrial capitalism is founded atop massive expropriation of the land of the peasantry, that sort of behaviour should not be surprising to anyone at all.

[Nunt]

I am having trouble understanding the whole concept of how one can have a free-market economy, with a minimalist government? I can understand the potential for the initial development of such a society, but taking history into account, any minimalist system has gradually moved towards more control by the state over the economy and policies. If it hasn't seen more state control, it has seen external influences encouraging favourable policies. All of the "liberal democracies" moved deeper and deeper into greater government control over society

Its true that we haven't been able to maintain minimalist governments, but that doesn't mean that such a thing is impossible. Its not because something hasn't happened yet, that it cannot ever happen. How small a government stays depends on the values of the citizens as well as the social institutions present in that country. Minimal governments may be fragile, but democracies are fragile too. Just look at all the attempts at democracy in Africa.

At the same time, we can't assume that a minimalist state could exist in a vacuum, because one state has an influence over another state. This would erode the minimalist government state ability to be minimalist and sustain absolute free-market policies, due to possible sanctions, blockades, bans or regulations on imports from this country (due to lower standards). Just as with the argument amongst socialist over "Socialism in one country", is it possible for a society to create "Minimalist Government - Free Market Policies in one country", without having some form of authoritarianism influencing the sustainability of such a system?

I don't really see a problem here. If a large government nation wants to enforce certain safety standards, then free market producers from the minimalist government nation can voluntarily comply to those standards. Let us also remember that today there already exists a great variation in government sizes between nations. For example, Signapore only has a government spending of 17.3% while many EU nations are spending up to three times that much. Still, its not like the EU is trying to break down Signapores stability.

It will be true that if you don't get along well with your neighbouring countries, then this will not be good for your nations stability. But this goes for all forms of government, not just small ones.

[Eauz]

I get it, everything can exist within a vacuum. What I'm asking is, could it be realistic to assume that a minimalist government could maintain minimal involvement within a society, especially as it grows? In addition, what level of invovlement in the society/economy would we define minimal? You noted that Signapore only has a government spending of 17.3%, so is this a symbol of a minimalist government?

As for sustaining said minimalist government, is this realistic? Would there not need to be some form of propaganda campaign in the education system, in order to sustain said minimalist government? Otherwise, we're looking at another 1930's depression, where business did not spend, people became poor, until people protested until social policies were implemented? I just don't see how, realistically, outside of a vacuum, a minimalist government can continue to exist, without a strong government presence pumping propaganda to support the continued existence of a libertarian society.

[Rei Murasame]

For example, Signapore only has a government spending of 17.3%

Not the best example you could've chosen.

60% of Singapore's GDP is generated by organisations that are more that 50% state-owned.

The Singaporean state owns or has a controlling share also in:

• Airline
• Airport
• Trains
• Buses
• All terrestrial TV channels (7)
• All radio stations (14)
• Newspapers
• Magazines
• Internet Services
• Phone Services
• Water Authority
• Sanitation Service
• Natural Gas
• Electricity
• Most of the housing agencies
• Most of secondary health care

The Heritage Foundation even acknowledges:

While the private sector has been the source of Singapore’s economic success, the government maintains a proactive role in guiding economic development. State ownership and involvement in key sectors remains substantial. A government statutory entity, the Central Provident Fund, administers public housing, health care, and various other programs, and public debt is over 90 percent of GDP.

Also, I assume I don't need to talk about the legal system in Singapore, right?

[Nunt]

I get it, everything can exist within a vacuum.

Where did I say that a minimalist government could only exist in a vacuum. Of course it interacts with other nations. But you seem to assume that if a minimalist government interacts with other nations, then this would automatically cause to minimalist government to be unsustainable. But why would that be? Today's nations interact a lot with each other, today's nations have far different government forms, many different policies, yet this great variety in government forms can continue to exist.

In addition, what level of invovlement in the society/economy would we define minimal? You noted that Signapore only has a government spending of 17.3%, so is this a symbol of a minimalist government?

A minimal goverment is a subjective term and should only be used to compare different nations with each other. Furthermore, the size of government is a multidimensional issue. I would not call Signapore the ideal minimalist government, however in some aspects it may be more minimal than say France. Also remeber that I gave the example of Signapore as a response to your assumption that countries with vastly different policies cannot continue to exist when they do not exist in a vacuum. I think Signapore is indeed a good example of a small country with many policies completly different than many of its big neighbours, but a country that still manages to trade and to remain stable.

As for sustaining said minimalist government, is this realistic? Would there not need to be some form of propaganda campaign in the education system, in order to sustain said minimalist government? Otherwise, we're looking at another 1930's depression, where business did not spend, people became poor, until people protested until social policies were implemented? I just don't see how, realistically, outside of a vacuum, a minimalist government can continue to exist, without a strong government presence pumping propaganda to support the continued existence of a libertarian society.

