Thoughts on elimination of the state and privatization of property

[Refrozen]

I can't wait for guerilla to get in here and tear up this thread with his genius, in the meantime though, I'll throw in my two cents.

Anarchocapitalism is a far cry from what most modern libertarians want.

I want a clearly defined line for what government is and isn't allowed to do. That's my main cry as a libertarian. I almost don't even care (I definitely do, we'll get to that) where that line is, it's more important that it's clearly defined and absolutely respected. This borders on constitutionalism if you don't care where the line is.

The mainstream libertarians do not want to eliminate the state, most of the time. A well-defined state holding a pseudomonopoly of force to enforce contracts (and maybe, if you want to keep it an even weaker form, emergency services and that sort) is likely the ideal system. Anything less and the rest of the world would simply look at us and say "you're uncivilized because you don't have a government. Not having a government means you don't have an army. We're going to help you by instituting our country in yours" and take over.

Something very relevant to this thread: I'm in the middle of working as a research assistant for an economics professor regarding whether private investment in charitable activities is "driven out" by government spending/charity/taxes/other variables. i.e., whether the private market would rise to provide charity or not without government doing it. The conclusions so far and the related literature is an overwhelming "yes," your welfare state would be replaced with a bunch of loosely connected but highly effective private charities.

 

[kblessinggr]

Ideally in anarcho-capitalism, towns would operate as private corporations.

Almost sounds like "The Company" of many of the Great Depression's workforce, with the company homes, and company stores, and such.

 

[Benji49]

A lot of you guys should really, really read "Parliament of Whores" by PJ. O'Rourke.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

It's not capitalism that is the culprit. This is the error of the age. We haven't had capitalism for at least 100 years. It's socialism that has and is failing. Banks WERE NOT allowed to fail, shitty companies were not trashed and as a result we have rewarded failure. That is the exact opposite of capitalism, and that is a big part of our problem - government intervention in economics. It has never and most likely will never work.

Corporate welfare is not socialism. If we had actual socialism no one would be earning 1000x anyone else.

"Too big to fail" is what they say. I'm not an economist (are you?), but I don't disbelieve that banks and corporations that so many millions of people rely on and which are such a large part of the economy might have a devastating effect. I am not nearly knowledgeable enough to say whether it would have been better had they been allowed to fail or not. I believe even the "experts" are heavily divided on the issue.

But that's somewhat beside my point.

The reason I implicate capitalism is the following: capitalism promotes greater efficiency, which is not a bad thing in itself. This however tends to push low- and un-skilled labor wages down to a subsistence level, given a sufficiently large labor pool. People work 8 hour days and barely make it paycheck-to-paycheck, whereas 50 years ago the same job would've made them comfortably middle class. Those who have the time, energy, stamina and motivation get second jobs to try to get ahead. The two-job worker can sustain lower wages due to the longer hours, which pushes wages down. Pretty soon the single-job worker has to get a second job just to stay afloat. Where once you could work reasonable hours and expect to live a decently comfortable life, you now have to struggle just to keep up. Then you factor in globalization.

Capitalism is inherently competitive. Efficiency goes up, price of goods tends to go down. This arrangement benefits the owners and corporate executives greatly; the low-level worker is, however, on the losing end of the equation. There is no shortage of unskilled laborers in the world; consequently the cost of that labor is dirt cheap. The oversupply of workers results in ever lower wages, dropping ultimately to a bare subsistence level. The unskilled laborer earns only just enough to survive, let alone afford training or education to move up the ladder. This means that more of the value created by the laborer moves up the chain, to the owners and executives. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

(As an aside - it's ironic to me that so many conservatives champion a free market on the one hand, yet cry foul when their jobs go to immigrants and foreign workers, which are the result of a free market for labor (regardless of the legality in the case of immigrants))


So what's the solution? More, "real" capitalism? I'm not sure how you can say we haven't had capitalism; maybe not laissez-faire free-market capitalism. But we've definitely been a pretty capitalistic society for a long time now. Social programs and regulation are the response to the negative aspects of capitalism, an attempt to address the more detrimental effects.

