[quote]dhickey wrote:
mharmar wrote:
All you jackass right libertarians need to read this What's wrong with libertarianism if it can help just one of you overcome your fixed delusions it has done its job.
this is complete and absolute garbage. There is not one decent argument on this entire page. I assume this is your only research into Libertarianism? Have you read Locke, Hume, Jefferson, Smith, Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman, Rothbard, Murray, Haslett? Maybe you should and then see what you think of the review you posted.
[/quote]
Mr. Hickey, you are taking the great Barrister�??s defense, trying to over whelm your opponent with reading material, in this forum you must answer why you think this is a bad article in your own words and how in a libertarian society how there would be no unemployment that was not desired:)
[quote]dhickey wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
You also have to take account for individual state regulation and policy as well.
We are long way from being able to open the boarders without ill effect.
I am not making distinctions in government. I am just arguing from an ethical perspective.
Sovereignty is everyone’s right.
Agreed. Unfortunately, I would take a gigantic effort to undo most of the harful policies we currently have. They have become so interdependant that undoing one will often require the undoing of 10 more. On paper the solution is quite easy :
No welfare
No regulation of volentary transactions
No subsidies
No tarrifs
No education subsidization
No income tax
No capital gains tax
No social security
No foreign aid
No foreign medaling
The problem is how we get from here to there without the interim period being a complete disaster. It would be very hard to pick one of these to attack with severe consequence becuase of interdependance on other policies. I would be nice to start from scratch but we don’t have that luxury. I think Milton Friedman and Charles Murray have laid out intelegent compromises, but even their solutions would be terribly complex as far as managing short term fall out.
Not to mention most people don’t care enough to accept short term discomfort, even if half their salary, and quality of life, is being stolen from them. Things are going to have to, and will, get much worse for people to take a real interest in politics and economics. It will take a revolution of sorts.[/quote]
This will never happen under democracy.
Humans have a natural tendency to want to control others.
Even in Hong Kong, which has benefited greatly from noninterventionist economic policy over the past 40 years, surveys reveal that the majority would still be supportive of wealth redistribution, minimum wage legislation and trade protectionism.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
you must answer why you think this is a bad article in your own words and how in a libertarian society how there would be no unemployment that was not desired:)
[/quote]
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
you must answer why you think this is a bad article in your own words and how in a libertarian society how there would be no unemployment that was not desired:)
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Humans have a natural tendency to want to control others.
[/quote]
It is even more fundamental that this.
It’s because we believe that other people are incapable of taking care of themselves and therefore require at least a minimum of intervention to protect them.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Humans have a natural tendency to want to control others.
It is even more fundamental that this.
It’s because we believe that other people are incapable of taking care of themselves and therefore require at least a minimum of intervention to protect them.
It’s the mammalian nurturing gene awry.[/quote]
I would say it is just the opposite, I think Business is controlling wages as opposed to the free market. They are using illegal immigration along with an organized market to artificially suppress wages. And the intervention is an attempt to keep business from manipulating the labor market, which they are doing very unsuccessfully
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would say it is just the opposite, I think Business is controlling wages as opposed to the free market.
[/quote]
Businesses cannot control wages without cooperation from labor. Work is voluntary. Free people can walk away from a job offer anytime they think they can get a better offer somewhere else. The fact that many cannot means they are marginally skilled or that there is tight regulation in the market so that there are no other jobs available. This could, in fact, be corrected by removing minimum wage regulation.
Another question you need to ask yourself: Should people who are perfectly willing to take a job below minimum wage be punished? Isn’t that what minimum wage laws do?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
mharmar wrote:
All you jackass right libertarians need to read this What's wrong with libertarianism if it can help just one of you overcome your fixed delusions it has done its job.
this is complete and absolute garbage. There is not one decent argument on this entire page. I assume this is your only research into Libertarianism? Have you read Locke, Hume, Jefferson, Smith, Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman, Rothbard, Murray, Haslett? Maybe you should and then see what you think of the review you posted.
Mr. Hickey, you are taking the great Barrister�??s defense, trying to over whelm your opponent with reading material, in this forum you must answer why you think this is a bad article in your own words and how in a libertarian society how there would be no unemployment that was not desired:)
[/quote]
In this forum I must only do what I feel like doing. Did you read the “article”? It is complete and utter nonsense and not worth responding to in any detail. I did ask the poster if he had read any libertarian authors since he has such a strong opinion of Libertarians.
I already mentioned this but in a free market there is now shortage of demand for new products and services. There is no reason why there should be an appreciable unemployment other than volentary or temporary unemployment. If people decide to stay where there is now work or choose not to work for a certain wage, they are volentarily unemployed. Because gov’t diverts market capital, interupts market signals, and requires that we not sell our labor for less then minimum wage, they are creating unemployment.
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Hamilton’s First Bank of the US was modeled on Adam Smith’s central bank concepts, not free banking. Adam Smith felt it was the governments job to provide free universal education for all. He also favored revenue and retaliatory tariffs and a progressive system of taxation. Murray Rothbard would not approve.