You are assuming that the only way to foster and spread ideas through society is through govenremnt schooling. I contest that assumption and claim that there may be many different organizations such as schools, think tanks, advocacy organizations that spread and maintain the ideas of minimal government.

[KlassWar]

You could have a very minimalist government, but not under capitalism. Capitalism is based on the control of the means of production by a ruling propertied class, with a repressive apparatus to protect their property from the working classes.

A socialist society, after the initial transition has been done (and counterrevolutionaries and class enemies and class traitors have been duly shot against a wall) might be able to afford a quite minimalist government, since they wouldn't have any need to protect the state of affairs from the armed working masses. After all, such a social order would be the expression of the class interests of the ruling proletariat.

It certainly wouldn't need an all-pervasive, militarized police force, though it might need a really, really strong military to protect itself from reactionary foreign countries.

[Eran]

The degree of stability of a minimal government is an issue of debate amongst libertarians.

The dynamics of government naturally push towards expansion of its powers, and only strong cultural aversion to government power can prevent such process from taking place.

This is one of the reasons some of us prefer no government at all.

As for the interaction with other countries, I think that's a reasonable point. On issues such as drug control, intellectual property, money laundering and child labour, international pressure against purely free market policies is likely to exist.

But while a purely-minimal state may find existing in the current world difficult, we should allow the perfect to me the enemy of the good. Even if a pure minarchy is unlikely, a government with much MUCH lesser scope of action in economic and private matters certainly is possible.

You could have a very minimalist government, but not under capitalism. Capitalism is based on the control of the means of production by a ruling propertied class, with a repressive apparatus to protect their property from the working classes.

What do you call a society in which the means of production are owned by a variety of people, none belonging to a particular class, and in which no force is required to suppress the working classes, such classes being tightly integrated throughout society?

One in which people interact through the free market, but without the abuses typical of historical capitalism?

[Soixante-Retard]

Minimal government may be unstable equilibrium but that doesn't mean we ought not to make that equilibrium last a long as we can! Someone once said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, I agree.

[Someone5]

What do you call a society in which the means of production are owned by a variety of people, none belonging to a particular class, and in which no force is required to suppress the working classes, such classes being tightly integrated throughout society?

One in which people interact through the free market, but without the abuses typical of historical capitalism?

"Unicorn Capitalism"

[The Immortal Goon]

In the above-mentioned thread, the topic changed as the capitalists ignored the Manchester school of laissez-faire economics that brought ruin and famine to India and China. Invariably laissez-faire wasn't laissez-faire enough in these cases. It reminded me of a quote from Marx:

... It is simply a falsification perpetrated by the Manchester bourgeoisie in their own interests that they call ‘socialism’ every interference by the state in free competition – protective tariffs, guilds, tobacco monopoly, nationalisation of certain branches of industry, the Overseas Trade Society, and the royal porcelain factory. We should criticise this but not believe it. If we do the latter and develop a theory on the basis of this belief our theory will collapse together with its premises upon simple proof that this alleged socialism is nothing but, on the one hand, feudal reaction and, on the other, a pretext for squeezing out money, with the secondary object of turning as many proletarians as possible into civil servants and pensioners dependent upon the state, thus organising alongside of the disciplined army of soldiers and civil servants an army of workers as well. Compulsory voting brought about by superiors in the state apparatus instead of by factory overseers – a fine sort of socialism! But that’s where people get if they believe the bourgeoisie what it does not believe itself but only pretends to believe: that the state means socialism...

The state, of course, does not mean socialism—the state dominant in the world today is capitalistic. In the above example, the laissez-faire proponents get enough power to implement their plan. The Corn Laws are abolished, and company India occurs. Farmers can now ship grain to Britain, but why do so when China wants Opium? The government of China does not? Force must be applied by the state to pave the way for laissez-faire. The Indians don't like eating opium and want food? Apply force to pave the way for laissez-faire.

Slaves in the Americas and serfs in Russia make cheap grain? Ship it over, let the slave-masters and feudal barons crack the whip of laissez-faire.

The farmers in Britain are now being undercut? Kick them off the landlord's land and build an estate for the landlord's pleasure instead. Starvation? How about getting a job? Rebellion? The state needs to pave the way for glorious laissez-faire.

This is true in Germany in Bismarck's time along with other places. Since laissez-faire is simply an idea, an idea that leads to famine and strife historically, it needs to be defended by the state. It's one of the chief tenants that separated the radicals from socialists when it started to break down.

