[Noumenon]

="norwegian"

Thats right, constitutions put limitations on democracy. As soon as a constitution does this, you don't have a full democracy anymore. In a full democracy, there would be no such limitations, and a 51% majority could do whatever the hell they like.

That really depends on the definition you use on democracy. Right from the start, most people agreed that the minority should have some kind of "veto" against decisions made by the majority, that severly disputes against their interests. It is also a hindrance against drastical decisions being made "in the heat of the moment". I do not see that that and democracy are exclusionary. It is just different opinions about what democracy should be all about.

Yes, I agree, it depends on how you define democracy. But thats not really the point here; what I was trying to show is that the fact of having a certain system (democratic or whatever) does not necessarily justify what that system does. PhilosoFlea was saying that taxation is justified because it was the decision of a democratic government. My point is that a democratic government can do all sorts of things that aren't necessarily justified. The population doesn't even have to be evil; it just has to be ignorant or complicit with the unjustified act. The democratic government isn't like some sort of benevolent God, whose every act is the embodiment of pure goodness. Because of that, saying that "the democratic state decided that X is good, therefore X is good" is a very poor argument.

So again, democracy is a poor moral justification for anything. It certainly cannot justify taxation.

But what is the alterantive? You claimed that you were no follower of the concept of "natural rights", but I think that a lot of your arguments implicitly are based on some concept of "natural rights".

I explained the basis for my morality in the thread about theft. And also, why should you support democracy as a moral justification for something? I thought the only moral justification for a utilitarian was if it lead to the greater good. A democratic decision does not necessarily lead to the greater good. So you should be taking my side here, not arguing against me.

Given a big enough majority, any imaginable atrocity could be committed by those governments.

Yes, but if a minority would force thru libertarianism thru political dictatorship, a revolution with the following atrocities would be quite propable in the future. Actually, most atrocitious regimes in the western cultural hemisphere have either been triggered as a responce to libertarian policies, or as an attempt to uphold the interests of the same groups that favour libertarianism. In this I mean that the labour market in many rightwing dictatorships are quite libertarian. Even the russian tsardom had a quite libertarian attitude towards working class wages, labour regulation and welfare spending. Socialism as such grew powerful as a direct response to the nightwatcher state. Libertarianism is so scewed toward the special interests of some groups and against the special interests of other groups, that use of violence to remove it is just a consequence of human nature.

This is one of the most absurd things I have heard from you yet. For one thing, no dictator/Tsar/whatever can possibly favor libertarianism. He might as well be favoring his own demise. And for another, the only special interest groups that favor libertarianism are ideological libertarian groups like the american Libertarian Party, or the Objectivists. Special interest groups usually want government favors and handouts, which is profoundly anti-libertarian. Powerful businesses are especially anti-libertarian, since they clamor for protection and regulation that hurts their competition. Libertarianism serves fewer special interest groups than any other ideology I know of. For example, liberalism caters to the special interests of unions, environmentalists, politicians, and minorities, among others. Liberalism favors these groups at the expense of everyone else, while libertarians would treat them no differently from everyone else.

The most important point hovewer is that if the great majority of the population is evil, nothing will hold them back! Actually, it is just as propable that the regime in power then would alter their ideology, to fit the needs of their evil population to stay in power. If 90 percent of the population would like to torture redheads, any normal libertarian human being in power, would rather alter the law so that it would be permittable to torture redheads, rather than have a revolution that could be captured by communists, that would lead them to lose all their wealth. I think some of the same logic applies to the german right and the jews during nazism.

As I mentioned above, the population doesn't have to be evil in order for a democratic, constitutional government to commit atrocities. It merely has to be ignorant or complicit in the crimes.

I was talking theoretically. What the actual Nazi party did or did not do in the 1930's has no relavance.

Actually, it may be very relevant, because it implies that there is some kind of social, economic or political dynamic in a moderne democracy, that somehow prevents such an extreme movement from being very popular over extended periods of time. I have a severe problem with theoretical arguments, that is contrary to how the world really works. Also, and very importantly, it is much more usual that a brutal dictatorships grows out of another dicatorship, or as a consequence of a coup. I think you have read Hayek a couple of time to much. There is actually extremly little evidence for what he claimed in "Road to Serfdom" actually happening! I actually get quite frustrated when libertarians still use "theoretical evidence" from the Gods, when it obviously contradicts the observations being made of the real world.

No, I maintain that it is not relevant. I was trying to show that the argument that democracy alone can justify something is a poor one. All that is necessary to show that is the possibility that a democratic government can commit ONE unjustified act. Not even an atrocity, just one act that is not justfied. Such unjustified acts occur all the time in democracies. Tell me what you think the most democratic country is, and I'll give you one action by that country that we can both agree is unjustified. So I think this argument is done. There is no need to bring in what the Nazis did in the 1930's.

No, because tyranny cannot exist without coercion. The market uses no coercion, so it cannot possibly be a tyranny.

But we have the problem I have discussed earlier. Power is more than coercion, power may also be to posess what other people need. The idea that coercion is the only form of power is a libertarian idea, which I do not share. A quick look at the 1800s would surely prove that power, even if it is not a result of coercion, could be an extremly powerful thing. The whole problem is the perception that all individuals exists in some kind of "normal state" when the do not have contact with other human beings, and that they are just fine as long as they are not a victim of coercion from others. That is totally bogus, because human happiness and even survival requires active actions from other individuals. I actually find the libertarian and quasilibertarian/american conservative view of the individual utter ridiculous. I actually agree that libertarianism may have a slight advantage in economics, but when it comes to biology, psychology, sociology and other such sciences, they are completely clueless! Actually, the perception that man has "free will" isn`t that compliant with physics either. This is also clear when you argue based on utilitarianism. You claim that libertarianism isn`t all about economics, but with about every argument I presented, you argued that the loss of utility on that variable would be offset by "more material wealth". I really doesn`t see that the libertarian movement is interested in anything else than "increasing the GNP".

Tyranny is absolute power. I admit that there are non-coercive types of power, but you can't have absolute power without coercion. That is, unless there is some absurd situation where you buy up all the food in the world or something. But in the real world, the absolute power to get anyone to do anything you want requires some degree of coercion. The free market does not use any coercion though, so it can't have absolute power over people.