I didn't even mention externalities and their true cost to society. Externalities being pollution, resource depletion, that sort of thing. Unfortunately, corporations have a tendency to try to get away with whatever they can, so long as they profit. If no one holds them accountable they have and will make a mess of the environment. Filing lawsuits, which I believe is the standard Libertarian response to corporate misdeeds, is highly unrealistc for many of the affected. Large corporations simply have far more money and power, particularly in less developed countries. Is it any wonder they abuse and exploit the indigenous peoples and their environment?

 

[LotsOfZeros]

....whether the private market would rise to provide charity or not without government doing it. The conclusions so far and the related literature is an overwhelming "yes," your welfare state would be replaced with a bunch of loosely connected but highly effective private charities.

I strongly suggest studying the correlation between lower taxes and charitable contributions. Many lefties here might be surprised at the data.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Something very relevant to this thread: I'm in the middle of working as a research assistant for an economics professor regarding whether private investment in charitable activities is "driven out" by government spending/charity/taxes/other variables. i.e., whether the private market would rise to provide charity or not without government doing it. The conclusions so far and the related literature is an overwhelming "yes," your welfare state would be replaced with a bunch of loosely connected but highly effective private charities.

That's interesting. I've wondered that myself. What came to mind is whether such charities would have the same coverage as government programs, both geographically as well as specialization. Also with potentially fewer people being able to afford charity, due to capitalism-driven wage-squeezing out the middle classes, would enough give? I wonder if charity is as progressive as taxation? Ideally, I think charities are probably preferable to government programs; they give both the charitable donors and the beneficiaries a personal stake in the relationship. I think it would make it harder for people to accept charity though, but perhaps more motivated to become self-sufficient (so probably a good thing on balance). Anyway, it's all hypothetical. Such a switchover wouldn't happen overnight certainly, and is, practically speaking, unlikely to ever happen.

I guess I've come to see some social programs as a form of nationalized charity, as well as a social responsibility, which is what I assume how most progressives feel about it.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Exactly what a tyrannical government establishment wants you to believe. How many times do you hear Obama bashing banks, oil companies, insurers, pharma companies and 'greedy' Wall Street types.

You know, I really don't understand where this idea of tyrannical liberal government comes from. And the comparison to Nazism? The right-wing is far more nationalistic than the left. How often do you hear the right saying liberals "hate America?" How could the left be National Socialists if they hate America? Anyway, liberals, in general, don't hate America. They're just acutely aware of all the bad shit America does/has done, and are critical of it. Well, American corporations and government acting on behalf of American corporations, mostly. Not America per se. But when an American corporation goes out and poisons a jungle, or an American-made missile kill someone's kid, that reflects badly on us.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

By the way guys, thanks for being pretty civil (so far). I know these political/idealogical threads can turn into a clusterfuck real quick. I appreciate it.

 

[cardine]

I'll take evil men in a completely free society over evil men with government power any day.

THIS

 

[Refrozen]

I strongly suggest studying the correlation between lower taxes and charitable contributions. Many lefties here might be surprised at the data.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but that's exactly what we are studying.

Edit: and finding that government *does* drive out charitable contributions.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but that's exactly what we are studying.

Edit: and finding that government *does* drive out charitable contributions.

I was agreeing with you...

 

[LotsOfZeros]

You know, I really don't understand where this idea of tyrannical liberal government comes from. And the comparison to Nazism? The right-wing is far more nationalistic than the left. How often do you hear the right saying liberals "hate America?" How could the left be National Socialists if they hate America? Anyway, liberals, in general, don't hate America. They're just acutely aware of all the bad shit America does/has done, and are critical of it. Well, American corporations and government acting on behalf of American corporations, mostly. Not America per se. But when an American corporation goes out and poisons a jungle, or an American-made missile kill someone's kid, that reflects badly on us.

You're misquoting me. I never used the word liberal with tyrannical in that post.
Guilty conscience for your last vote maybe?

 

[Pseudo Nym]

THIS

I guess it depends how paranoid one is. What exactly are you afraid of? Are your fears really realistic? As a society, we stand to benefit quite a bit by having good social programs in place. Better health, less crime, less desperation. It seems to me that, in general, in other industrialized nations with more comprehensive social programs the lower classes have a better quality of life and greater social mobility than here in the US. I don't see any of their governments becoming tyrannical (though the UK is definitely becoming far too Big-Brotherish for my liking).

