Liberterians Love Fascism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your posts speak for themselves orion. If you are claiming that libertarian market forces lay the foundations for our current affluence, then there’s little I can detract from that.

Why did this system not last? Were unions, child labor laws and the suffragettes its downfall? Was it the fact we moved away from 6 working days a week? Paid holidays perhaps? Why did this not last if we owe everything to it?

Are taxes the only reason?

Or is it something else?[/quote]

Sure there is, the great political ideologies of the 20th century that were a backlash to libertarianism.

In a lot of ways that is hysterical, because without the enormous rise in productivity that enabled leisure time for ordinary folk no one would have the time to study Marx.

Hell, they would not even have been able to read them.

And of course envy.

Because the truth is, people are quite content to live in a society of castes, everyone is born into his place and does not even begin to question the privileges of the nobility.

However a free market, that is the ultimate meritocracy, raises some questions most people do not like to ask themselves, like :

If everyone can theoretically make it, how come I do not make as much as X, who is a complete moron. Could it possibly be that I am not the special, little snowflake I always thought I was, or is X greedy, lying, just lucky and should I not have some of his stuff?

[/quote]
Where is there a free market? You truly subscribe to the neoclassical ideas that there are no random factors at work? Wouldn’t a system that was truly based on such premise be better served by say eliminating all inheritance of wealth? Surely if the deserving will rise everyone should start with the same equality of condition and not merely what is thought to be the same equality of opportunity. With the continuing proliferation of information and situations where specialized knowledge can effect outcomes what steps should be in play to assume everyone is truly a rational actor with perfect knowledge…which is gonna be what your neoclassical system holds as a premise as well?[/quote]

You are assuming so much and automatically assume that I assume so much too.

Those are a lot of assumptions.

Anyhow, the problem I see here is what Hayek called the pretension of knowledge.

We can argue all day about what we think is a correct model of the market and how that should influence how we shape society. The problem is that we dont know. We cannot possibly know. The only thing that seems to be a re-occuring theme in history is that freer societies prospered whereas the others kind of didnt.

Why?

Who knows?

Basically I am proposing a very conservative hands of approach.

We should not even be discussing how to tinker with society via government, we should just sit back in awe that by sheer luck somewhere in England the right combination of political liberty, technology and a certain entrepreneurial spirit ignited the spark that lifted half of mankind out of abysmal poverty.

Personally, I think that everyone who wants to push us away from the basic conditions that brought us here is like a monkey playing with a hand grenade. He might be dead sure that he has everything under control because after all, everything went well so far, while all I am waiting for is the explosion.

42

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your posts speak for themselves orion. If you are claiming that libertarian market forces lay the foundations for our current affluence, then there’s little I can detract from that.

Why did this system not last? Were unions, child labor laws and the suffragettes its downfall? Was it the fact we moved away from 6 working days a week? Paid holidays perhaps? Why did this not last if we owe everything to it?

Are taxes the only reason?

Or is it something else?[/quote]

Sure there is, the great political ideologies of the 20th century that were a backlash to libertarianism.

In a lot of ways that is hysterical, because without the enormous rise in productivity that enabled leisure time for ordinary folk no one would have the time to study Marx.

Hell, they would not even have been able to read them.

And of course envy.

Because the truth is, people are quite content to live in a society of castes, everyone is born into his place and does not even begin to question the privileges of the nobility.

However a free market, that is the ultimate meritocracy, raises some questions most people do not like to ask themselves, like :

If everyone can theoretically make it, how come I do not make as much as X, who is a complete moron. Could it possibly be that I am not the special, little snowflake I always thought I was, or is X greedy, lying, just lucky and should I not have some of his stuff
[/quote]
Where is there a free market? You truly subscribe to the neoclassical ideas that there are no random factors at work? Wouldn’t a system that was truly based on such premise be better served by say eliminating all inheritance of wealth? Surely if the deserving will rise everyone should start with the same equality of condition and not merely what is thought to be the same equality of opportunity. With the continuing proliferation of information and situations where specialized knowledge can effect outcomes what steps should be in play to assume everyone is truly a rational actor with perfect knowledge…which is gonna be what your neoclassical system holds as a premise as well?[/quote]

You are assuming so much and automatically assume that I assume so much too.

Those are a lot of assumptions.

Anyhow, the problem I see here is what Hayek called the pretension of knowledge.

We can argue all day about what we think is a correct model of the market and how that should influence how we shape society. The problem is that we dont know. We cannot possibly know. The only thing that seems to be a re-occuring theme in history is that freer societies prospered whereas the others kind of didnt.