And actually, the libertarian movement is not interested in increasing the GNP. The GNP is a measure of the quantity of money in society, not the amount of wealth. A good libertarian would oppose increases in the GNP, and support increases in material wealth.

And the lack of knowledge about other sciences is perhaps a weakness of libertarianism, but it the end I don't think it really matters. We are not interested in fine-tuning government to ensure that the greatest possible good comes about. So it is not really necessary to learn everything about all the sciences to determine what brings about human happiness. We don't even need to use economics in that way. Our knowledge of economics can just be used as a weapon against other ideologies, since we can show how they won't work as intended.

Not everyone has to agree to pass laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. Why should one bother to get the consent of a murderer, when he didn't bother to get the consent of his victim? Beyond that, no laws are really necessary in a libertarian society

The point is that in a natural society, no consent is needed for anything. To say that consent is neccesary, it would imply a drastic alteration in the fabric of "society". Of course, it may sound contradictory, but I think the same goes as for any other law, that you really cannot alter the rules people live by, without most of them actually consenting. The whole point is that in a pre-state society, "murderers" aren`t a tiny minority, but most people would use murder, it they deemed it appropriate to achieve the goals that they set forth. You percieve that most people naturally would think that murder in every circumstance is wrong, while that certainly were not the case in primitive tribal society. Heck, the romans used murder for entertainment.

I don't see how this is relevant. If a libertarian society comes about, it will be because a large number of people in that society are libertarians or libertarian sympathizers. So it should be no problem to pass a law against murder, rape, theft, etc. Whether they are naturally against murder, rape, theft etc does not matter.

Again, you use some kind of libertarian natural rights dogma for granted. That murder and theft are somewhat "naturally" being percieved as wrong, and that people have always respected some kind of "golden rule", that you only do to others what you do want them to do to you, something that is surely not true. The ban of coercion also implie some kind of collectivism, because it suddenly becomes a collective case if someone uses coercion. You create a "society" that creates rules that everyone should abide by, while in a purely individual society without any collective rules overhead, coercion would just be a case relevant to the coercer and the coerced. Also, introduction of property rights also let people deny resources neccesary for life to others by use of force! And the archeological evidence and old stories seem to suggest that the hunters, shepards and gatherers were not happy when the peasants started to fence pieces of land in.

No, it is not necessary for me to believe that everyone will "naturally" perceive murder and theft as wrong. It is enough that generally, they DO perceive them as wrong. And that sentiment would be even stronger in a libertarian society, where probably a great number of people believe in the libertarian ideology. I don't see why you're making such a big deal about passing laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. Those laws are the ones that 99% of people agree on and would have no problem being passed and enforced.

And libertarianism isn't necessarily opposed to collectivism, as long as it is not coercive. The view that a libertarian society would be nothing but individuals caring about nothing but themselves is an absurd caricature. And I don't believe enforcing laws against murder, rape, theft, etc count as coercion, since the consent of murderers, rapists, and theives is not morally required.

And I think you must have missed the part in "why capitalism is unfair" where I mentioned my views on land. I'll repost it for you.

Land is something I will probably disagree with many libertarians on. I am not a Georgist, instead I don't necessarily believe that land should be owned. Rather, you mix your labor with the land and you own the resulting product. For example, a farmer who mixes his labor with the earth owns the corn that comes out of it, not that land itself. Someone coming by and stealing that corn would be coercion, because the thief coerced the farmer into producing the corn for him. But it would be coercion for the farmer to prevent someone from walking across the land that the corn is grown on, as long as the corn is not being disturbed. If you build a house, you own the house and some small area of land around it. That land is necessary for the product (the house). You shouldn't own six acres of land in addition to that house that you never use. It would be coercion to prevent people from using that land.

So people are always free to "live off the land" if they choose in my ideal society. And you could only own a natural resource after you extract it from the ground. You couldn't just say "that whole mine/forest/etc belongs to me!" and expect that claim to be respected.

Also, I was speaking about changing any rule of society, not the use of coercion as such. On the fly, I can only think of three ways to change the rules, social contract, natural rights or the strongest enforcing their rules. It is you that claim that the social contract can`t be altered without everyone "signing". You claim that you are not a supporter of natural rights. And if the strongest simply would introduce their morals, why would that have to be the libertarian strain of morals? I still miss your alternative. I think some kind of social contract is the most viable out of those theoretical options.

The rules only really mean something when the vast majority of society supports them. For example, many people don't view music downloading as wrong, so laws against them are quite ineffective. But nearly everyone views murder as wrong, so laws against it are effective. The only way to really change the rules of society is to convince enough people of your morals. So yes, it is a kind of rule of the strongest. The strongest in this case happen to be the vast majority of society. This is just the way things work; no natural rights or social contract can work when society doesn't agree with them. Why does this have to be libertarian morals? Well thats an interesting question. I endorse moral relativism, so there is nothing inherently superior about libertarian morals. They are just MY morals. Maybe all I should ask for is a society where libertarians can be left alone to practice their own system. Because if no moral system is better than another, then there is no reason why libertarians should be subjected to someone else's morals.

[futuristic]

To my knowledge, monopolies are usually a result of protectionism. In a free market they would not have a chance because numerous rivals from all over the world would come for their stake. Temporary monopolies might be possible but they would not be able to last long.

I do not think that this is correct. Rather, protectionism will assure that there are a great number of competitors on the global market, because the number of them will be held up by local governments. In a globalized world hovewer, corporate takeovers and the fact that businesses in new countries are founded by foregin capital, will decrease the number of actual competitors considerable.

What established businesses could do in a free market, would be to temporarily drop prices to squash the new and unwanted competition. Also, I am not sure that other capitalists would rush to break the others monopoly. It is not easy to make headway into a new line of business. The old companies have well established relationships with distributors and media, and they know the business and have an establised R & D staff. They therefore have a considerable advantage over any new potential competitors.

To take it very simple and theoretically, something that libertarians have made their name by doing themselves, say that you have to capitalists in the world. Capitalist A owns the only car factory in the world, and capitalist B owns the only record company in the world. If capitalist A would form a new record company to encroach on the monopoly of capitalist B, capitalist B would form a new car manufacturor to take "revenge", and none of them would be better off.