Read “Thomas Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side” by Levy and “The Myth of laissez-fare in the Early Republic” by Bourgin. Jefferson was a libertarian in words, not action. Murray Rothbard would not approve.
You can’t put these people under the same umbrella. Von Mises considered Milton Friedman a socialist, at least according to Friedman.[/quote]
You are correct. All of these Libertarians have/had their own brains and original thoughts. They did all beleive in individual freedom and limited gov’t. The degree does very much not a one of them would beleive how far we have regressed.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
mharmar wrote:
All you jackass right libertarians need to read this What's wrong with libertarianism if it can help just one of you overcome your fixed delusions it has done its job.
this is complete and absolute garbage. There is not one decent argument on this entire page. I assume this is your only research into Libertarianism? Have you read Locke, Hume, Jefferson, Smith, Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman, Rothbard, Murray, Haslett? Maybe you should and then see what you think of the review you posted.
Mr. Hickey, you are taking the great Barrister�??s defense, trying to over whelm your opponent with reading material, in this forum you must answer why you think this is a bad article in your own words and how in a libertarian society how there would be no unemployment that was not desired:)
In this forum I must only do what I feel like doing. Did you read the “article”? It is complete and utter nonsense and not worth responding to in any detail. I did ask the poster if he had read any libertarian authors since he has such a strong opinion of Libertarians.
I already mentioned this but in a free market there is now shortage of demand for new products and services. There is no reason why there should be an appreciable unemployment other than volentary or temporary unemployment. If people decide to stay where there is now work or choose not to work for a certain wage, they are volentarily unemployed. Because gov’t diverts market capital, interupts market signals, and requires that we not sell our labor for less then minimum wage, they are creating unemployment.
[/quote]
First I must say you sound a little testy, I thought the article did make some valid points. You made a blanket statement with no reason behind it and threw several authors work at it for a justification for your irationsl rant ,that is how I read it any how
The cooperation between labor and companies start with the illegal labor market.
As far as moving where there are jobs, I hear Viet Nam has a booming shoe industry. I guess you have to be careful with definitions like voluntary unemployment.
I used to think I liked the Ideals of a Libertarian society, but after talking to you and lift maxiimus I am now reconsidering my likes.
Hamilton’s First Bank of the US was modeled on Adam Smith’s central bank concepts, not free banking. Adam Smith felt it was the governments job to provide free universal education for all. He also favored revenue and retaliatory tariffs and a progressive system of taxation. Murray Rothbard would not approve.
Read “Thomas Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side” by Levy and “The Myth of laissez-fare in the Early Republic” by Bourgin. Jefferson was a libertarian in words, not action. Murray Rothbard would not approve.
You can’t put these people under the same umbrella. Von Mises considered Milton Friedman a socialist, at least according to Friedman.[/quote]
As far as moving where there are jobs, I hear Viet Nam has a booming shoe industry. I guess you have to be careful with definitions like voluntary unemployment.
I used to think I liked the Ideals of a Libertarian society, but after talking to you and lift maxiimus I am now reconsidering my likes.
[/quote]
I have yet to hear of anyone come up with a definative list of libertarian values that every Libertarian agrees with. You need to decide for yourself. gov’t certainly has it’s place but it can not be all thing to all people and our gov’t in it’s current form is causing more harm than good.
None of us will live to see a Libertarian paradise anywhere on this planet. What is frustrating is the fact that we are moving in the wrong direction. Why do I think we are moving in the wrong direction? Because people will always justify more gov’t theft becuase it appears on the surface to help some small group. Nobody asks or really thinks about at what cost. No body has the right to the fruits of my labor unless I choose. No corporation, no industry, no individual. Nobody has the right to tell me what I can sell my labor for.
Minimum wage = bad
Tarrifs = bad
Subsidies = bad
Regulation = bad
Unbalanced budget = bad
Unfunded liabilities = bad
These may be generalizations but if these things do more harm than good the generalizations are justified in my mind. If a gov’t is unable to use these tools without abuse and causing harm, then they should not be given the power to use them.
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Hamilton’s First Bank of the US was modeled on Adam Smith’s central bank concepts, not free banking. Adam Smith felt it was the governments job to provide free universal education for all. He also favored revenue and retaliatory tariffs and a progressive system of taxation. Murray Rothbard would not approve.
[/quote]
i have to disagree with some of this. unfortunately, i only have wealth of nations on cd so i can’t look it up right now.
I am pretty sure AS was not a proponent of a central bank and a fiat money system. I also believe you may be confusing prediction with prescription. I don’t recall him being in favor of tarrif of any kind but did predict that tarrifs would bring retaliation. I beleive he provided light justification for tarrifs during war time. I also don’t recall him favoring gov’t sponcered education. Maybe you can correct me on these if you have a written copy.
We all have to make compromises in action. Rothbard is a very intellegent guy but has had the luxury of commenting from the sidelines. I find him brilliant but not quite as pragmatic as Friedman or even Smith. Thanks for the book recommendation.
