Problems with libertarianism (moral, America, mission, church, experience)

[GeneCosta]

I said I would criticize mainstream libertarianism in the proceeding post, but - as I expected - my topic title attracted a wave of dissenting opinions. I'll address these as best I can and then immediately follow up with objections to 1.) constitutionalism (Ron Paul, Constitutional Party) and 2.) minarchy.

Originally Posted by Jistyr

I have not seen that, and if it is that they associate with one another, then that hardly means that they share the same flaws.

I suggest you change the thread title to "Problems with Anarcho-Capitalism."

Do you have any demonstrable proof that anarcho-capitalism is not a segment of the right-libertarian movement? (David) Friedman and Murray Rothbard, the two most acclaimed anarcho-capitalists agree with my claim. If we want to be perfectly honest with definitions libertarianism is entirely anti-capitalist.

I'm not going to change the thread title because I'm opening up the discussion towards all branches of right-libertarianism: anarcho-capitalism, Objectivism, constitutionalism, and minarchy being the popular choices. I may even point out the flaws in non-socialist left-libertarianism if I have time.

Originally Posted by Darkness

That is because Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalists share many economic similarities; however, Libertarians realize that a Government is necessary to maintain basic order and insure safety for the civilian population. Frankly, you lumping Libertarianism with Anarcho-Capitalism, I find, is offensive.

You needn't be so easily offended. Although I'm sickened to hear defense of neo-feudalism (anarcho-capitalism), when notorious names like Von Mises saw the two as complimentary, it's not a matter of my whimsical demands. The only popular libertarian I'm aware of who would have a problem with labeling the two movements as similar was Milton Friedman, but his son (David) affirmed that they are indeed similar movements.

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Only if ARTISTS are integral to capitalism. Which I don't think it is. Capitalism will make people rich enough to enjoy arts, and if they're rich enough to enjoy arts, they can comission artists, like 9_10ths penguin mentioned.

That's a disturbing conclusion to reach. For one thing, artists in that time period rarely wrote/drew their own preferred works. As everyone in this thread has indicated through words, they were commissioned. Secondly, you are not providing a solution that would allow for the continuation of wide scale literature. Historically, the "copyrighted market" solution outperforms all previous models.

As of yet, there is absolutely no way to transfer a statue to me via the internet.

Capitalists better hold out for nanotechnology like this not working, or else scarcity will rabidly decrease. Whenever demand outstrips supply (air, information, software), communism - or any system based around a gift economy - is the best solution. Private property (not possessions) limit one's ability to meet their wants.

We can't get anything from the internet except for digitized representations of other people's artwork.

[...] which is what I meant. Most people are not looking to read the handwritten copy, or possess the original painting. Sure, they would like to, but their immediate needs are being met. Improved technology is tearing down capitalism, much like how improved agriculture tore down feudalism - in essence, what we're seeing is the verification of the Hegelian elements to Marx's theory.

The majority of artists make the majority of their money through tour sales.

This is only true for musicians, actually. Most of their revenue comes from merchandise sales, unless we're talking about platnium authors. I work with small and medium-sized authors. They get diddley-squat from appearances.

Copyright protection makes rich people richer by demanding exacting payments in order to enforce the protection. It really doesn't help the actual artists.

I'm opposed to copyrights; however, I am pointing out that the alternative under a capitalist system is no better.

[GeneCosta]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Except they do.

No government requires an auto manufacturer to be ISO certified; very few governments require new property developments to be LEED certified, but these things happen because of market demand.

However, I don't think the market creates demand for regulation in all cases; if you can't translate the need to maintain some minimum standard into business advantage for the decision-maker, then it won't happen under a purely capitalist system.

You only provided for two examples, with one being a very dubious point. "LEED" certified is commonly employed because of the recent fad in environmentalism; it's a marketing tool. Furthermore, it is not even close to being universally adopted.

Not many people could get away with marketing "fire safe!" I might add there is a a grocery list of regulations (by government) for automobiles: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

[GeneCosta]

Prepare for more controversy, comrades!