What you are saying makes some sense but still doesn’t convince me. The world is huge and there are many companies that would be able to beat a monopoly. There are also many wealthy investors that can finance a new competitive company for it to be able to withstand a price war. New technologies are constantly developed that can do things better.

A good example. Some time ago I read about a Korean company that began selling computer memory chips in the USA for a half of price comparing to what competitors sell it. (I don’t remember exact numbers but it was something like that.) US manufactures immediately complained and the government, based on a law that requires to impose tariffs on anything that “hurts local economy”, imposed a heavy tariff, I guess 35%. The Japanese did the same to this Korean company. In this case consumer has clearly suffered because of the protectionism. Also, not competitive businesses, which could be semi-monopolies racketeered by their unionized workers, were able to survive. The world would become better if those not competitive manufactures went out of business.

Another example, you know, Hyundai. They are beating all other competitors because of relatively high quality and low price. GM and others don’t even try to launch a price war because they are already selling their cars at a lowest price possible and may only be still in business because of protectionism.

There is no force but the governmental protectionism that can beat the genie once it’s out of the bottle. Antitrust laws are not needed either as long as no one is banned from challenging a monopoly. Only short lasting monopolies are possible until the next generation of the technology is developed. I believe that the world with no protectionism and no antitrust laws would be better. But if you know of an article written by an independent expert that claims otherwise I would accept your position.

[Norwegian]

The democratic government isn't like some sort of benevolent God, whose every act is the embodiment of pure goodness. Because of that, saying that "the democratic state decided that X is good, therefore X is good" is a very poor argument.

Okay, I was to quick and took it out of context. But it again raises the problem, what is the alternative?

And also, why should you support democracy as a moral justification for something? I thought the only moral justification for a utilitarian was if it lead to the greater good. A democratic decision does not necessarily lead to the greater good. So you should be taking my side here, not arguing against me.

Yes, a democratic decision isn`t a justicifation in itself in a moral sense of the word, but again, what is the alternative? Actually, utilitarians were really the first true supporters of "bougois democracy", because it appears to be the form of government that give decisions that is most in line with the preferences of the populace. An important difference is that I am a supporter of "competitive democracy", and not traditional "greek democracy". I support some limits on democracy, "liberal rights" to make sure that the people won`t do something really stupid at the heat of the moment. If you look at the real world hovewer, the people doesn`t appear to be s unreasonable as could be feared.

For one thing, no dictator/Tsar/whatever can possibly favor libertarianism. He might as well be favoring his own demise.

I wrote "libertarian policies", not libertarianism as a complete ideology. Even if the tsarist regime were far from libertarianism on most areas, their labour and welfare policies were very much in line with libertarian thought. I was pointing to policies covering certain areas, and did not claim that the russian society was a libertarian society. Just that a couple of parts of it were "libertarian".

Special interest groups usually want government favors and handouts, which is profoundly anti-libertarian.

That is a very libertarian way of looking at it, isn`t it? Only the people you disagree with is special interest groups? I would rather label any group that is set to gain more from one type of government policy than another form og goverment, and are actively working to keep or introduce such a government. Actually, I would claim libertarians a hardcore special interest groups, because their policies in an extremly large amount disgards the interests of many other groups. You are repeating the natural rights fallacy, you somehow take a libertarian society for granted, when the only society that can be taken for granted is "primitivist anarchism". That is the only society that appear to be able to exist under normal circumstances without some form of government intervention.

For example, liberalism caters to the special interests of unions, environmentalists, politicians, and minorities, among others.

That is one reason why I am not a mainstream liberal og social democrat.

Liberalism favors these groups at the expense of everyone else, while libertarians would treat them no differently from everyone else.

The state might not treat people differently, but a libertarian society certainly do treat people extremly differently. The only society that treats people close to equally is a primitivist anarchy, because it does not allow those with abilities other does not posess to thrive om those abilities to anything near the degree of any other society.

But in the real world, the absolute power to get anyone to do anything you want requires some degree of coercion. The free market does not use any coercion though, so it can't have absolute power over people.

Yes, but the market can have close to complete power over some individuals, even if they are few. Just the same way, the state in a modern society will not get complete control over those that lose the most freedom as a result of governemnt coercion. The reason is that the power people with skills have, does not dimish as such under a society with more use of coercion. If you ignore their power and uses blind coercion on them, you end up with an underskilled society, which the Soviet Union were during much of the 30s and China became under Mao. Actually, I feel that the welfare state(I am not using the concept of "mixed economy" because I do not want any intereference bar the welfare state) produces the best balance, because the coercion of the masses and the power of the skilled finds a nice balance, where neither form of power is able to dominate society completely.

The GNP is a measure of the quantity of money in society, not the amount of wealth. A good libertarian would oppose increases in the GNP, and support increases in material wealth.

That is nitpicking
It was exactly that I meant.

We don't even need to use economics in that way. Our knowledge of economics can just be used as a weapon against other ideologies, since we can show how they won't work as intended.

Yes, but your justification for your ideology sounds quite suspect to me. To be honest I think that those morals are just a justification for your special interests. I really do not believe that anyone over a certain age really think that freedom from coercion is a goal in itself, because the freedom from coercion in itself have no value, it is your positive opportunities to do what you want that have concrete value.

And yes, I do admint that the opponents of libertarianism often lack knowledge on economics, but I think that basing society on economics alone will create a society hostile to human beings. It would create a human anthill even worse than Singapore.

No, it is not necessary for me to believe that everyone will "naturally" perceive murder and theft as wrong. It is enough that generally, they DO perceive them as wrong.

Yes, but isn`t that because they have been looked upon as wrong for so many centuries, that it has become a part of our culture. You see, it has not always been a part of the culture of very many peoples on this earth. Actually, slavery and gladiator games were percieved as "right" during earlier times. From the Bible we can see that even people like Paul dared oppose slavery in public. That kind of reasoning makes about anything right, just as long as it is able to carry on for enough time, and people gets used to it.

And I think you must have missed the part in "why capitalism is unfair" where I mentioned my views on land. I'll repost it for you.