If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

So historical examples and following the flow of material is pretty clear. Instead, we're told that we should only use the term "minimalist" in relation to each other. That, "The dynamics of government naturally push towards expansion of its powers, and only strong cultural aversion to government power can prevent such process from taking place...But while a purely-minimal state may find existing in the current world difficult, we should allow the perfect to me the enemy of the good. Even if a pure minarchy is unlikely..."

The actual facts aren't as important as the idea! The idea will save us all from ourselves!

While not an exact parallel, in trying to find the first quote I reread some other Marx and something that stood out to me was the enthusiasm for all idealists to overcome facts. Whether it was 19th Century French bourgeoisie; liberals at the election of Obama; or libertarians proclaiming the power of their ideas:

In their minds that second Sunday of May [Louis Bonaparte's end of term] had become a certain idea, a dogma, like the day of Christ’s reappearance and the beginning of the millennium in the minds of the Chiliasts. As always, weakness had taken refuge in a belief in miracles, believed the enemy to be overcome when he was only conjured away in imagination, and lost all understanding of the present in an inactive glorification of the future that was in store for it and the deeds it had in mind but did not want to carry out yet.

[Rei Murasame]

The state, of course, does not mean socialism—the state dominant in the world today is capitalistic. In the above example, the laissez-faire proponents get enough power to implement their plan. The Corn Laws are abolished, and company India occurs. Farmers can now ship grain to Britain, but why do so when China wants Opium? The government of China does not? Force must be applied by the state to pave the way for laissez-faire. The Indians don't like eating opium and want food? Apply force to pave the way for laissez-faire.

Slaves in the Americas and serfs in Russia make cheap grain? Ship it over, let the slave-masters and feudal barons crack the whip of laissez-faire.

The farmers in Britain are now being undercut? Kick them off the landlord's land and build an estate for the landlord's pleasure instead. Starvation? How about getting a job? Rebellion? The state needs to pave the way for glorious laissez-faire.

This is true in Germany in Bismarck's time along with other places. Since laissez-faire is simply an idea, an idea that leads to famine and strife historically, it needs to be defended by the state. It's one of the chief tenants that separated the radicals from socialists when it started to break down.

This has to be one of the best illustrations I've ever seen posted on PoFo. You have completely nailed them, like no one else can.

[Eran]

"Unicorn Capitalism"

If that's how you want to put it, fine.

For the millionth time (and counting...)

No libertarian on these forums defends every historic government policy, even if that government presented itself as "capitalist", or if its policies were generally regarded as "laissez-faire".

Your (often justified) attack on such government policies raises legitimate questions as to how the vision of modern libertarians may differ from that of those historic decision-makers.

In the context of the current discussion, I believe the main difference comes from the nature of the property worthy of protection. In each and every case mentioned above, property acquired through centuries of oppression was sanctified and then protected by government policy. Stable societies based on a combination of privileges (secured through conquest and aggression) and responsibilities were destabilized when the ancient privileges were converted to pure property rights, even while responsibilities of the upper classes were allowed to melt away.


In societies in which agricultural land was both by far the most valuable and easiest to monopolise resource, less privileged classes had no tools to support themselves once those resources were stolen from them.


The implication that past laissez-faire policies (especially in the old world, as North American land wasn't similarly monopolized before the industrial revolution) are somehow damning on modern libertarianism misses a subtle but important point.

We libertarians believe that only justly-acquired property is worthy of protection. Old-world laissez-faire policies attempted to protect unjustly-acquired property, and were consequently out-of-line with libertarian principles.


I am happy to have a reasonable conversation about the conditions under which a stable libertarian society might exist, as well as about the likely consequences of libertarian policies.

Claiming that past "laissez-faire" policies condemn modern libertarian views is about as serious as claiming that Nazi Germany and North Korea are proof positive of the bankruptcy of Fascism and Marxism respectively. People living in glass houses shouldn't through stones.

[KlassWar]

We libertarians believe that only justly-acquired property is worthy of protection. Old-world laissez-faire policies attempted to protect unjustly-acquired property, and were consequently out-of-line with libertarian principles.

Would you endorse an initial redistribution of all wealth? After all, the entire operation of the Capitalist state was oppressive, unjust, illegitimate and corrupt. Therefore the current distribution of property is the result of centuries of 'reverse' wealth redistribution, cartelization, monopoly, and interference in favor of the interests of the rich and businessowners instead of the working class's.

Would you have the guts to slam the reset button and redistribute, or would you grandfather in the result of those abuses by the capitalist State? This question is critical.

If you would endorse an initial redistribution for consistency's sake, you must be aware that the only way to achieve such a thing is a socialist revolution. At this point you gotta acknowledge that the now-dominant working class would simply install whatever sociopolitical organization fit their class interests, and I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be libertarianism. That's the major problem of the modern mutualists like Carson.

