Flawed Libertarianism

[SIZE=12pt]Still[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]On competition [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Well thank you for backing me up but as I’ve explained that is the problem we don’t have ‘natural’ competition. Your thinking is fundamentally flawed. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And thank you again this also backs up what I’ve been saying the idea that people compete and gain what they want from their own efforts, the problem is that advantage brings advantage. A child born into advantage did not gain that advantage through their own efforts they were basically lucky. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again the thinking is fundamentally flawed. [/SIZE]

 

All done.
I don't really have the time to play games, so you guys can go ahead and twist things around to accommodate your own beliefs as you wish.

Have a nice day!

 

The purpose of this thread is to highlight what I see as the fundamental flaws in right wing libertarian ideas

I’ve presented some arguments so far on competition these have been disputed by Still Kicking a right wing libertarian (free market ideas, emphasis on individual rights and competition thinking) disagrees with my opinion but does not put up any rational argument and then makes comments that seem to confirm it.

Again in relation to my views on the flaws in RWL ideas on Personal Responsibility Still Kicking seems to deny it while making comments that seem to back them up.

As I’ve said before the seeming contradictory nature of RWL is in my opinion another fundamental flaw in that philosophy.

Right wing libertarian thinking often seems to have an idealistic halo - and some who don’t examine its ideas more closely might find that attractive, the problem is that many of its ideas are unrealistic, un-thought through and at best naive and at worse dangerous.

Many of them seem to say something along the lines of - in a perfect world, their perfect ideas would work perfectly - for example Still Kicking’s complete belief that if adopted the ideas he supports would work well and therefore his insistence that any criticisms of them are invalid until they have been tried.

But the problem is the criticism seem to stand because we don’t live in a perfect world, the reality is that it’s a messy complicated place and the theory of RWL and what it would be like in practice is in contradiction because of the fundamental flaws that no supporter of RWL seems able to address in any rational or reasonable way.

 

Free Market : Part One

Right wing libertarians put a lot of faith in free market thinking again it seems to go back to their ideas of natural competition and is open to the same flaws.

There seem to be the theory that if only the market was free the invisible hand would 'natural' bring about a beneficial outcome.

The problem is that free market thinking is based on a number of fallacies - it presumes for example that there can be near perfect knowledge and that humans always act rationally (this it is argued will result in what is called ‘perfect competition’) thing is these things are not certain in the real world.

Basically for a free market to work properly it is assumed that all agents are rational and have perfect information, and so “will choose the best products, and the market will reward those who make the best products with higher sales. Perfect information would practically mean that all consumers know all things, about all products, at all times (including knowing the probabilistic outcome of all future events), and therefore always make the best decision regarding purchase”.

In reality that’s impossible

It also assumes that in a market there is equality that no participant has any advantage over any other and that competition would mean that there would be no monopolies or price rigging (and for some that therefore regulation to stops such things is unnecessary).

Again that doesn’t sound like the messy real world.

To me right wing libertarians seem to associate the idea of the ‘free market’ as being consistent with their views on individual rights and competition it’s basically ideological rather than logical, so I’m not sure they care about the reality preferring blind faith.

 

I liked this splurge: the universal abstract explanation for what is wrong with the hopeful. The universal concrete may have satisfied the average libertarian's desire for Nationalism, successful or unsuccessful, organized with the currency and education, or anarchist.

 

If we let the Libertarians have their way, the old and the disabled will be dying on the sidewalks, because of unavailable medical care, and unavailable public housing.

 

In defence of the libertarians: concretely no. I identify such cases existing today even; then in Mexico, but I have to say that the abstract facts of lazy people taking care of each other still have the moral cognizance of incarceration and assisted suicide. Neither of these are my politically biased position on the subject.

 

Germain to the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_society

 

Why is this germane?

A lot of the impetus behind mutualism was from the left, in fact today a major example of it in many countries is the trade unions, assisting workers.

Basically they are insurance schemes; people pay in so that they can receive assistance (money, help, etc).
Many people today see them as a stepping stone to a proper welfare system and many of the welfare systems around the world are based on such ‘insurance’ schemes.