I am sorry, I might have missed that part. Anyhow, I don`t think it matters if you use the land or not. Say that you have a little island, with one patch of land and to farmers, farmer A and farmer B. If farmer A owns the patch of land, he denies farmer B the possibility to use that land, regardless of whether he actually works the land or not. The results for those affected by the seizure are the same regardless.

For example, many people don't view music downloading as wrong, so laws against them are quite ineffective. But nearly everyone views murder as wrong, so laws against it are effective.

Yes, but coercion to collect taxes are not considered wrong. This is as you said no argument for one type of moral over another.

[Norwegian]

futuristic:

For the record, I do not actually support antitrust laws, because I think that the only thing that warrant such redistribution or regulation is to give people a guaranteed minimum income and some leverage in realtion to their employers.

To the point, Hyundai is certainly not an example of the goods of free trade, because Hyundai were able to build itself up based on protectionism during the sixties and seventies. Actually, they didn`t want to make cars at all, but the government pressured them into investing in it, because Park Chung Hee had a belief in heavy industry. It is also dobutful a car manufacturer could really have started operation in a developing country like South Korea without government aid. It should also be noted that they recieved some US government aid at the start, because South Korea was still seen as a neccesary stronghold in that part of the world during the eighties. Therefore the US government aided them in finding good promotion companies, help their yugoslavina and malaysian competitors did not get. Anyone remember Yugo and Proton, they made attempts at about the same time as Hyndai. It rather shows my point, that some protected national industries will prevent whole businesses from being dominated by a couple of large corporations. Also, you claim that their competitors are still in trade thanks to protectionism. Another example that the precence of protectionism keeps the number of manunfacturers up. I am neither sure that Hyndai is independent, but haven`t got time to check it up now. Anyhow, if they hit bad times, the could easily be gobbled up like Daewoo or Rover.

[futuristic]

To the point, Hyundai is certainly not an example of the goods of free trade, because Hyundai were able to build itself up based on protectionism during the sixties and seventies.

It’s just one example. It doesn’t matter if they received a governmental aid or a venture capital investment or were acquired by a more established company to move production to a more business friendly country. If something can be done it will be done. Of course, many will fail but some will survive and challenge existing monopolies.

Also, you claim that their competitors are still in trade thanks to protectionism.

I said it could be so. At least they are doing better than they would otherwise.

Another example that the precence of protectionism keeps the number of manunfacturers up.

Correct, and so do antitrust laws. But they artificially keep not competitive businesses afloat instead of letting them to die to free space for those competitive. Also, more businesses from 3rd countries would survive with no protectionism thereby increasing the number of manufacturers and reducing the number of monopolies.

[Iain]

Actually, I was serious. Insurance companies work pretty well in developed countries.

We'll just have to make sure that the next big natural disaster hits a developed country, I guess. How do you suggest people who don't have enough money for food go about insuring their property against a Tsunami?

Insurance companies successfully cover damage from hurricanes. There were a few hurricanes in the US in 2004 and their combined destruction, I think, was no less than the one from the tsunami (except for the number of victims).

I think it was massively less. The hurricanes affected just a couple of states in the US; the Tsumani has affected big chunks of several countries.

In general, even though a heavy governmental participation in the life of society seems to be more “efficient”, in the long run it causes less innovation and slower development.

Can you provide some evidence for this?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I'll be donating £20 as soon as my cheque clears. Small amount, but then again, I'm a low earner Naah I imagine in a Libertarian society that NGOs and charities would be even bigger than they are now.

Yes. And?

[Norwegian]

It’s just one example. It doesn’t matter if they received a governmental aid or a venture capital investment or were acquired by a more established company to move production to a more business friendly country. If something can be done it will be done. Of course, many will fail but some will survive and challenge existing monopolies.

Actually, it makes all of the difference. Because if it came to be due to government intervention, it would propably not exist at all in a free market. It also matters if it was established by foregin capital, because that in practice implies that it is owned by and thereby being a branch of an established car manufacturor. That is also the case if it moved there, that does not mean that a new actor is created, it just moves the production of an old company. The difference is that when new actors on the world market begin with a protectionist policy, they will form new actors on the market like Hyundai, but if they are not, their new businesses will just be subdivisons of established western corporations, and will thereby not counter monopoly tendencies.

Another problem for non-libertarians is that moving to more "friendly" countries contributes more to a downward spiral rather than improving the effeciency of the production process in itself. Most of the enhanced efficiency over the past 25 years seem to have been by using cheap labour in third world countries.

But they artificially keep not competitive businesses afloat instead of letting them to die to free space for those competitive. Also, more businesses from 3rd countries would survive with no protectionism thereby increasing the number of manufacturers and reducing the number of monopolies.

Actually, I believe that it is the other way around. There is not neccesarily so that new actors replaces those that go bancrupt. If we look like sectors like car manufactoring and record companies, those that dissapear are not replaced most of the time, but rather the number of competitors are reduced. A company that is being kept artificially alive, could be a winner in 30 years. Also, the influx of new competition from third world countries is a phenomena that will not last forever.

[futuristic]

Iain, you should read this:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=36043

[Iain]

futuristic,

I've just read that but I'm not sure what the relevance is. The main point of the article seems to be
a) the richer a country is, the better it can deal with natural disasters
b) the free market is better able to deal with natural disasters than the state

Well, a six year old could have figured out the first one and the argument for the second is far from convincing. It all rests, for example, on the assumption that the nearer a country is to a pure free-market system, the faster and larger its economy will grow. I'd be very interested in seeing evidence to support that claim; but so far it seems conspicuous by its absence.

[futuristic]

It’s just one example. It doesn’t matter if they received a governmental aid or a venture capital investment or were acquired by a more established company to move production to a more business friendly country. If something can be done it will be done. Of course, many will fail but some will survive and challenge existing monopolies.

Actually, it makes all of the difference. Because if it came to be due to government intervention, it would propably not exist at all in a free market.

Probably, but not necessarily. Another example. A few years ago a Ukrainian company began exporting high quality clothes to Europe. They did not receive any governmental aid and still managed to threaten competitors. As usual European Union quickly stopped an activity that “hurts local economy”.