Why?

Who knows?

Basically I am proposing a very conservative hands of approach.

We should not even be discussing how to tinker with society via government, we should just sit back in awe that by sheer luck somewhere in England the right combination of political liberty, technology and a certain entrepreneurial spirit ignited the spark that lifted half of mankind out of abysmal poverty.

Personally, I think that everyone who wants to push us away from the basic conditions that brought us here is like a monkey playing with a hand grenade. He might be dead sure that he has everything under control because after all, everything went well so far, while all I am waiting for is the explosion.[/quote]
Sure but all of your assumptions are coming from refutations of classical arguments that are still taught in macro courses as fact but are accepted to be wrong by many economists. Keynes and many of the neoclassical guys that came after him misinterpreted large parts of the classical guys. They are working with faulty information.

At the very least large amounts of inherited wealth and a very large concentration of wealth and power distort the market enough that its not free nor will it move totally on merit.

43

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your posts speak for themselves orion. If you are claiming that libertarian market forces lay the foundations for our current affluence, then there’s little I can detract from that.

Why did this system not last? Were unions, child labor laws and the suffragettes its downfall? Was it the fact we moved away from 6 working days a week? Paid holidays perhaps? Why did this not last if we owe everything to it?

Are taxes the only reason?

Or is it something else?[/quote]

Sure there is, the great political ideologies of the 20th century that were a backlash to libertarianism.

In a lot of ways that is hysterical, because without the enormous rise in productivity that enabled leisure time for ordinary folk no one would have the time to study Marx.

Hell, they would not even have been able to read them.

And of course envy.

Because the truth is, people are quite content to live in a society of castes, everyone is born into his place and does not even begin to question the privileges of the nobility.

However a free market, that is the ultimate meritocracy, raises some questions most people do not like to ask themselves, like :

If everyone can theoretically make it, how come I do not make as much as X, who is a complete moron. Could it possibly be that I am not the special, little snowflake I always thought I was, or is X greedy, lying, just lucky and should I not have some of his stuff
[/quote]
Where is there a free market? You truly subscribe to the neoclassical ideas that there are no random factors at work? Wouldn’t a system that was truly based on such premise be better served by say eliminating all inheritance of wealth? Surely if the deserving will rise everyone should start with the same equality of condition and not merely what is thought to be the same equality of opportunity. With the continuing proliferation of information and situations where specialized knowledge can effect outcomes what steps should be in play to assume everyone is truly a rational actor with perfect knowledge…which is gonna be what your neoclassical system holds as a premise as well?[/quote]

You are assuming so much and automatically assume that I assume so much too.

Those are a lot of assumptions.

Anyhow, the problem I see here is what Hayek called the pretension of knowledge.

We can argue all day about what we think is a correct model of the market and how that should influence how we shape society. The problem is that we dont know. We cannot possibly know. The only thing that seems to be a re-occuring theme in history is that freer societies prospered whereas the others kind of didnt.

Why?

Who knows?

Basically I am proposing a very conservative hands of approach.

We should not even be discussing how to tinker with society via government, we should just sit back in awe that by sheer luck somewhere in England the right combination of political liberty, technology and a certain entrepreneurial spirit ignited the spark that lifted half of mankind out of abysmal poverty.

Personally, I think that everyone who wants to push us away from the basic conditions that brought us here is like a monkey playing with a hand grenade. He might be dead sure that he has everything under control because after all, everything went well so far, while all I am waiting for is the explosion.[/quote]
Sure but all of your assumptions are coming from refutations of classical arguments that are still taught in macro courses as fact but are accepted to be wrong by many economists. Keynes and many of the neoclassical guys that came after him misinterpreted large parts of the classical guys. They are working with faulty information.

At the very least large amounts of inherited wealth and a very large concentration of wealth and power distort the market enough that its not free nor will it move totally on merit.

[/quote]

How could it possibly distort it?

What is the market?

Sure we can both give nice definitions if need be, but how accurate are they?

Freer societies prosper.

Others dont.

Thats all I am saying.

You hear “the market” and assume something along the lines of neoclassical and that I would or should be for making it more “perfect”.

I am saying that we got lucky that we hit the jackpot.

Given how horribly wrong that went nations deviated to much from it, like Germany or Russia, and the Cold War, WWII, Hiroshima and other such unpleasantnesses, why cant we just admit that we kind of stumbled into something and that tinkering with it is above our paygrade.