Here are my criticisms of constitutionalism (Ron Paul) and minarchy (Milton Friedman). I'll go after constitutionalism first.

1.) Limited interpretation. Constitutional scholars bicker over such issues as the elastic clause and whether or not Roe V. Wade (or even privacy rights) are an issue for the federal government. The movement which proceeds Ron Paul has a narrowed view of the constitution, limited namely to Madison's interpretation. The truth is our founders were just as bitterly divided over the constitution as we are today. Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and Adams feuded over states' rights.

2.) Non-interventionism. I'll avoid the word isolationist since a few Ron Paul supporters reject the term, but that's essentially what it comes down to. I believe in intervening whenever a genocide occurs; I believe in alleviating world issues. George Bush and his cronies were obviously not interested in public welfare when they lied to the US people (or, at the very least, rushed a war), continued the terrible war plans, and privatized the oil despite widescale concerns.

3.) Hypocrisy. This is more targeted towards Paul and Barr; both claim to be libertarians, but they support theocratic efforts like the Defense Against Marriage Act.

4.) Nonsensical "states are better" argument. If you look at the laws passed by each state in the 18th, 19th, and even early 20th century (heck even today. I am a resident of Texas) you realize that public officials botch up issues and make strange legisilation regardless of geography. I would argue better decisions have actually been made on the federal level.

5.) Neo-Confederalism. If we are to take this movement's theories to its logical conclusion, the Emancipation Proclamation and most of the civil rights' legislation should have never occurred. I seem to recall both being quite effective after a few years.

Here I will continue with general minarchy since most ardent Ron Paul supporters tend to be identified capitalist apologists.

6.) Ignoring Gini Coefficient. Although right-libertarians like to trivialize wealth disparity, in the history of the world - whenever there is a large difference in wealth - the masses get ticked off. It is indisputably by evidence and even right-libertarian arguments that social welfare reduces wealth disparity (compare USA to West Europe). The Gini Coefficient gages countries on a scale from 1 to 0, with countries recording .5 or above usually ending up with violent social antagonisms.

7.) Historical reality. Libertarians have been called the Marxists of the right by conservatives for trying to sidestep history. You only have to compare market-oriented economies with social democracies to see which is superior. For example, compare Germany's initial industrialization (both growth and living standards) with the United States and Britain - or compare Japan's economy to Australia's. You can even look at the failed neo-liberal experiment under Pinochet's regime; Chile's unemployment and poverty rate soured above those statistics found in past administrations. Or, if you like, compare Russia in the 90s (and today) with Belarus, whose economy is still mostly controlled by the state.

8.) The New Deal did produce change. A lot of times I hear outright denial about the New Deal doing anything except prolong the Great Depression. This is simply not true. By 1936 the GDP for the United States had rebounded, with only a periodic recession in 1938 making a dint on progress. Image:Gdp20-40.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Furthermore, prior to the New Deal about 60% of all senior citizens lived beneath the poverty level. Both the New Deal and Great Society rabidly decreased poverty (to a minimum of 11%), whereas under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II poverty has rebounded to 15-16%.

9.) The "Rights" Argument. First it should be established that rights are won at the end of a gun. They do not derive from any higher authority, as Marx stated; that is simply an appeal to Deus. Property is, in its natural form, a product for all of our wants until the community decides otherwise. The Lockian argument about mixing labor with soil simply does not make sense. Do I own land if I mow grass? How then do I own the air above the grass; how do I acquire the mineral rights? Remember, Locke also believed in compensating people who were at a disadvantage by property inequality.

10.) Government Inefficiencies. Apparently for most functions the government should stick out. However, we continuously see the problem with such a statement. Should network neutrality be scrapped so that corporations can limit your access? Should pollutants be tolerated? It's even madder to see people defend corporations - which, quite literally, are an arm of the government - against pro-labor and pro-consumer regulation.