It also matters if it was established by foregin capital, because that in practice implies that it is owned by and thereby being a branch of an established car manufacturor. That is also the case if it moved there, that does not mean that a new actor is created, it just moves the production of an old company. The difference is that when new actors on the world market begin with a protectionist policy, they will form new actors on the market like Hyundai, but if they are not, their new businesses will just be subdivisons of established western corporations, and will thereby not counter monopoly tendencies.

It doesn’t really matter. The “old company” may not be a monopoly. It may be a relatively new actor in their country of origin. Or it may be an investor seeking to invest their “foreign capital” into a promising company. Both monopolies and non-monopolies will try to improve their productivity and non-monopolies, being more numerous, innovative, and desperate, will often succeed.
Sure, Hyundai might not exist with no protectionism. As it usually happens, Korean government favored a “special interest” group in their country and, I guess, supported them financially, which yielded some result. However, what a government can really do at an early stage of development of a poor country is to invest heavily in education while creating a friendly business environment. This may produce much better results. Soviet Union was an extremely inefficient system. But they had good schools and so managed to compete with the West for so many years. You know, what is now happening in Ukraine. I believe, if new Ukrainian leaders manage to create a business friendly environment, Ukraine may quickly surpass China and others because Ukraine has good educational system. At some point in history, however, the government controlled education becomes less efficient than private one and so should be privatized. But the government can probably still improve things by helping the poor to get education. This is the kind of protectionism I would probably cautiously accept.

Another problem for non-libertarians is that moving to more "friendly" countries contributes more to a downward spiral rather than improving the effeciency of the production process in itself. Most of the enhanced efficiency over the past 25 years seem to have been by using cheap labour in third world countries.

This is just wrong.
Try reading this:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=35857

And even if you were right it would still be a positive effect on global scale. Any increase in the productivity is good in the long run even for the poor people who lose jobs to globalization. I personally was laid off a few times and always found a better job than the one I lost. Higher productivity creates better opportunities for everyone.

But they artificially keep not competitive businesses afloat instead of letting them to die to free space for those competitive. Also, more businesses from 3rd countries would survive with no protectionism thereby increasing the number of manufacturers and reducing the number of monopolies.

Actually, I believe that it is the other way around. There is not neccesarily so that new actors replaces those that go bancrupt. If we look like sectors like car manufactoring and record companies, those that dissapear are not replaced most of the time, but rather the number of competitors are reduced.

New actors are not created but profits and number of workers employed by old actors increase, which have the same effect. Inefficiency dies, and efficiency becomes bigger. This creates a higher demand by those who are more efficient and make more money, which creates new actors in different market niches and gives new jobs to those workers who lost their jobs. Anyone who will try to intervene with this process, will only reduce efficiency and thus the quality of life. Maybe, I explain this not in a best way but you can find numerous articles on the subject if you want.

A company that is being kept artificially alive, could be a winner in 30 years.

It could be but less likely than another company who is already a winner.

Also, the influx of new competition from third world countries is a phenomena that will not last forever.

It will last forever as competition between companies rather than between countries. Insignificant differences between countries will exist always. Some countries would grow bananas better while others would make iPod’s better. Also, when all countries are equally developed there will be fewer excuses for protectionism.

[futuristic]

futuristic,

I've just read that but I'm not sure what the relevance is. The main point of the article seems to be
a) the richer a country is, the better it can deal with natural disasters
b) the free market is better able to deal with natural disasters than the state

Well, a six year old could have figured out the first one and the argument for the second is far from convincing. It all rests, for example, on the assumption that the nearer a country is to a pure free-market system, the faster and larger its economy will grow. I'd be very interested in seeing evidence to support that claim; but so far it seems conspicuous by its absence.

The article says that the higher a country scores in economic freedom the faster it develops. We all know that free economies develop faster. Compare free capitalist countries with not free others. Is it new to you?
Of course, an absolutely free economy is not the best choice because someone has got to enforce contracts and protect honest players from fraud. This is what the state is supposed to do and this activity does not require significant amount of money.
If the state is rich enough to deal with a natural disaster it means that it collects significant taxes, which hurts economy. Also, it’s a known fact that the state spends money less effectively than a private business does. If it collects less taxes what allows economy to develop faster by 1% a year in 100 years the country would be 2.7 times more developed and in 1000 years it will be 20959 times more developed. This works like compound interest.

[SueDeNîmes]

That is the issue here: whether it is morally okay to force me to obey laws that I never consented to.

Yes, that's the $64 million question to which there's no logically correct answer because it doesn't have any meaning outside the context of human social interaction. What's certain, however, is that the law is meaningless if individuals are free to pick and choose which laws to observe. That is simply the law of the jungle - the surest route to coercion and subjugation of the individual.

[Iain]

The article says that the higher a country scores in economic freedom the faster it develops. We all know that free economies develop faster. Compare free capitalist countries with not free others. Is it new to you?

Not so much true as obvious and irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

Of course, an absolutely free economy is not the best choice because someone has got to enforce contracts and protect honest players from fraud. This is what the state is supposed to do and this activity does not require significant amount of money.

The question is surely what level of state involvement is best. Capitalist being better than socialism is one thing; but within capitalism there are a wide range of economies. Every single successful modern economy is a "mixed economy" where a large central government plays a big role in the economy; so socialist vs. capitalist really doesn't have any bearing at all on libertarian vs. mixed economy; which was what our discussion was about.

[Iain]

That is the issue here: whether it is morally okay to force me to obey laws that I never consented to.

In addition to Sue's comments, I would add that I'm not aware of any moral system where this is a problem. Of course, if you would like to live in a society where people could decide that laws about murder, theft etc. don't apply to them, that's up to you (I think there are some countries like that in Africa at the moment).

[futuristic]

The article says that the higher a country scores in economic freedom the faster it develops. We all know that free economies develop faster. Compare free capitalist countries with not free others. Is it new to you?

Not so much true as obvious and irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

Of course, an absolutely free economy is not the best choice because someone has got to enforce contracts and protect honest players from fraud. This is what the state is supposed to do and this activity does not require significant amount of money.

