So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 9 of 21
Quote:
The fact that they (economies of scale, division of labor, etc.,) have existed throughout a number of kinds of governments indicates to me that they are primary drivers and that the governments which sit on top of them are secondary. There is what seems to be a universal drive at work: larger numbers of people are collectivized, technology accumulates, division of labor becomes finer and finer, the amount of energy utilized per capita increases, economies of scale dictate the largest-possible centralized production, and the economic hierarchy becomes very tall.-Signy
Even given this might be true (and I may have a stab at that later), and it's inevitable that all systems fall into such an economic hierarchy, it'd seem to me that a libertarian type government would be slower to fall, and perhaps not fall as far, as some others... "I'll get mine, but not by screwing anyone else, or by begging/bribing/coercing the government to give it to me. And I expect everyone else to act the same way towards me." ... inevitable decline to the few mega-rich, in collusion with the government, running everything for their own benefit.-Geezer
Force, fraud, and government collusion aren't necessary for monopolies. For example: Let's say that I patent a great way to use graphene to purify water. I'm able to develop water cheaply from fracked aquifers, industrially-contaminated aquifers, or just plain regular aquifers or lakes or rivers. I buy up cheap sources that nobody else would touch with a ten-foot pole, install my system, start selling cheaper water, undercut all the other water systems in the area and drive them out of business. Make a few pennies more on the acre-foot. Buy up the adjoining water resources and so on, until I have a monopoly on every source of water within 100 miles.
So, what about that monopoply? According to libertarians, I legitimately own the resources, after all, I bought them up without force or fraud. I'm providing a service... cheaper clean water. My cheap water has marketplace merit, and therefore everything has worked according to the libertarian philosophy. And yet, I have a LOT of power. I can raise the rates. I can cut some people off. I can buy up the roads and communication services and anything else of near-universal value, without holding a gun to anyone's head or breaking anyone's knees. In real life, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Leonard Bosack and Sandy Lerner (Cisco), and Zuckerberg created monopolies w/o the government.
Of course, I could do the same thing with lithium. But rather than selling locally, my market is worldwide. Nobody knows, really, what's going on in my little corner of the world, and therefore the locals have no leverage. Not too surprisingly, the guy who owns all of the tantalum in Africa has managed to do the same, as well as the lady who own all of the chip fabs in Vietnam, and the plastic-maker owner in Japan, and the assembly-line owner in China. As a consumer of smart-phones, how am I going to track- much less respond to-all of the monopolies developing around that item?
What is the libertarian answer to such a situation?
Quote:It's not a good idea to screw people over, but only if there are consequences. And there are a LOT of ways to screw people over without force or fraud or government collusion. All you have to do is own everything of productive value someplace: water, land, roads, communication lines, factories... and you
But that's the thing: We DON'T "own" our property. Oh sure, I may own an Android or a Blackberry, but I don't own the lithium mine that produces the lithium to make the batteries. Our "ownership" of items is so fragmented and intertwined as to be trivial, meaningless.-signy
Why should I have to own the lithium mine? ... In Geezertopia, each owner in this chain understands that it's not a good idea, from both philosophical and business standpoints, to screw over the folks they deal with.-geezer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aw, crap. NOBC's Rule just kicked in. "Once the posts in a thread start getting longer than one screen, it's time to abandon that thread."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Too wordy?
I'll try to make it shorter next time!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The northern colonies started out as libertarian as you can get. There WERE rich people USA, but the difference was maybe a factor of 500 (I owned 2 acres, you owned 1000), businesses were small, democracy was an established fact (for white men) ... an economy of politically-involved farmers and small businessmen with no slave-holdings. So what happened?
In my reading of American history, the northern colonies generally started as land grants from the Crown of vast swathes of territory to a few nobles and rich folks. They, or investment corporations, sent folks over to settle and develop their land. A good chunk of Maine, for example was granted to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason. William Penn received pretty much all of Pennsylvania and Delaware from Charles II in payment of a debt owed Penn's father.
Quote:
There are people who have gotten mega-rich without the government, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, the couple who owned Cisco Systems, Zuckerberg for example. (None of these people actually developed what they sold, BTW.)
With no "If you build your new factory in our town/county/state we'll give you a chunk of municipal land and lower property tax rate"? No income tax breaks? I don't think so.