Is it worth giving up the substantial benefits to society for some vague fear of an "evil" element in the government? I wonder if anyone here can really articulate that fear and point it out.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

You're misquoting me. I never used the word liberal with tyrannical in that post.
Guilty conscience for your last vote maybe?

Haha. No, honestly - I didn't vote. I don't live in a swing state, so it wouldn't have meant much. I was satisfied that Obama won, however. I think he was a far better choice than McCain/Palin (I still don't know what his team was thinking choosing her. Talk about incompetence). We would've got most of the same bailouts under McCain, but those two are far less studied than Obama. You can tell, if you listen to him honestly, that Obama really takes in interest in understanding the issues, and has a diversity of experience and perspective to draw on. He still steers the conversation where he wants it to go (and to what he wants you to believe) - as any effective politician will do - but you can tell he's a smart guy.

Sorry if I misquoted you. You did seem to be implying it though,

Exactly what a tyrannical government establishment wants you to believe. How many times do you hear Obama bashing banks, oil companies, insurers, pharma companies and 'greedy' Wall Street types.

which I interpreted as "a tyrannical government [Obama] wants you to believe." Obama = liberal, right? Well, he's really more of a moderate. But it depends to who you ask. To some, he's not progressive enough and caters too much to corporate interests. To others he's OMG SOCIALIST FASCIST NAZI COMMIE MUSLIM NEGRO. Perspective, I guess.

 

[rgordon83]

Corporate welfare is not socialism. If we had actual socialism no one would be earning 1000x anyone else.

You say that like there is only one type of socialism. There are many many different varieties of socialism (See the end of the Communist Manifesto for a broad overview on a bunch, although many new forms have popped up since then).

Some types of socialism are more aggressive in distributing equality, and others are less aggressive (See: Conservative [Bourgeois] Socialism. Chapter 3 section2 of the Manifesto)

 

[rgordon83]

The reason I implicate capitalism is the following: capitalism promotes greater efficiency, which is not a bad thing in itself. This however tends to push low- and un-skilled labor wages down to a subsistence level, given a sufficiently large labor pool. People work 8 hour days and barely make it paycheck-to-paycheck, whereas 50 years ago the same job would've made them comfortably middle class. Those who have the time, energy, stamina and motivation get second jobs to try to get ahead. The two-job worker can sustain lower wages due to the longer hours, which pushes wages down. Pretty soon the single-job worker has to get a second job just to stay afloat. Where once you could work reasonable hours and expect to live a decently comfortable life, you now have to struggle just to keep up. Then you factor in globalization.

Capitalism is inherently competitive. Efficiency goes up, price of goods tends to go down. This arrangement benefits the owners and corporate executives greatly; the low-level worker is, however, on the losing end of the equation. There is no shortage of unskilled laborers in the world; consequently the cost of that labor is dirt cheap. The oversupply of workers results in ever lower wages, dropping ultimately to a bare subsistence level. The unskilled laborer earns only just enough to survive, let alone afford training or education to move up the ladder. This means that more of the value created by the laborer moves up the chain, to the owners and executives. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

A few points:

1. In capitalism any person is free to take up any career path he wants to. Unskilled workers are free to learn new skills to fill positions in higher-paying jobs. They are also free to take what they know of their craft and start their own company producing a good or service, provided they are willing to take that risk.

Everyone has an equal (in terms of outside factors) chance to succeed or fail. People without funds can get investors if they have a real good idea or business model.

Public school is free so not sure how people with no money can't afford school. If they get good grades they can get a scholarship to a good college. If they have to pay for school, they can go to a cheap school and get a job/do work study/ or take out loans.

Poor people become rich and rich people become poor ALL THE TIME.

2. If wages for unskilled workers drop, and the cost of goods also goes down, then the people buying those goods have the same (or close to the same) buying power as they did before. As wages go down and rent becomes too expensive, landlords have to lower rent to fill property (or build a cheaper community with cheaper housing). People will almost always have buying power of some level, it just depends on what they are willing to buy.