The question is surely what level of state involvement is best. Capitalist being better than socialism is one thing; but within capitalism there are a wide range of economies. Every single successful modern economy is a "mixed economy" where a large central government plays a big role in the economy; so socialist vs. capitalist really doesn't have any bearing at all on libertarian vs. mixed economy; which was what our discussion was about.

The discussion was about insurance companies in libertarian society covering all losses in case of a cataclysm.

I think you would not argue that in a well developed country insurance companies would do a better job than both insurance companies and the state combined in an undeveloped country. The question is only how big the difference between the countries has to be.

Now, you may say that libertarian does not mean developing faster than socialist or anything else and I probably would not be able to provide an example because no pure libertarian country exists. However, consider this. Some time ago I read an article on very liberal (read socialist) cnn.com (I don’t remember exact link). The article analyzed the performance of US stock market during different presidential administrations. A clear trend was that the performance was the best when the president was from one party and congress/senate controlled by another. This is because they deadlocked each other and did not change laws too much. So, when the government is deadlocked business thrives and thus the nation becomes richer.

It appears to me that the government (or any other supreme force) has to handle enforcement of contracts, protection of fraud (which is pretty much the same), protection from physical crimes, maintaining a currency, and, maybe a few other tasks. It’s also a good idea for the government to outsource those functions to private businesses. Maybe, it’s also a good idea to modify the democracy to let only qualified people (for example only having a college degree) to elect leaders. This will ensure the fastest development possible. And for losers there will be charities. (As I wrote above in this thread I would modify the charities idea a little bit.)

[Iain]

Now, you may say that libertarian does not mean developing faster than socialist or anything else and I probably would not be able to provide an example because no pure libertarian country exists. However, consider this. Some time ago I read an article on very liberal (read socialist) cnn.com (I don’t remember exact link). The article analyzed the performance of US stock market during different presidential administrations. A clear trend was that the performance was the best when the president was from one party and congress/senate controlled by another. This is because they deadlocked each other and did not change laws too much. So, when the government is deadlocked business thrives and thus the nation becomes richer.

I think you would have to look into the situation much more closely to draw the conclusions that you have. You've looked at one country : the US. The claim you/the article are making is that the strong economy was caused by deadlock, rather than the two being coincidental or having some other connection.

How can you prove that? Look at other countries. Is there a correlation between economic growth in Japan, Germany, France or the UK and the number of bills passing through their parliaments, for example. If you find a similar link there, that would be good evidence. If not, there's probably some other explanation.

Also, you should show that the stock market is a good measure of economic growth. Maybe stock prices grew, but did GDP grow? Did borrowing fall? Did Americans actually become better off?

I'm interested in yor hypothesis, but what you've said so far certainly doesn't constitute evidence to support it without a bit more investigation.

[Noumenon]

The democratic government isn't like some sort of benevolent God, whose every act is the embodiment of pure goodness. Because of that, saying that "the democratic state decided that X is good, therefore X is good" is a very poor argument.

Okay, I was to quick and took it out of context. But it again raises the problem, what is the alternative?

This has got me thinking about how I believe morals are relative. If no moral system is inherently more right than another, there is no reason why another person should force his moral system on me. So, you can determine somewhat objectively if an action is wrong if it forces one groups moral system on another group or individual. Taxation is one such action, because people who think it is everyone's duty to support "society" are forcing their morals on libertarians. On the other hand, laws against murder are not forcing morality on anyone. Rather, the murderer tries to force his morality on his victim. That morality is that human life is expendable. So a law against murder protects the victim against the imposing of anothers morals.

And also, why should you support democracy as a moral justification for something? I thought the only moral justification for a utilitarian was if it lead to the greater good. A democratic decision does not necessarily lead to the greater good. So you should be taking my side here, not arguing against me.

Yes, a democratic decision isn`t a justicifation in itself in a moral sense of the word, but again, what is the alternative? Actually, utilitarians were really the first true supporters of "bougois democracy", because it appears to be the form of government that give decisions that is most in line with the preferences of the populace. An important difference is that I am a supporter of "competitive democracy", and not traditional "greek democracy". I support some limits on democracy, "liberal rights" to make sure that the people won`t do something really stupid at the heat of the moment. If you look at the real world hovewer, the people doesn`t appear to be s unreasonable as could be feared.

The problem with democracy is that people will not always vote in their real self-interest, but instead they will give their vote to whoever promises them the most money. The problem with that of course, is that the money is taken out of the private sector, harming economic growth and real wages. The only way that the public could vote their real self-interest is if they had some understanding of economics (which of course isn't taught in public schools, I wonder why). The people in democracies can also be led to vote for almost anything through the use of propaganda. So no, I don't really trust democracies unless there are great limits on it.

For one thing, no dictator/Tsar/whatever can possibly favor libertarianism. He might as well be favoring his own demise.

I wrote "libertarian policies", not libertarianism as a complete ideology. Even if the tsarist regime were far from libertarianism on most areas, their labour and welfare policies were very much in line with libertarian thought. I was pointing to policies covering certain areas, and did not claim that the russian society was a libertarian society. Just that a couple of parts of it were "libertarian".

But it seems to me that you are focusing on the libertarian aspects to the exclusion of the non-libertarian apsects, and blaming the libertarian aspects for everything. It is true that many people became upset at libertarian-esque policies during the 19th century, due in large part to socialist propaganda. But what was really harming them were the non-libertarian aspects, like the oppression of the peasants in Tsarist Russia.

Special interest groups usually want government favors and handouts, which is profoundly anti-libertarian.

That is a very libertarian way of looking at it, isn`t it? Only the people you disagree with is special interest groups? I would rather label any group that is set to gain more from one type of government policy than another form og goverment, and are actively working to keep or introduce such a government. Actually, I would claim libertarians a hardcore special interest groups, because their policies in an extremly large amount disgards the interests of many other groups. You are repeating the natural rights fallacy, you somehow take a libertarian society for granted, when the only society that can be taken for granted is "primitivist anarchism". That is the only society that appear to be able to exist under normal circumstances without some form of government intervention.

I already said that libertarian groups were special interest groups. But what libertarians don't have are allied special interest groups, like big business. I wish we did, since it would help us in elections a lot. But we don't, mostly because we don't promise any special government handouts to any group. And yes, we are against the interests of groups that want to enrich themselves through government power.

Liberalism favors these groups at the expense of everyone else, while libertarians would treat them no differently from everyone else.

The state might not treat people differently, but a libertarian society certainly do treat people extremly differently. The only society that treats people close to equally is a primitivist anarchy, because it does not allow those with abilities other does not posess to thrive om those abilities to anything near the degree of any other society.

Well maybe it would be more accurate to say libertarians would not use the government to treat them differently. There is a little thing called equality under the law, which liberals often disregard in order to grant special rights to minorities and other favored groups.

But in the real world, the absolute power to get anyone to do anything you want requires some degree of coercion. The free market does not use any coercion though, so it can't have absolute power over people.

Yes, but the market can have close to complete power over some individuals, even if they are few. Just the same way, the state in a modern society will not get complete control over those that lose the most freedom as a result of governemnt coercion. The reason is that the power people with skills have, does not dimish as such under a society with more use of coercion. If you ignore their power and uses blind coercion on them, you end up with an underskilled society, which the Soviet Union were during much of the 30s and China became under Mao. Actually, I feel that the welfare state(I am not using the concept of "mixed economy" because I do not want any intereference bar the welfare state) produces the best balance, because the coercion of the masses and the power of the skilled finds a nice balance, where neither form of power is able to dominate society completely.

I think we already discussed coercion in our other debate, so I don't really feel like bringing it up again.

We don't even need to use economics in that way. Our knowledge of economics can just be used as a weapon against other ideologies, since we can show how they won't work as intended.

Yes, but your justification for your ideology sounds quite suspect to me. To be honest I think that those morals are just a justification for your special interests. I really do not believe that anyone over a certain age really think that freedom from coercion is a goal in itself, because the freedom from coercion in itself have no value, it is your positive opportunities to do what you want that have concrete value.

You don't know me or hardly anything about me, so how could you possibly know if my morals are a justifcation for my special interests? I think that type of thinking is just a leftover from Marxism, where everyone's beliefs are just a product of his class interests. Of course that was proven wrong the second Marx wrote it, since Marx himself was rich bourgeoisie.

And freedom from a coercion is a perfectly normal goal that doesn't have to involve special interests. Nearly everyone is opposed to slavery on principle alone. If coercion is really equal to slavery, like I claim, then nearly everyone should be opposed to it, not just libertarians.

And yes, I do admint that the opponents of libertarianism often lack knowledge on economics, but I think that basing society on economics alone will create a society hostile to human beings. It would create a human anthill even worse than Singapore.

A libertarian society would be based primarily on libertarian morals, not economics.

No, it is not necessary for me to believe that everyone will "naturally" perceive murder and theft as wrong. It is enough that generally, they DO perceive them as wrong.

Yes, but isn`t that because they have been looked upon as wrong for so many centuries, that it has become a part of our culture. You see, it has not always been a part of the culture of very many peoples on this earth. Actually, slavery and gladiator games were percieved as "right" during earlier times. From the Bible we can see that even people like Paul dared oppose slavery in public. That kind of reasoning makes about anything right, just as long as it is able to carry on for enough time, and people gets used to it.

Yes I agree, but I don't see how this a problem for libertarian society. Since people do view murder and theft as wrong, we should have no problem passing laws against them. And I am not suggesting that anything people perceive as right through thousands of years of culture is necessarily right.

And I think you must have missed the part in "why capitalism is unfair" where I mentioned my views on land. I'll repost it for you.

I am sorry, I might have missed that part. Anyhow, I don`t think it matters if you use the land or not. Say that you have a little island, with one patch of land and to farmers, farmer A and farmer B. If farmer A owns the patch of land, he denies farmer B the possibility to use that land, regardless of whether he actually works the land or not. The results for those affected by the seizure are the same regardless.

The farmer can only own the land necessary for producing the product. So if the farmer is really not using it and has no plans to use it in the near future, it reverts to being unowned. The protection of the small amount of land that he does own cannot be viewed as coercion. That is because if farmer B takes the land farmer A is using for his crops, he must either take the crops or destroy the crops. That is equivalent to forcing farmer A to work for him (coercion). So protecting the land protects against coercion, it is not coercion in itself.

[Norwegian]

If no moral system is inherently more right than another, there is no reason why another person should force his moral system on me.

But then, we are back to the very old coercion vs. power debate. I do not agree, since we have a division of labour, people will get affected by the governing moral of the society, regardless of coercion is used or not. And the idea that you do not have the right to coerce someone is in itself a moral judgement, and a moral judgement that is in conflict with the morals of the "natural state", and as such cannot be taken for granted. The problem is that you have a view of the world where individuals does not affect other people without using coercion, something that I view as false. Actually, is one of the main reason why i reject libertarianism.

On the other hand, laws against murder are not forcing morality on anyone.

But it is use of "superior force", the domiant group uses their superior numbers to force their morals on a minority. The problem is that you take parts of the libertarian theories for granted, the "Robinson Crusoe" idea that each man is an island. Forcing your morals unto others is only wrong if you think that coercing is wrong. Also, libertarians does imprint their morals into society by paying a doctor more than a janitor for example.

The problem with democracy is that people will not always vote in their real self-interest, but instead they will give their vote to whoever promises them the most money.

But then again, many americans vote quasilibertarian even if they would have more to gain from a liberal government. Also, it would be difficult to vote libertarian if you had any working knowledge of anything related to society other than economics! You also of course pay no intention to the effect of diminshing returns. The polls carried out by the world happiness database seems to imply that the point of diminshing marginal returns were met in the US in the late forthies and in Europa in 1970. Material wealth almost seem to be a religion for you!

It is true that many people became upset at libertarian-esque policies during the 19th century, due in large part to socialist propaganda. But what was really harming them were the non-libertarian aspects, like the oppression of the peasants in Tsarist Russia.

Because of "socialist propaganda", you certainly are funny. I think that being treated unfairly, working extremly long hours and being poor makes you upset, regardless of the existence of leftwing propaganda. actually, I would rather claim that libertarian propaganda creates much whining among the middle classes today.

But what libertarians don't have are allied special interest groups, like big business. I wish we did, since it would help us in elections a lot. But we don't, mostly because we don't promise any special government handouts to any group. And yes, we are against the interests of groups that want to enrich themselves through government power.