I mean in the UK the welfare system is in many ways based on the friendly society model, we all pay National Insurance, just as people had paid into the friendly societies etc. The problem was that friendly societies, mutuals, cooperatives etc could go broke especially, in times of hardship, also there cover could be patchy and erratic, having state provision could protect against that giving a better long term solution.

Although there are many such organisations still going, for example there are businesses called mutuals that are part of this collectivist approach, in the UK we have building societies, very like banks that are owned by its customers rather than by shareholders (also see the John Lewis partnership shops owned by the employees).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_society

It should be remembered that most of the opposition to such collectivist approaches come from differing sectors of the right (union bashing for example) and some free market thinkers.

 

Libertarians believe in Employment At Will; and, what that means is this: You have the right to apply for work; but, you have no other rights. The employer will have the power to hire you or not hire you, for any reason, including, but not limited to race and religion. Once employed, the employer can dismiss you for any reason, and you shall have no legal recourse. In Employment At Will, an employee is nothing more than a resource, like any other commodity in production. In Employment At Will, the employer will exercise arbitrary power over the employee. In the 1800s, slaves in America were given food and housing by their American owners. In the neo-Employment At Will America, the workers get no fair wage, no guarantee of enough salary to pay for food and housing. In Libertarian political philosophy, government does what is convenient for business, not the populous in general. In plain Americanized English, Libertarians don't give a flying turd about other people.

 

The idea of health insurance came in when Roosvelt took office after Hoover. The Roosvelt Democrats began to put together a social safety network, to avoid what had fallen upon the American public as a result of free market philosophy during the Hoover years. Industry heavy hitters went to Washington and offered an alternative to nationalized health care. They said they could buy health insurance for their workers in big contracts and get it done cheaper than the government. The country went along with big business. Now big business is saying they don't have to give employees anything, including minimum wages. We should have another look at Roosvelt policies and the Sherman Anti Trust Act.

 

Free Market Part 2

In a free market economic system all aspects of life could be marketized – in such a system the advantaged would be further advantaged.

Someone born into advantage, would likely grow up in a better environment and have access to better healthcare, is more likely to have educational tools (technology, books, tutors) and enrolment in better schools and universities. They are more likely to meet people that can help them and access to better social networks and so on.

A free market would advantage the advantaged, BUT there never has been and there never could be a free market. Because long before one could be established it would have been corrupted to serve the interests of the advantaged.

And a corrupted ‘free’ market advantages the advantaged even more.

*

To me in many ways this has to some degree already happened and this is even acknowledged by some free marketeers the problem is that they seem to think the solution is to push for more free market based policies as if giving the system more of the poison that has corrupted it will restore it to heath.

About thirty years ago free market/neo-liberal ideas started to become dominant cheered on by a gaggle of new wealth financed think tanks.

The new free market ideas were funded and promoted. Its opponents failures were screamed loudly while its own failures were white washed over or spined to look like others failures (the old chestnut being that failure was due to the system not being ‘free’ enough) while even the tiniest success on its part were trumpeted as a triumphs and proof that everything should be marketized.

There were calls to cut red tape, of freeing businesses, workforce liberalisation, of promoting investment and that government interference was the major problem.

The real problem for the majority of people was that most of the actions taken seem to advantage wealth.

So while the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes stagnated or fell - the riches of wealth has ballooned greatly. And of course wealth has used it greater power and influence to pursue its own interests and it’s still uses the same ‘free market’ arguments to do it.

I’m surprised that some people especially right wing libertarians are still falling for this confidence trick.

 

it seems tho that the wealthy advantaged will be advantaged no matter the system. money seems to make itself when one has over a certain amount of wealth.

 

Ace

That has been a long debate in political thought – should the power of the advantaged be curbed and if it is to be curb how to do it and by how much.

Some have argued that the advantaged are justified in their power and position because gods meant them to be or because they were ‘better’ than others.

Others have argued along the lines that all people are born equal and are therefore are equal and so complete equality should be brought about.

Others have argued that there should be some semblance of balance, checks, regulations and systems that can be used to equalise society.

Laws, Equalised legal systems, regulatory bodies that fight on behave of the disadvantaged, welfare systems, taxation regimes that distribute wealth more evenly, and democratised systems.

All of these things can be tweaked and arranged to advantaged the disadvantaged, and bring about a more equalised balance of power.