[Kidblop]

Personally I think libertarianism would be impossible for developed nations to adopt unless it was forced on the population.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

That's silly. We can't get anything from the internet except for digitized representations of other people's artwork. Berninis David will sell quite a bit better than the print out of the photograph of his David that I can get from the internet. As of yet, there is absolutely no way to transfer a statue to me via the internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/te...gy/07copy.html

Originally Posted by Aqualung

But if it's not happening in the capitalist system, why force it at all? If the need to maintain some minimum standard isn't being translated into business advantage the ONE and ONLY ONE reason for that is that the consumer doesn't care about the minimum standard. And if the consumer, the very person who is doing the buying, doesn't care, why should the government take money away from them and enforce it anyway? Wny not ask the consumer (again, the very person who is buying) what he wants, instead of trying to force him to buy something that he sees no need for?

Because market forces can't always capture people's actual desires. The biggest issues I see for a completely market-driven society are the free rider problem, externalized costs, and the cost of information.

Say you live in a free market society, and your street is mutually owned by you and your neighbors. You would all like to be able to get to work on winter mornings and all see the value in getting your road snowplowed. However, you realize that if you don't pay for the service you'll still reap the benefit, since the entire road has to be plowed for anyone on the street to use it. Exercising your rational self-interest, you decide not to pay for snowplowing... and so do all your rationally self-interested neighbors. Since paying for the whole plowing operation is beyond either the means or desires of each person on the street, everyone stays stuck in their homes even though everyone would rather not be.

And the unrestrained market has the ability to impose costs on people without their consent, and to remove harm to others from a person's decision-making process. If the widget factory on the river upstream of the town can choose to treat their poisonous effluent or not, the impact of the effluent on the town doesn't factor into their choice, because the cost isn't borne by them. The widget factory's pursuit of rational self-interest makes the town suffer. We need some sort of mechanism to translate those external impacts, whether they're economic, environmental, or whatever else, into direct costs and impacts for the decision-makers. The best mechanism that we've found to do this so far is the framework of laws and regulation that we have now.

As for cost of information... it'd be impractical for me to, for example, assess the structural integrity of every building that I might want to go into or the handling practices that brought every meal I might have to my table. There is less cost to society overall and direct benefit to each individual if we can have reasonable assurance that the consumable goods we use meet some sort of basic standards.

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

You only provided for two examples, with one being a very dubious point. "LEED" certified is commonly employed because of the recent fad in environmentalism; it's a marketing tool. Furthermore, it is not even close to being universally adopted.

No, but some municipalities have started to take it into account in their building and planning approvals processes.

Market demand does play a role here. It would be difficult for a private company to market a standard that merely overlaps existing government regulation. What would be the incentive for a company to sell its own version of the building code and its own inspection service when the mere fact that a building was built implies that it has been certified to meet the government-required building code?

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

Not many people could get away with marketing "fire safe!" I might add there is a a grocery list of regulations (by government) for automobiles: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

Actually, fire safety is one area where private entities get heavily involved in regulation. Underwriter's Labs and Factory Mutual are both significant sources of regulation and certification for fire safety. Their standards are incorporated into many building and fire codes, but their original purpose was to serve the demands of the insurance industry, which effectively acted as a regulatory body before government-instituted codes. Especially for business-operated buildings, an insurance company edict saying, "build it our way or you won't be insured" is almost as forceful as a government edict saying, "build it our way or you won't be approved for construction".

Now, there is one big problem with this arrangement: all the standards were based around risk to the insurers. When it comes to fire safety, there's a pretty good correlation between risk to the building occupants (in terms of dying from fire) and risk to the insurer (in terms of property damage costs), but when it comes to other areas in need of regulation, this relationship isn't necessarily the case.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's another issue that comes into play in all of this: should we as a society place as much importance on a dollar belonging to a millionaire as a dollar belonging to someone with $10 to his name? The anarcho-capitalist model implicitly says "yes".

[GeneCosta]

Non-standardized currencies were a mess when they occurred in the "wild" West; I can only imagine having three or five conflicting currencies in my town. Do I want rice or gold backed?