If you wouldn't endorse an initial redistribution, a hard reset of the economy, you're in essence legitimizing the result of plunder, oppression, coercion and privilege, letting the thugs and crooks and their descendants peacefully enjoy their plunder. Even a libertarian gotta acknowledge that it's unacceptable.

[Nunt]

Would you endorse an initial redistribution of all wealth?

I would only endorse a redistribution if it can sufficiently be proven that the source of the wealth or property was illigitimate. I would not just redistribute on the basis of "Well some are probably guilty, so lets punish everyone". This does not correspond to my sense of justice. To right such a situation we would need to know who was the criminal (from who are we going to take away from?) and who was to victim (to who are we going to give to?).

Without sufficient proof, the initial redistribution of wealth that you propose would probably mean that we take from criminals and give to victims. On the other hand, since we really do not have any idea about what we are doing, we are also taking from victims and giving to criminals, and we are taking from innocents and given to people who have nothing to do with the situation.

The redistribution of all wealth is wrong from a utilitarian point of view: we don't know if we are doing more right than wrong. And it is also wrong from a moral point of, we know for certain that we are committing aggression against at least some innocent people. Thus, by redistributing, we are ourselves criminals. Because it doesn't matter how much good you have done in your life, if you commit a single crime, you are still a criminal.

[Eran]

Absolutely.

I would only add that total wealth isn't constant. In a growing economy, wealth is being constantly created. In a free market with an arbitrary (but not overly concentrated) distribution of property, new wealth tends to go to those who create it.

Thus over time, more and more of the wealth available to society becomes the property of its rightful owners, with the initial distribution of wealth becoming less and less relevant.

For an exercise, imagine 1800 Britain. By value, most of its wealth was in agricultural land, the distribution of the ownership of which was largely a legacy of aristocratic system of previous centuries. Now assume that the industrial revolution was allowed to unfold without government intervention. Now fast-forward to the 21st century. How much of the property distribution today would be due to the 1800 initial state?

Very little indeed. Most wealth now has nothing to do with agricultural land. It is in industrial facilities and, more and more, knowledge and intangible assets (including overseas investments). The wealthiest Brits today are rarely descendants of aristocratic families, and much more often first- or second-generation entrepreneurs who created their own wealth.

In short, while the initial distribution of wealth might be arbitrary, growth associated with free markets tend to make the details of such distribution less and less relevant.

[mikema63]

I never imagined a group of people for capitalism wouldn't be able to explain their positions convincingly to a group of anti-capitalists. Why even make this thread.

[Eauz]

I never imagined a group of people for capitalism wouldn't be able to explain their positions convincingly to a group of anti-capitalists. Why even make this thread. :?:

I never imagined an internet user who only wanted to discuss his own personal ideology with others of similar ideology, would even consider joining this forum. Why even have a username here?

[The Immortal Goon]

The implication that past laissez-faire policies (especially in the old world, as North American land wasn't similarly monopolized before the industrial revolution) are somehow damning on modern libertarianism misses a subtle but important point.

We libertarians believe that only justly-acquired property is worthy of protection. Old-world laissez-faire policies attempted to protect unjustly-acquired property, and were consequently out-of-line with libertarian principles.

And this is a nice idea. It has nothing to do with reality though.

Property itself, and our notion of it, is hardly a firm concept through human history. You seek to excuse the horrifyingly terrible track record of capitalism by saying that it didn't do enough to deal with "unjustly-acquired property." Who should determine this? How do you decide who has rights to land that he, nor anybody, created? To resources that happen to grow on that land? Which individual deserves to own that? What are the responsibilities to owning a land with a river? Can you throw your trash into the river or block it off, thus violating the "rights" of the person that "owns" the property further downriver?

To further underline the absurdity of the whole thing, KlassWar asked about an initial redistribution of all wealth to make things even. Of course, then the bar for that is set so high as to make it impossible even in la-la-land. So let's say we tax everyone 100% after death for a generation and redistribute from there?

We'll probably get some other crazy reason why "unjustly-acquired property" actually has to remain standing.

And that's all libertarianism is. It's an excuse to legitimize the excesses of capitalism with dreams of how wonderful things could be, but never can be.

Claiming that past "laissez-faire" policies condemn modern libertarian views is about as serious as claiming that Nazi Germany and North Korea are proof positive of the bankruptcy of Fascism and Marxism respectively. People living in glass houses shouldn't through stones.

North Korea itself condemns Marxism more than the United States does. Can you at least use an actual historic example of Marxism corrupted instead of making one up? I can think of, like, five. Surely you can think of an actual example of a degenerated state that Marxists fouled up. It's like me claiming that North Korea is libertarian. At least choose a place that actually calls itself Marxist.

[Soixante-Retard]

You've converted me TIG; Marxism is the one true faith.