Trying to make sure that a “market” is “perfect” is most definitely above our paygrade.

44

I’m a little disappointed orion. I thought you were an Austrian that ascribed to the Austrian school. That would’ve been cool.

45

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I’m a little disappointed orion. I thought you were an Austrian that ascribed to the Austrian school. That would’ve been cool.[/quote]

Gargl.

I was just arguing Hajeks point and that such a thing a as a perfect market does not exist.

What more do you want me do to, mention Mises or Boehm Bawerk in every second sentence?

“The market knows better than any of us do” is repetitive enough as it is.

46

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I’m a little disappointed orion. I thought you were an Austrian that ascribed to the Austrian school. That would’ve been cool.[/quote]
It’s been a pleasure reading your posts Gaius - good to see some people reading economics that actually makes sense! It’s amazing how clear the Austrian school is.

47

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I’m a little disappointed orion. I thought you were an Austrian that ascribed to the Austrian school. That would’ve been cool.[/quote]

Gargl.

I was just arguing Hajeks point and that such a thing a as a perfect market does not exist.

What more do you want me do to, mention Mises or Boehm Bawerk in every second sentence?

“The market knows better than any of us do” is repetitive enough as it is. [/quote]

Well, no. Obviously not. Typing out Bohem Bawerk gets very repetitive. It’s almost as bad as Schwarzenegger.
But I was kind of expecting you to favor a priori-ism and to believe that man is capable of actually figuring out the laws that govern human interaction.

48

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I’m a little disappointed orion. I thought you were an Austrian that ascribed to the Austrian school. That would’ve been cool.[/quote]
It’s been a pleasure reading your posts Gaius - good to see some people reading economics that actually makes sense! It’s amazing how clear the Austrian school is.[/quote]

Thanks man. Ever since I discovered the Austrian school I’ve been reading as much as I can in an attempt to absorb just about everything. It’s the only integration of microeconomics into macroeconomics that I’ve seen that actually makes perfect sense and doesn’t have to make any strange assumptions to justify its results. Things like time preference and the heterogeneity of capital(that you won’t find in Keynesian literature) are also intuitive concepts that add a surprising amount of power to economic analysis. It’s neat stuff.

49

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I’m a little disappointed orion. I thought you were an Austrian that ascribed to the Austrian school. That would’ve been cool.[/quote]

Gargl.

I was just arguing Hajeks point and that such a thing a as a perfect market does not exist.

What more do you want me do to, mention Mises or Boehm Bawerk in every second sentence?

“The market knows better than any of us do” is repetitive enough as it is. [/quote]

Well, no. Obviously not. Typing out Bohem Bawerk gets very repetitive. It’s almost as bad as Schwarzenegger.
But I was kind of expecting you to favor a priori-ism and to believe that man is capable of actually figuring out the laws that govern human interaction.[/quote]

Na, in this point I am more Hajekian.

We dont know, period.

Also, Austrian economics per se does not propose a course of action.

50

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[i]Friedrich von Hayek, who was, along with von Mises, one of the patron saints of modern libertarianism, was as infatuated with the Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet as von Mises was with Mussolini

(…)

The dread of democracy by libertarians and classical liberals is justified. Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy. Most libertarians have made it clear which of the two they prefer. The only question that remains to be settled is why anyone should pay attention to libertarians.[/i]

http://politics.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/singleton/

Is this true, fellow libertarians? Did you masters really prefer dictatorship and/or fascism over democracy?

Is that what you prefer?

Discuss.[/quote]

“the road to serfdom”, is essentially a book condemning socialism and what hyek believed to be the natural outcome of all socialist countries: fascism. Fascism being the ultimate destruction of freedom. so to suggest that hyek preferred to fascism is to really ignore his entire body of works.

as for pinochet, it was largely his economic reforms that friedman and hyek praised. not the man. they argued that only a dictator could implement economic reforms so quickly, but that once done he should step down and reform a democratic republic.

51

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Redistribution of wealth isn’t evil, but we could do better, that’s for sure.[/quote]

Until it’s your wealth their stealing. It is intrinsically evil, it functions on jealously, envy and retribution. Laying your burdens at the feet of others is more greedy than somebody who has earned and kept wealth. You aren’t owed anything, nobody is.

And if your reading these extreme left wing rags they will certainly misrepresent people they don’t like. Libertarians are as much fascist and leftists are communist.