Actually, material wealth is a direct consequence of government power. Without any government power whatsoever, you get a very egalitarian tribal society. You are again taking a libertarian society for granted as a kind of "natural state", something that is extremly false. Also, libertarian is to a large degree alive thanks to big business sponsored thinkthanks like the Cato Institute.

There is a little thing called equality under the law, which liberals often disregard in order to grant special rights to minorities and other favored groups.

Yes, but libertarian laws still cause people to be treated differently from society as a whole. You must not forget that in a society with no laws whatsoever, a tribal anarchy, people except for the chief are treated more equally than in a libertarian society. Even if a libertarian state treats people equally, a libertarian society does not.

I think we already discussed coercion in our other debate, so I don't really feel like bringing it up again.

I repeat it because it is extremly important. I reject any perception of reality that neglects the kinds of power you posess without using coercion.

You don't know me or hardly anything about me, so how could you possibly know if my morals are a justifcation for my special interests? I think that type of thinking is just a leftover from Marxism, where everyone's beliefs are just a product of his class interests. Of course that was proven wrong the second Marx wrote it, since Marx himself was rich bourgeoisie.

Well, I do believe that you believe the things about economic growth, you sound believable there. I do not hovewer believe those who claim that they are opposed to coercion as such. I believe that even they value positive freedom. The reason they claim to be supporters of negative freedom, is that negative freedom will also maximize their positive freedom. I do not claim that Marx had a hundread percent right, but I do think that material interests are extremly important. Sure, you always find rich socialists, but they are so well off, that they propably feel that they could lose a little bit. There are a lot of idealists under the age of 30, but when people hit that age, they seem to change their views to correspond to their interests. It does appear that most libertarians and communists are under 30 years old, and people over 30 years that are libertarian outside the US(where the rednecks are brainwashed) seem to be members of the upper middle class. Libertarianism is after all mainly an upper middle class ideology.

And freedom from a coercion is a perfectly normal goal that doesn't have to involve special interests. Nearly everyone is opposed to slavery on principle alone. If coercion is really equal to slavery, like I claim, then nearly everyone should be opposed to it, not just libertarians.

Of course it involves special interests, the interests of those with little coercive power but a lot of market power. And I do not believe that coercion is slavery, because you does not take into account non-coercive power.

A libertarian society would be based primarily on libertarian morals, not economics.

But libertarian economics makes a whole lot of sense, libertarian morals doesn`t make any sense at all.

The farmer can only own the land necessary for producing the product. So if the farmer is really not using it and has no plans to use it in the near future, it reverts to being unowned. The protection of the small amount of land that he does own cannot be viewed as coercion. That is because if farmer B takes the land farmer A is using for his crops, he must either take the crops or destroy the crops. That is equivalent to forcing farmer A to work for him (coercion). So protecting the land protects against coercion, it is not coercion in itself.

I do not feel that you answered that. Taking land by force and denying it to others is coercion. I think that Locke was right here, land use is coercion if you take more than "your share". I think that hunting is the only non coercive way to gain food, because you do not deny the resource to others over longer periodes of time.

[futuristic]

I think you would have to look into the situation much more closely to draw the conclusions that you have. You've looked at one country : the US. The claim you/the article are making is that the strong economy was caused by deadlock, rather than the two being coincidental or having some other connection.

How can you prove that? Look at other countries. Is there a correlation between economic growth in Japan, Germany, France or the UK and the number of bills passing through their parliaments, for example. If you find a similar link there, that would be good evidence. If not, there's probably some other explanation.

Also, you should show that the stock market is a good measure of economic growth. Maybe stock prices grew, but did GDP grow? Did borrowing fall? Did Americans actually become better off?

I'm interested in yor hypothesis, but what you've said so far certainly doesn't constitute evidence to support it without a bit more investigation.

Iain, come on. I don’t have time for that. I have a full time job and also do something in my spare time to get out of the rat race.

I think this is the article I referred to:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/25/pf/expert/ask_expert/
(I am not sure if it’s the same one, though.)
And here is a snippet from it:

That said, Ned Davis Research, the Venice, Florida investment research firm, last year looked at the inflation-adjusted returns investors earned since 1900 during various combinations of Republican and Democratic control of the White House as well as Congress.

The firm found that the market performed better when the Democrats were in control of both the White House and Congress than when the Republicans held sway over the executive and legislative branches.

But before you Democrats out there start celebrating, I should add that the returns were even better when neither party had the upper hand -- that is, one party held the White House and the other had control of the Congress.

If stock prices rise it usually means that companies make more money, which benefits both their workers and shareholders. It’s quite reasonable in this situation to expect the other economic indexes to improve.

Frankly, I am not really a mainstream libertarian and I learned of libertarianism only a couple of months ago. Although I always was in favor of libertarian ideas and just did not know how it was called. What makes me not a total libertarian is that I am not crazy about “principles”. A principle is a simplification of the reality. Freedom is cool and I know what it means to live with no freedom as I was born and grew up in Ukraine. But still, freedom is worthless if I gonna live on street. This is why I wrote about welfare for the disable. But there is no excuse for being a loser for those healthy. My knowledge suggests me that all existing societies with welfare, protectionism, and heavy state intrusions develop slower than they could with a considerable fewer regulations. Yes, we again came to the point what intrusions are reasonable and what are not. That is a big subject which I would live to experts to decide upon.

And, to make you absolutely happy... I believe that even a big government can do a good job. For that to happen, all governmental employees have to be well educated, make considerable money, their salaries should depend on the prosperity of the country, and they should lose their jobs if something goes not good enough. It should be realized by everyone that every politician wants to make money rather than “serve people”. So let him but require results.
I recently read about New Hampshire Legislature. Its members earn a symbolic $100 a year. It’s a kind of friendly to libertarian ideology. But, to my opinion, this is just wrong. No highly skilled professional will go working there. The Legislature is full of amateurs who even having best intensions are unable to do the job in a best way possible.
Anyway, until this model comes true the libertarian model would be better. In fact, I have an idea on a “post-libertarian” model which would combine an intrusive government, competition, and freedom but that’s a subject for another book. You can come up with your model if you have time for it.