[quote]
You can’t put these people under the same umbrella. Von Mises considered Milton Friedman a socialist, at least according to Friedman.[/quote]
I agree. Some economists are much more pragmatic. Friedman often offers predictions that may not be his prescription for an economic panasea. In my mind he strikes a much better balance with solutions that would be an improvement and would also be palatable by the general population. Charles Murray is also very pragmatic.
I find the Austrians and Rothbard a little less compromising but still brilliant.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would say it is just the opposite, I think Business is controlling wages as opposed to the free market. They are using illegal immigration along with an organized market to artificially suppress wages. And the intervention is an attempt to keep business from manipulating the labor market, which they are doing very unsuccessfully
[/quote]
I still don’t understand why you seperate business from the free market. businesses are consumers of labor and products. businesses are made up of individuals who are themselves consumers and producers. Labor is driven by the same laws of supply and demand as any other product or service. Why do you think that it is not?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Hamilton’s First Bank of the US was modeled on Adam Smith’s central bank concepts, not free banking. Adam Smith felt it was the governments job to provide free universal education for all. He also favored revenue and retaliatory tariffs and a progressive system of taxation. Murray Rothbard would not approve.
i have to disagree with some of this. unfortunately, i only have wealth of nations on cd so i can’t look it up right now.
I am pretty sure AS was not a proponent of a central bank and a fiat money system. I also believe you may be confusing prediction with prescription. I don’t recall him being in favor of tarrif of any kind but did predict that tarrifs would bring retaliation. I beleive he provided light justification for tarrifs during war time. I also don’t recall him favoring gov’t sponcered education. Maybe you can correct me on these if you have a written copy.
Read “Thomas Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side” by Levy and “The Myth of laissez-fare in the Early Republic” by Bourgin. Jefferson was a libertarian in words, not action. Murray Rothbard would not approve.
We all have to make compromises in action. Rothbard is a very intellegent guy but has had the luxury of commenting from the sidelines. I find him brilliant but not quite as pragmatic as Friedman or even Smith. Thanks for the book recommendation.
You can’t put these people under the same umbrella. Von Mises considered Milton Friedman a socialist, at least according to Friedman.
I agree. Some economists are much more pragmatic. Friedman often offers predictions that may not be his prescription for an economic panasea. In my mind he strikes a much better balance with solutions that would be an improvement and would also be palatable by the general population. Charles Murray is also very pragmatic.
I find the Austrians and Rothbard a little less compromising but still brilliant.
[/quote]
I don’t have either of his books with me and can’t comment in detail.
Anyway, concerning education:
‘The expence of the institutions for education and religious instruction, is…beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society.’ - AS
It sounds to me like he is advocating publicly financed education AND religious instruction.
This article touches on Adam Smith and retaliatory tariffs:
Smith was a supporter of retaliatory tariffs if there was any chance whatsoever that it would lead to the repeal of the protective tariff of the offending nation. ‘The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.’
The point of my post was that Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, the Founders, etc. were not anarcho-capitalists.
I did a quick search to see what Murray Rothbard thought of Adam Smith and this article popped up.
It seems like Rothbard despised Adam Smith. Shocking. I am glad you agreed with my ‘you cannot put them all under the same umbrella’ comment because, after another quick search, it sounds like Rothbard wasn’t thrilled with Milton Friedman, either.
It seems like Rothbard despised Adam Smith. Shocking. I am glad you agreed with my ‘you cannot put them all under the same umbrella’ comment because, after another quick search, it sounds like Rothbard wasn’t thrilled with Milton Friedman, either.
[/quote]
Rothbard is an interesting guy. Brilliant but seems to lacking social skills and is definately a hard liner. Listening to him speak is a completely different experience than reading him. He makes Ron Paul look like Bill Clinton. I think in most cases his arguments are correct but he seems to lack the ability to talk about compromises that would have to be made in the real world.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
He makes Ron Paul look like Bill Clinton. I think in most cases his arguments are correct but he seems to lack the ability to talk about compromises that would have to be made in the real world.[/quote]
Compromise is for politics. In a world without politics, which is what he is ultimately arguing for, evil pragmatism gets left by the wayside.
I am not sure how much Rothbard you have read but he talks extensively about such things. He lived the mantra of Mises:
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
Do not give into evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Compromise is for politics. In a world without politics, which is what he is ultimately arguing for, evil pragmatism gets left by the wayside.
I am not sure how much Rothbard you have read but he talks extensively about such things. He lived the mantra of Mises:
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
Do not give into evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.[/quote]
My point is not that he is wrong. My point is that we need to make progression. An all or nothing solution is great for books but would never be acceptable in the real world. Guys like Rothbard and Von Mises are very important, but you also need people to present ideas or compromises that have a chance at being implemented. Look at how long it has taken us to regress as far as we have. Liberty has been taken away from us a little at time and, unfortunately, we will have to take it back a little at time. That is unless you are up for a revolutoin.