52

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I’m a little disappointed orion. I thought you were an Austrian that ascribed to the Austrian school. That would’ve been cool.[/quote]
It’s been a pleasure reading your posts Gaius - good to see some people reading economics that actually makes sense! It’s amazing how clear the Austrian school is.[/quote]

Thanks man. Ever since I discovered the Austrian school I’ve been reading as much as I can in an attempt to absorb just about everything. It’s the only integration of microeconomics into macroeconomics that I’ve seen that actually makes perfect sense and doesn’t have to make any strange assumptions to justify its results. Things like time preference and the heterogeneity of capital(that you won’t find in Keynesian literature) are also intuitive concepts that add a surprising amount of power to economic analysis. It’s neat stuff.[/quote]
You do realize its all intuitive concepts in the sense that its deductive right? They don’t need to make any strange assumptions as they don’t take empirical data to be meaningful.

53

I’d say harder questions for libertarians would be should a free market be open to a nation that employs child slave, or forced labor. Taking the one means of capital that is available to every citizen and devaluing it by force seems counterintuitive to a free market. Allowing these countries to participate with no barriers is largely the same as acknowledging it is ok to take capital by force.

54

[quote]orion wrote:

Sure there is, the great political ideologies of the 20th century that were a backlash to libertarianism.

In a lot of ways that is hysterical, because without the enormous rise in productivity that enabled leisure time for ordinary folk no one would have the time to study Marx.

Hell, they would not even have been able to read them.

And of course envy.

Because the truth is, people are quite content to live in a society of castes, everyone is born into his place and does not even begin to question the privileges of the nobility.

However a free market, that is the ultimate meritocracy, raises some questions most people do not like to ask themselves, like :

If everyone can theoretically make it, how come I do not make as much as X, who is a complete moron. Could it possibly be that I am not the special, little snowflake I always thought I was, or is X greedy, lying, just lucky and should I not have some of his stuff?

[/quote]

So then what is the alternative? You’d rather want us to return to “death or exploitation” type of choice?

Why do you believe that a return to libertarianism will not ultimately result in an uprising of workers and the subsequent emergence of the wellfare state?

55

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[i]Friedrich von Hayek, who was, along with von Mises, one of the patron saints of modern libertarianism, was as infatuated with the Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet as von Mises was with Mussolini

(…)

The dread of democracy by libertarians and classical liberals is justified. Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy. Most libertarians have made it clear which of the two they prefer. The only question that remains to be settled is why anyone should pay attention to libertarians.[/i]

http://politics.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/singleton/

Is this true, fellow libertarians? Did you masters really prefer dictatorship and/or fascism over democracy?

Is that what you prefer?

Discuss.[/quote]

“the road to serfdom”, is essentially a book condemning socialism and what hyek believed to be the natural outcome of all socialist countries: fascism. Fascism being the ultimate destruction of freedom. so to suggest that hyek preferred to fascism is to really ignore his entire body of works.

as for pinochet, it was largely his economic reforms that friedman and hyek praised. not the man. they argued that only a dictator could implement economic reforms so quickly, but that once done he should step down and reform a democratic republic. [/quote]

Thank you for your explanation.

What reason do you have to believe that the role of government it currently holds won’t be appropriated by big corporations if a true free market is established? Iow, corporate fascism.

With the immense resources conglomerates have, what stops them from coalescing into Big Brother, the business edition?

56

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Redistribution of wealth isn’t evil, but we could do better, that’s for sure.[/quote]

Until it’s your wealth their stealing. It is intrinsically evil, it functions on jealously, envy and retribution. Laying your burdens at the feet of others is more greedy than somebody who has earned and kept wealth. You aren’t owed anything, nobody is.

And if your reading these extreme left wing rags they will certainly misrepresent people they don’t like. Libertarians are as much fascist and leftists are communist.
[/quote]

J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, once said that she’s happy to pay British taxes on her income because the wellfare system supported her, and her children, as she was a struggling writer.

Obviously I don’t share your disdain for taxation, but as you do pay taxes pat, it must make you rage, right?

57

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Sure there is, the great political ideologies of the 20th century that were a backlash to libertarianism.

In a lot of ways that is hysterical, because without the enormous rise in productivity that enabled leisure time for ordinary folk no one would have the time to study Marx.

Hell, they would not even have been able to read them.

And of course envy.

Because the truth is, people are quite content to live in a society of castes, everyone is born into his place and does not even begin to question the privileges of the nobility.

However a free market, that is the ultimate meritocracy, raises some questions most people do not like to ask themselves, like :

If everyone can theoretically make it, how come I do not make as much as X, who is a complete moron. Could it possibly be that I am not the special, little snowflake I always thought I was, or is X greedy, lying, just lucky and should I not have some of his stuff?