3. 50 years ago people worked 12 hours a day and lived paycheck to paycheck as well. It's not like living paycheck to paycheck is a new concept. That type of labor will always be around, but the people who take those jobs are free to learn another skill if they want.

4. A truly capitalist society may even come to realize one day that they create a better product paying their workers MORE and creating better working conditions. As companies evolve and collect more data, i have a feeling this will be the trend. Obviously an assembly line worker won't make 6 figures, but they will have better working conditions and pay than the same type of worker 50 years ago. But according to your logic that shouldn't be the case, working conditions for that type of unskilled labor should be worse today, but thanks to capitalism, they are not. They have improved.

 

[guerilla]

And your scenario (well, Anarcho-Capitalism in general) assumes that few men are evil and would never conspire to oppress others.

No it doesn't. I have already addressed this with you recently.

You never did reply when I questioned you about your implicit belief that some men are not evil, and they are the ones who will end up in government.

 

[guerilla]

Edit: and finding that government *does* drive out charitable contributions.

Yup, crowding out.

I just watched a lecture from a well known Australian economist about this (basically, Say's Law, and JB Say's responses to Malthus) today.

Also, there is official studied that show that government R&D funding actually drive out more private dollars than they replace.

 

[guerilla]

Not necessarily, but I'll take evil men in a completely free society over evil men with government power any day.

That is the realistic view of the world. You're not interested in trading liberty for security and ending up with neither. You recognize the world is a dangerous place, and you want the capacity to, and responsibility for defend(ing) yourself.

Ideally in anarcho-capitalism, towns would operate as private corporations.

In anarcho-capitalism, there is no ideal except what emerges in the market.

Anarchocapitalism is a far cry from what most modern libertarians want.

Most of the libertarians you are referring to are small government conservatives. They don't like social conservatism, but they like fiscal conservatism and are not wedded to foreign adventurism.

Real philosophical libertarianism is based on a simple premise. The only moral relationships are voluntary.

I want a clearly defined line for what government is and isn't allowed to do. That's my main cry as a libertarian. I almost don't even care (I definitely do, we'll get to that) where that line is, it's more important that it's clearly defined and absolutely respected. This borders on constitutionalism if you don't care where the line is.

Minimal government is a myth. That's because the state has a monopoly on the interpretation of its boundaries and restrictions. If you could decide which rules apply to you and when, your incentive to would be to interpret the rules loosely. We know this. We can see it in action. This is why governments always grow and never shrink (until they collapse).

That said, you are entitled to a minimal constitutional government if that is what you want. You're welcome to be whipped by dwarves and wear lederhosen if that is how you would like to live. You are welcome to form a commune. To live in the forest. Whatever you like.

What you do not (IMO) morally have, is the authority or justification to force me to live under your preferred minimal government if I do not want to.

A well-defined state holding a pseudomonopoly of force to enforce contracts (and maybe, if you want to keep it an even weaker form, emergency services and that sort) is likely the ideal system. Anything less and the rest of the world would simply look at us and say "you're uncivilized because you don't have a government. Not having a government means you don't have an army. We're going to help you by instituting our country in yours" and take over.

Countries where the citizens are responsible for their own defense are almost never invaded. Not to mention, that if someone tried to invade an anarchist territory, who would they fight? There would be no capital to conquer, or government to capitulate. It's like trying to eat water with a fork.

But ancap is a moral stance. It is compatible with sound free market economic theory, but it is based around the NAP (Non-aggression principle).

The problem with the minimal state is if you can justify one intervention, you can justify them all. Common law and merchant law emerged in the marketplace. Money emerged in the marketplace. Security and defense are market goods.

I don't see an economic or empirical justification to socialize these costs. And certainly not a moral one.

 

[guerilla]

Also, there is official studied that show that government R&D funding actually drive out more private dollars than they replace.

STUDY. A STUDY.

Mentioned in this video (great watch)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4"]YouTube- The Myth of Science as a Public Good (by Terence Kealey)[/ame]



I should be asleep. Damn you guys for making this thread (*shakes fist*)!