Anyway, I'd bet you can name lots more that did use government in a big way to get rich.
Quote:
Let me offer a theoretical example of a monopoly that develops without force, fraud, or government assistance: Let's say that I find a great way to use graphene to purify water. I'm able to develop water cheaply from fracked aquifers, industrially-contaminated aquifers, or just plain regular aquifers or lakes or rivers. I install my system, start selling cheap water, undercut all the other water systems in the area and drive them out of business. Make a few pennies more on the acre-foot. Buy up the adjoining water resources and so on, until I have a monopoly on every source of water within 100 miles.
So, what about that monopoply? According to libertarians, I legitimately own the resources, after all, I bought them up without force or fraud. I'm providing a service... cheaper clean water. My cheap water has marketplace merit, and therefore everything has worked according to the libertarian philosophy. And yet, I have a LOT of power. I can raise the rates. I can cut some people off. I can buy up the roads and communication services and anything else of near-universal value, without holding a gun to anyone's head or breaking anyone's knees.
Or worse, I do the same thing with lithium. But rather than selling locally, my market is worldwide. Nobody knows, really, what's going on in my little corner of the world, and therefore the locals have no pressure to bear. And, not too surprisingly, the guy who owns all of the tantalum in Africa has managed to do the same, as well as the lady who own all of the chip fabs in Vietnam, and the plastic-maker in Japan, and the assembly-line in China. As a consumer of smart-phones, how am I going to track- much less respond to-all of the monopolies developing around that item?
What is the libertarian answer to such a situation?
The most obvious answer would be that in a libertarian society, you wouldn't want to drive everyone else out of business so you could have power over the people who rely on your water. You'd be philosophically opposed to doing this.
I'd also point to the unlikelyhood of everyone in your 100 mile region - a region of folks who consider themselves sovereign, with rights to their own propeerty - either selling all their water rights to you, or changing to your system to save a few cents. Some might like their own well. Some might want to develop a different filtering technology and set up their own water system. Some folks may have societal or family ties to another water provider. Some might just do it for cussedness. You have no means to force folks to sell or buy.
Then again, as long as folks get water
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Too wordy?
I'll try to make it shorter next time!
Maybe not exactly a Rule, as such, more of a guideline. or even just MY personal prejudice. And not a criticism of you, or even Geez.
Maybe fewer points per post, and several posts.
"Brevity is the soul of wit." Benjamin Franklin ?
"Brevity is always appreciated, if only for its novelty." Darren Nichols, Slings and Arrows
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, I edited my post down but I see you answered the original. Thanks! I thought I was being too wordy, but I'm glad to see that you got thru it anyway.
Quote:The obvious answer to this is that just as there is a vanishingly small number of people with a thirst for power under ANY system, nonetheless there WILL be a small minority who is willing an able to do so in a libertarian system. It's inevitable, and demonstrated by history over and over. Unless your system is able to respond effectively to that situation- which WILL arise- the tall hierarchy will be created.
The most obvious answer would be that in a libertarian society, you wouldn't want to drive everyone else out of business so you could have power over the people who rely on your water. You'd be philosophically opposed to doing this.
Quote:So, even if I were to set up a complete monopoly... as much as I am able, in any case... on water, roads, communication lines, etc... as long as I didn't charge "exhorbitant" prices you'd be OK with that?
Then again, as long as folks get water at a reasonable price from you, they won't really care if you have a local (100 mile) monopoly. if you start charging exorbitant prices, folks might decide to truck water in. They might drill wells on their own property, or set up rain catchment systems. Their mindset is to be independent, and they may pay more than you charge just to piss you off.
Quote:AFA threatening to deny people service... isn't that my perogative, as a service provider? Why am I "required" to sell to someone? Isn't it my choice whether I enter into this contract, or not? Isn't that what Ayn Rand- a self-styled libertarian- suggests: That I can pick up my marbles and play elsewhere?
Once you start threatening to deny people access to water, you ARE using force.
Also, didn't you also mention "shunning" as a form of enforcement? Isn't this a form of shunning?
Quote:Why not? Let's assume I'm offering a service, and employment, at a "fair" price. In fact, thanks to economies of scale and superior technology, I'm offering a service that is not only cheaper than "do it yourself" (impossible anyway with communication technology, roads) but also cheaper than anyone else "outside" of my service area. Is there something in your philosophy which says that businesses have to be SMALL, or just that they have to be "fair"?