[/quote]

So then what is the alternative? You’d rather want us to return to “death or exploitation” type of choice?

Why do you believe that a return to libertarianism will not ultimately result in an uprising of workers and the subsequent emergence of the wellfare state?[/quote]

It will.

But maybe we get a good century or two in in the meantime.

58

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[i]Friedrich von Hayek, who was, along with von Mises, one of the patron saints of modern libertarianism, was as infatuated with the Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet as von Mises was with Mussolini

(…)

The dread of democracy by libertarians and classical liberals is justified. Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy. Most libertarians have made it clear which of the two they prefer. The only question that remains to be settled is why anyone should pay attention to libertarians.[/i]

http://politics.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/singleton/

Is this true, fellow libertarians? Did you masters really prefer dictatorship and/or fascism over democracy?

Is that what you prefer?

Discuss.[/quote]

“the road to serfdom”, is essentially a book condemning socialism and what hyek believed to be the natural outcome of all socialist countries: fascism. Fascism being the ultimate destruction of freedom. so to suggest that hyek preferred to fascism is to really ignore his entire body of works.

as for pinochet, it was largely his economic reforms that friedman and hyek praised. not the man. they argued that only a dictator could implement economic reforms so quickly, but that once done he should step down and reform a democratic republic. [/quote]

Thank you for your explanation.

What reason do you have to believe that the role of government it currently holds won’t be appropriated by big corporations if a true free market is established? Iow, corporate fascism.

With the immense resources conglomerates have, what stops them from coalescing into Big Brother, the business edition?
[/quote]

And I bet if she had made it with private charity she would be happy to give back too.

59

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[i]Friedrich von Hayek, who was, along with von Mises, one of the patron saints of modern libertarianism, was as infatuated with the Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet as von Mises was with Mussolini

(…)

The dread of democracy by libertarians and classical liberals is justified. Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy. Most libertarians have made it clear which of the two they prefer. The only question that remains to be settled is why anyone should pay attention to libertarians.[/i]

http://politics.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/singleton/

Is this true, fellow libertarians? Did you masters really prefer dictatorship and/or fascism over democracy?

Is that what you prefer?

Discuss.[/quote]

“the road to serfdom”, is essentially a book condemning socialism and what hyek believed to be the natural outcome of all socialist countries: fascism. Fascism being the ultimate destruction of freedom. so to suggest that hyek preferred to fascism is to really ignore his entire body of works.

as for pinochet, it was largely his economic reforms that friedman and hyek praised. not the man. they argued that only a dictator could implement economic reforms so quickly, but that once done he should step down and reform a democratic republic. [/quote]

Thank you for your explanation.

What reason do you have to believe that the role of government it currently holds won’t be appropriated by big corporations if a true free market is established? Iow, corporate fascism.

With the immense resources conglomerates have, what stops them from coalescing into Big Brother, the business edition?
[/quote]

We have corporate fascism now.

60

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
oh the magic of “simple concepts” like private property…

let’s try an experiment :

let say you are a videogamer and an amateur developer.
you work a few hours and you produce a little videogame in your mom’s basement and you decide to upload it on a server you rent to an internet hosting company.
your internet hosting company find the files on their server, they test them, think it’s great, and decide to publish it in its own name, and make billions selling your game.
the EULA you accepted when you first registered clearly state that all uploaded files “belong” to them. So they refuse to give you anything back.

now, forget currents laws and current practices…
is it ok or not. And if not, why ?

[/quote]

Since ideas are not scare goods they cannot be owned. Once they are expressed anyone can take an idea an use it however one wishes – including altering it in oder to create a new idea.

Since the developer in this example clearly did not own the infrastructure he developed his software on he has no claim to it.

Same thing goes here on PWI when we share our thoughts in written form. We cannot claim to own them even though we have expressed them.[/quote]

so, the developer can not own his own idea because ideas are not scarce goods, but it’s ok if the internet hosting company make billions selling this idea.

how can they sell something that can’t be owned ?

it doesn’t make sense. At all.

and btw, if you are serious about this “ideas are not ownable” thing, you should oppose intellectual property in all its form, including patents, R&D wages and exclusivity agreements, brand licensing, etc.

which one ?
the internet server ?
the editing software ?
the internet service provider ?
the electricity provider ?
the programming language ?
the operating system of his computer ?
the computer ?
his mom’s basement ?
all of the above ?