More Libertarian, But Still Not a Libertarian - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14154572
In recent months I've begun to accept more and more libertarian logic on things. I've come to recognize that there is a point to the economic calculation problem and that most of what government touches is ruined. So in spite of my libertarian bashing in the past I'd say at this point I'm about 75% libertarian. That being said I've come to view it through a pragmatic lens. Libertarian thinking makes sense on more issues than it does not but I'd like to avoid calling myself a libertarian. I don't care for labels anymore you see. The thing of it is it all boils down to logic. I look at the individual issues and sometimes the stance corresponding to an ideology seems the most reasonable to me but it doesn't make me that ideology. As of right now the libertarian stance is usually making the most sense but it doesn't make me a libertarian.

I've been reading more from across the spectrum lately and I've always been a social libertarian. In the end my harsh criticism was more a reaction to extremism than anything. But I come back to this forum after a hiatus and see polls where half the people are supporting 20 hour work weeks and mandatory national service and other statist insanity. I guess my problem with libertarianism is there is an "ultimate" position. I think the problems of the current era are too much state, but perhaps in the 19th century it was not enough state in the economy. At this point though I recognize the problem and I can work with libertarians to take us to the points I agree with, and we can fight about the points we do not.

In general though I have noted the progressive movement in America getting even more statist. Obama just gave a speech where he said welfare brings freedom. When I hear these type of things it frightens me as to what this nation is starting to become.

I guess at the end of the day I'm sort of like an agnostic who wants desperately to be religious but who can't ultimately accept the full religion because he just can't believe it. He wishes it were true but knows the evidence is not there in his mind.

I'd really love to be a libertarian. The idea of an absolute minimal state or no state at all is really beautiful to me, and one of the things I admire about libertarianism is its pure philosophical consistency. To me there is something to be said in having an analysis of everything, particularly the case for Rothbardian libertarians. But in the end I know market failure exists and it is for that reason I cannot accept the religion in full.
#14154827
nucklepunche wrote:But in the end I know market failure exists and it is for that reason I cannot accept the religion in full.


So let's put this little statement to the test of logic you claim to value, what do you say?

Care to attempt a logical syllogism for your claim that because markets fail a government is necessary?
#14155073
nucklepunche wrote: But in the end I know market failure exists and it is for that reason I cannot accept the religion in full.

Libertarianism is not about denying market failures. Markets are not perfect, but nothing is. Libertarianism is about believing that even though markets can fail, trying to 'fix' these market imperfections through government intervention is 1) amoral and 2) likely to create an even worse situation.

Liberianism is not about denying market failure, its about realizing government failure.
#14155084
Most prominent libertarians (Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Gary Johnson, etc) recognize many more useful functions of government than an "absolute minimal state".

Being a libertarian doesn't mean some sort of ideological extremism or purity. It just means you support a small state, where "small" is relative (relative to the status quo, mostly). It's not a "religion", it's a political movement. "Having an analysis of everything" is not what libertarianism is about (that seems mostly confined to religions, and some simplistic extreme ideologies like anarchism).

Nunt wrote:Libertarianism is about believing that even though markets can fail, trying to 'fix' these market imperfections through government intervention is 1) amoral and 2) likely to create an even worse situation.

No, that's market anarchism.
#14155626
The idea of an absolute minimal state or no state at all is really beautiful to me,


And why must this be seen through the lense of right wing libertarianism?
#14155780
But in the end I know market failure exists and it is for that reason I cannot accept the religion in full.


Why not accept a broader view that includes coops and voluntary socialist groups to come together and try to solve such market failures? In a non governmental frameworks communities could compete to most effectively address social problems at a grassroots level.
#14156139
Most market failures aren't "failures" in the normal sense of the word. They are merely instances in which actual markets don't rise to the theoretical level of efficiency of perfect markets.

Calling them "failure" is like calling every engine ever invented "failure" because it isn't friction-free.

Market failures are also opportunities.

Over time, and subject to political constraints, so-called "market failures" tend to be corrected by market forces.
#14156241
Market failure causes unemployment? How do you figure?

If anything causes unemployment, it is a range of government interventionist policies which keep wages rigid, increases the cost of employing people and reduces motivation to work through taxation and welfare policies.
#14156275
Well, market failure (or business cycle/recession/depression or whatever) have been a widely recognized component of capitalism for some time even dating back to before there were minimum wage laws.

I'm unclear on the libertarian view. Do libertarians think that there would be sustained economic growth (no business cycle/recession) and full employment if there was no government intervention in the economy?
#14156310
Market failures are also opportunities.


Yes...and so are government and political failures--But one has to be careful not to sugar coat the destruction that comes along with it. I don't think peoples lives being completely turned upside down can be summed up so easily by "engine friction". One might suggest that if an engine produces too much friction continuously that it is bad and needs replaced.
#14156568
Do libertarians think that there would be sustained economic growth (no business cycle/recession) and full employment if there was no government intervention in the economy?


Much reduced in many ways yes, however many things can happen in the world which certainly wouldn't be positive. An invasion is not good for the economy, neither is a massive earthquake.

That different societies with different rules and no restrictions to people joining another group can compete on the best set of rules to help people the best way those people can perceive it is really the best system for reacting to changes and fluctuations at a societal level.
#14156572
mikema63 wrote:Much reduced in many ways yes, however many things can happen in the world which certainly wouldn't be positive. An invasion is not good for the economy, neither is a massive earthquake.

That different societies with different rules and no restrictions to people joining another group can compete on the best set of rules to help people the best way those people can perceive it is really the best system for reacting to changes and fluctuations at a societal level.


In my opinion, in a developed 1st world society if there was no government, there would be no involuntary employment. You'll always have people that want to pursue things like the arts, acting careers, music, etc, that will take unemployment now for a chance at a huge payoff in the future. And there's nothing wrong with that.
#14156573
anticlimacus wrote:Yes...and so are government and political failures--But one has to be careful not to sugar coat the destruction that comes along with it. I don't think peoples lives being completely turned upside down can be summed up so easily by "engine friction". One might suggest that if an engine produces too much friction continuously that it is bad and needs replaced.


Because what we have today is clearly pure free markets, this is evident with the central bank having a monopoly on currency use and price fixing interest rates.
#14156629
Kman wrote:
Because what we have today is clearly pure free markets, this is evident with the central bank having a monopoly on currency use and price fixing interest rates.


The regulations on the bottling of beer are a few thousand pages long.

Free markets!
#14156677
The problem with the "market failure" arguments is that they invariably fail to demonstrate how a realistic alternative to the free market could do any better.

Sure, an omnipotent and omniscient all-good government could theoretically improve on the operation of the free market.

But a realistic government? Who knows?
#14157340
Eran wrote:The problem with the "market failure" arguments is that they invariably fail to demonstrate how a realistic alternative to the free market could do any better.

Sure, an omnipotent and omniscient all-good government could theoretically improve on the operation of the free market.

But a realistic government? Who knows?


Well again, that is why I point out to people that a government isn't real. People believe governments are better than 'markets' because they attribute markets with the foibles of humanity and perceive 'government' as some kind of super human entity.

A new film has been released destroying the offic[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Since you keep insisting on pretending that the I[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]