Looking at the US political system (and society) I think that while the system always advantaged wealth that in the last thirty odd years because of neo-liberal/free market policies the balance is now way out of kilter and the system desperately needs rebalancing.

The problem with right wing libertarian proposals is that they would vastly increase the power and influence of wealth putting the system even more out of balance.

 

Free Market Part 3

It seems to me that the ‘free market’ economic model always looks like a lie, a con game meant to fool the gullible.

I’ll explain – while its proponents seem to be claim that it was a complete model that could deal with booms as well as busts, when looked at its doesn’t look like anything of the dsort, it was in fact not even half a model, it wasn’t very good in boom times (except for wealth) and didn’t have any way of dealing with busts.

That is why when the neo-liberal model inevitably fails Keynesian ideas are dusted down and used. All the supposed supporters of neo-liberal ideas like Reagan, Bush and many others all turned to Keynesian ideas when the free market ones failed.

So you end up with the untenable – Keynesian ideas in the low periods meaning the general population pays for the recovery and neo-liberal ideas in the up time which not only create the conditions for a down turn to happen but also means that wealth gains the profits and the general population gain little.

It’s a flawed idea

**

If you want more information I’ll try and explain in a simplistic way the difference between

Keynesian

In the up period the government pays off its debts incurred in the low period and possibly its stakes in some industries and business it nationalised or bought in the low period.

So in the low period the government is then in a position to put money into the system and nationalise or buy up viable businesses that have got into trouble.

In low periods the interest rate would be set low to simulate growth and in up periods set higher to curtail the possibility of a runaway market.

Same with taxes in low periods it would be set low for most people and businesses to stimulate growth and in up periods set higher to pay off state debt and get such things as businesses to pay for those infrastructural requirements they might need to conduct their business (e.g. roads, public transport, education etc). In low periods infrastructural needs might be paid for directly by government to increase employment (and wages in the system) and to have the structures in place for recovery.

Also taxes in the up period on wealth can be used to curtail excessive risk, if people at the top are so well cushioned against any fall, they are likely to take risk if they know that if they go wrong they will not really suffer but if go right they get even greater wealth.

It is also a means of distributing the gains of an up period more equitably.

At the same time regulation is used to try and keep any crisis contained, such as putting up firewalls between various parts of the financial sector, so that a failure in one cannot bring down another (look at the Glass-Steagall Act)
Regulation is also used to make sure companies do not get too big to fail.

It might not be utopia but it seems a lot better and saner than what neoliberal ideas.

Free market / neo-liberalism

Now neoliberals advocates mostly of the right didn’t and don’t like Keynesianism.

They’re against government involvement in the invisible hand of the markets.

They think regulation holds back new and innovative financial methods.

And there were also arguments that taxes should be low all the time.

That huge payouts to those at the top were only what was due and not that the gains of the up were mainly going to a few.

That huge annual bonuses didn’t led to people taking risks especial among people that could survive and live in luxury even if the risk blow up or sank.
The market decides so companies are allowed to become leveraged to whatever the market will allow and can become as big as they are able.

And that there was little to worry about because the ‘new’ economic model they were pushing was able to take on any ‘shock’ and survive.

This led to the idea among some that having a huge national debt during an up period was ok because there wouldn’t be a ‘down’ of course if a down turn came and a bail out was needed it would vastly balloon that debt.

And some encouraged the idea that if things went wrong the market would sort it out, companies or banks would just go to the wall and the taxpayers wouldn’t need to bail them out. But many people pointed out (and were ridiculed or dismissed) that at some point in a crisis a government might have to step in or watch the whole financial system and their country go down the tubes.

The true believers would say let it go

Although it’s a bit hard to pick up the pieces again if their theories turn out to be wrong and people are fighting to death over a tin of beans in a burnt out Wal-mart

 

As we can see right wing libertarians have no rational counter arguments to the charge that their ideas are fundamentally flawed.

The problem is that don’t think they care and that’s another fundamental flaw in their thinking their ideas are ideologically held not rationally thought through. They believe things to be so because that’s how they believe things to be and so don’t care if they can’t put up any rational (or even logical) arguments to back up their position.

It’s like a Creationists belief that a supernatural being created the universe in literally six days, it doesn’t matter about arguments that points to something different they stick doggedly and dogmatically to their beliefs.