But there are consequences. First, and once again, I'm kind'a doubtful that a region of independent-minded, property-oriented folks would all sell out to, or buy from, you.
Quote:Why should I be forced to sell to someone? As a store owner, for example, do I not have the right to refuse service to an individual? The government would have to FORCE service provision. But isn't this the kind of "taking" that you object to?
Next, when you talk about killing people by purposely withholding services, don't you think that's initiation of force?
Quote:An extremely strong business can kill simply by withholding employment. What then? Is deliberate unemployment (either en masse or blacklisting) initiation of force?
About the only thing government is for in a Propertarian, Minarchist, Libertarian world would be to protect people from initiation of force.
Quote:True.
As I've noted several times, I think it's the philosophy of the people, rather than particular economic forces, that make a society what it is. You don't agree with this.
Quote:I'm not sure I've proposed a solution in this thread. Just maybe a lot of questions.
Unfortunately, I see your solution as something worse than the problem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I tried to make it short NOBC. Still working on my editorial skills!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Property rights is a problematic issue. Personally I think the idea of an individual owning land is a fundamentally flawed concept.
Firstly, what does 'land' mean? Does it mean that if you own it, you are able to do what you want with it entirely? Do you own it from the top down to the earth's core? The first hundred metres? Do you own the air above it, the airspace above it, the water that runs through it?
Libertarians will say that you can do what you like on your property so long as it doesn't infringe on the right of others to enjoy their own property, but the truth is, unless you own a patch of land in the middle of the wilderness almost everything you do impacts upon someone else. I you build a five storey pink stucco mansion in the middle of the street of neat brick veneer bungalows, you'll impact in your neighbours. If you breed dogs, you'll impact. Start a band, you'll impact. Mine for copper in your backyard, and you'll impact.
In order for us to live together, which we do, we have to make agreements on how we live (some might call them laws) and we have to have arrangements for solving disputes (some might call them courts/legal processes). Now I'm not saying the current system is effective and not in need of some changes, but I have yet to see a libertarian explain how all this will actually work, without either describing a system that would be so incredibly costly, convoluted and frankly lacking any sniff of natural justice, or describing the current system that would somehow be funded without taxation and really boils down to 'nothing that would impede me from living out my right winged philosophy as making as much money as I can without any questioning of the ethics that I might use to do so'.
so many other flaws in this thinking, that they would require too long a post. But I would like to add about property ownership is this? Who says you have the right to own that property? Why did you get to own it? How was that land make the transition from being just part of the earth to being in your control? Were there other owners before you? Was the transaction of ownership ethical, or were people displaced?
I can tell you that our land was stolen from the Indigenous people, who had caretaker responsibilities for 10s of thousands of years. On the patch of land that I own, a group of people were prevented from using the land in their traditional manner, and were indeed, hunted and hounded and murdered in order that we can have our rights. and thus is the history of land ownership throughout the world.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's that too, Magons. I noticed the term "legitimate ownership" and that got me to thinking about the chain of possession of ANY item, including land and money. If, for example, you inherit great wealth, is that legitimate? If you own land because peoples were previously displaced, is that legitimate? Can you own water resources? Air? I got sidetracked from that point to the other one.
My point, which I believe I've demonstrated, is that without benefitting from guns or government or tripping over any libertarian ethical lines (as I understand them) I can amass and wield considerable... even "life and death"... power over others. All by using "market forces" in what seems to me to be an honest... or at least permissible... manner. Maybe there's more to libertarian ethics than I've been told so far. If so, I'd like to hear about it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
really boils down to 'nothing that would impede me from living out my right winged philosophy as making as much money as I can without any questioning of the ethics that I might use to do so'.
I was talking about this thread with Mrs. BC, telling her how much I was enjoying it. NOW, she's a hardcore old Leftie radical, hippie, peacenik, Cesar Chavez marcher and Women's Libber. She's farther out Left there than Niki.
She sniffed at me, then said, " Libertarianism is nothing more than a rich persons' rationalization of their own selfishness, greed and lust for tyranny." I don't think she's likely to join in this thread, or contribute much to understanding if she did.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME