Any of you define yourselves as Libertarians?

[Astronuc]

If you study the history of American railroads, you will find a lot of the really crappy (for lack of a better word) lines were the ones funded to some degree by government (in terms of how the tracks were laid out, their quality, etc...); the more quality rail lines were the strictly private ones.

Railroads and railroad history has been somewhat of a hobby of mine. I suggest one look at the bankruptcy filings of railroads (and mergers/takeovers) from 1830 to 1980. Many railroads file bankruptcy, and some more than once. There was a difference between the land grant railroads west of the Mississippi and those back east, to some extent.

I'll have to dig up some titles of books I have.

A classic one is The Wreck of the Penn-Central, by Joseph R. Daughen and Peter Binzen. That was a prelude to Enron, Worldcomm, etc. It was too big (and mismanaged) that it had to fail.

 

[CAC1001]

Railroads and railroad history has been somewhat of a hobby of mine. I suggest one look at the bankruptcy filings of railroads (and mergers/takeovers) from 1830 to 1980. Many railroads file bankruptcy, and some more than once. There was a difference between the land grant railroads west of the Mississippi and those back east, to some extent.

I'll have to dig up some titles of books I have.

A classic one is The Wreck of the Penn-Central, by Joseph R. Daughen and Peter Binzen. That was a prelude to Enron, Worldcomm, etc. It was too big (and mismanaged) that it had to fail.

I forget who the guy was, but I remember he was a railroad entreprenerur who built a railroad in an area that it had been said one couldn't do it solely privately, that one needed government funds. He did it privately and built the track of better quality than the government-funded railroads in the region. Thanks for the book recommendation though, list the others when you find them.

 

[Astronuc]

I forget who the guy was, but I remember he was a railroad entreprenerur who built a railroad in an area that it had been said one couldn't do it solely privately, that one needed government funds. He did it privately and built the track of better quality than the government-funded railroads in the region. Thanks for the book recommendation though, list the others when you find them.

I'd love to know the railroad or geographic location. Depending on where the railroad was and/or when it was established, they were granted extraordinary powers such as eminent domain, which is normally reserved for governments. Basically some railroads could condemn private property - of farmers or businesses - and take it. In theory the railroads were supposed to pay market value, but that was not always the case.

The history of railroads particuarly in the US (and Canada) is fascinating. It's also interesting go back and read the various charters, contracts and mergers. Boy could those lawyers write clever agreements. Interestingly, as time went on and railroads merged, the more recent managers sometimes failed to understand the legal legacy of their railroads.

Railroad law and business is a strange world unto itself.

Anyway the history of American RR and stories of J. J. Hill and Harriman are topics for another thread (in Humanities/History).

 

[Al68]

I scored squarely as a Libertarian on the little test.

So, you favor ending welfare programs, privatize social security, cutting taxes and spending by 50% or more, etc? Great!

The greatest power/empire in the history of the world was, arguably, the Roman Empire. It persisted for about 1000 years. The US has been a great power for about 65 years.

LOL. I wasn't referring to longevity. I specifically pointed out how quickly the U.S. overtook every other nation economically because of free enterprise capitalism.

Did social security, collective bargaining, a minimum wage and maximum work week, the civil rights act and other social programs and mandates (like women voting, and the abolition of slavery, etc.) make the US a great place to live?

No, except for the libertarian successes in parentheses, and it's easy to argue otherwise. For the min wage, for example, one simply has to realize that we have a "floating" dollar, and its buying power depends on how hard a dollar is to obtain. And how the minimum wage laws, and most federal regulations, give huge advantages to big businesses over small businesses for obvious reasons. (Why do you think we have the bulk of federal regulations, really? To keep big businesses "in check"? Yeah, right!) But those subjects belong in a separate thread.

The thing is that programs which increase the freedom of the poor and downtrodden are not anti- libertarian. In fact, they are quite consistent with the spirit of libertarianism.

I agree, and I oppose depriving them, or anyone else, of any of their liberties.

Imho, the US is a great place to live mostly because of federal programs which have blocked our natural tendency to exploit the disadvantaged.

The U.S. is a great place to live because of freedom. Our high standard of living results from private capitalism, despite the anti-libertarian federal programs that work against our prosperity.

Unless you're referring to ending oppression such as slavery, and voting rights as "federal programs", in which case I agree with you, but I would call those "federal protections of liberty" instead of "federal programs".

 

[ThomasT]

So, you favor ending welfare programs, privatize social security, cutting taxes and spending by 50% or more, etc? Great!

It wasn't a very nuanced test. I'm in favor of maximizing the freedom of everyone.* Wrt that, I think that certain governmental interventions are necessary. We should work toward minimizing welfare, in all its forms, as much as possible (which would seem to require revamping the tax structure/code, the political system, etc.). We can certainly cut lots of unnecessary spending, which would enable a decrease in current levels of taxation for certain individuals (although revamping the tax and political systems would certainly result in increasing the taxes of some large corporations). I think we should at least develop some sort of strategy for getting the majority of the working population to provide for their own retirement funds and not dependent on social security. But after living with social security for the better part of a century this doesn't seem likely to happen. A large part of the problem is due to, what seem to be inevitable, demographic changes. The portion of the US population that's poor and unskilled or semi-skilled is increasing. I think it's likely that we'll see increases in required social security payments for whatever portion of the work force remains covered by social security.

I wasn't referring to longevity. I specifically pointed out how quickly the U.S. overtook every other nation economically because of free enterprise capitalism.

That's certainly part of it. It seems that governmental regulation, at all levels, has made it very difficult for small businesses especially.

For the min wage, for example, one simply has to realize that we have a "floating" dollar, and its buying power depends on how hard a dollar is to obtain. And how the minimum wage laws, and most federal regulations, give huge advantages to big businesses over small businesses for obvious reasons.

I don't see how the minimum wage is a significant factor in the difficulties that small businesses are experiencing. The problems are governmental red tape (licenses, permits, etc.), the inflated costs of various insurances, rents and necessary commodities and services, various taxes, etc. It seems to me that just about the only thing that hasn't been inflated is the minimum wage, which has actually deflated since its inception.

The U.S. is a great place to live because of freedom.

I agree. But freedom is, generally, directly proportional to wealth. So, if we take away all government subsidies and entitlements, etc., then how will this affect the freedom of the individuals who depend on them (not just the recipients, but the vast number of people who are employed in the administration of those programs)?

Our high standard of living results from private capitalism ...

Yes, but not entirely, I think.

... despite the anti-libertarian federal programs that work against our prosperity.

I agree that there are some definitely anti-libertarian government (not just federal) programs, regulations, laws, etc. However, I also think that government programs that increase the prosperity (and therefore the freedom) of the population in general are libertarian, in, what I take to be, the best sense of the term.
-------------------
* By 'everyone', I'm referring to the US population. We only have so much wealth, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. So, I'm against most forms of foreign aid.

 

[CAC1001]

I agree. But freedom is, generally, directly proportional to wealth.

Wealth creation is also relative to freedom.

 

[Al68]

But freedom is, generally, directly proportional to wealth.

I'll respond to this, as it relates to much of your post. I was using the word "freedom" as a synonym for "liberty", which is certainly not proportional to wealth.

Of course the word freedom has other definitions, such as freedom from disease, freedom from hunger, freedom from head lice, etc. But advocating freedom by those definitions does not make one a libertarian. Libertarianism is about protecting liberty, not increasing one's "freedom" from bad relationships, VD, etc.

If one defined libertarianism as "increasing freedom" (not liberty), that would logically result in authoritarians being libertarians. After all, many advocate "freedom" from exposure to political speech, "freedom" from abortions, "freedom" from the presence of other races, "freedom" from guns, etc. Just look at all that freedom dictators have historically fought for.

Libertarianism isn't about that definition of freedom, it's about liberty. That's why libertarians oppose actions that deprive people of their liberty, while "increasing freedom" by other definitions. "Regulating" private economic transactions by the use of force is the single biggest example of this in the U.S. That's why libertarians are generally opposed to it.

However, I also think that government programs that increase the prosperity (and therefore the freedom) of the population in general are libertarian, in, what I take to be, the best sense of the term.

This is simply not what the word libertarian means as it's commonly used, or obviously used in that little test. It means advocate of liberty, not advocate of freedom (unless, of course, freedom is being used as a synonym for liberty instead of those alternate definitions).

 

[ThomasT]

I was using the word "freedom" as a synonym for "liberty" ...

So was I.

... which is certainly not proportional to wealth.

I think that, in general, and for most practical purposes, it is.

Libertarianism isn't about that definition of freedom ...

I agree.

... it's about liberty.

The words liberty and freedom have certain connotations in common.* The definitions/usages that they share wrt personal and civic behavior allow them to be used, as you've demonstrated, synonymously in certain contexts. I think that we're using those terms in pretty much the same way and are, therefore, effectively communicating.

Our basic disagreement at this point seems to have to do with the relationship between wealth and freedom/liberty, and the extent to which governmental constraint on private enterprise and commerce is necessary.

That's why libertarians oppose actions that deprive people of their liberty, while "increasing freedom" by other definitions. "Regulating" private economic transactions by the use of force is the single biggest example of this in the U.S. That's why libertarians are generally opposed to it.

I agree that governmental regulations/laws pertaining to industry, finance, commerce in general, etc. have the effect of decreasing the liberty/freedom of certain groups and individuals and increasing the liberty/freedom of certain other groups and individuals. The difficult consideration is always whether or not the regulation or program or law, etc. will contribute to the general welfare.

Some laws/programs/regulations, etc., might be rightly considered ill-conceived, or transparently self-serving to those who enacted, or who administer, or who enforce them. But people will be people. And we do need to forcibly constrain certain possible behaviors.

We're still recovering from a recent demonstration of how insufficient regulation (wrt the financial sector) can lead to big problems.

As a libertarian, I'm concerned about the liberty/freedom of the common people. It's much more fragile than the liberty/freedom of the wealthy people. Common folks, collectively, hopefully via elected governments, have to watch them so they don't screw things up for a whole lot of people at a time. (Of course, where do you draw the line? I was reading the other day about a guy who was complaining about taxes because he was having difficulty making ends meet on a gross income of $400k a year. I'm thinking that maybe his tax level isn't the real problem, although I also think that he's required to pay too much. On the other hand, I also think that certain corporations and super-wealthy individuals should probably pay much more in taxes than they're currently required to. Such are the freedoms/liberties that wealth can buy.)

So, I'm not sure, do we have a basic disagreement on what libertarianism means? Our disagreement wrt government intervention seems to be one of degree. Or, are you saying that libertarianism means absolutely no governmental regulation/constraint on the behavior of individuals and collective enterprises? If this is what it does, historically, refer to, then I stand corrected. If not, then I'm interested in hearing more of what you might have to say about the current referents of the term libertarianism, since, from reading your posts, I think you know more about these formal political characterizations than I do. For example, might one consider libertarianism to be fundamental to democracy and republicanism? Can one be essentially a libertarian and also a republican or a democrat? Or has the term taken on a different meaning which precludes its association with either the ideal or de facto meanings of those labels?
-----------------------------------

* From, I think appropriately, thefreedictionary.com:
liberty:
1.a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

freedom:
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3.a. Political independence.
b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.

 

[Al68]

So, I'm not sure, do we have a basic disagreement on what libertarianism means?

I'm not sure either now. I (perhaps too hastily) assumed that you were using the word freedom to mean # 4 in in your list above (exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want), since that's the most significant effect of material wealth. Material wealth can be used to better protect one's liberty, too, but that didn't seem to be what you were referring to.

Or, are you saying that libertarianism means absolutely no governmental regulation/constraint on the behavior of individuals and collective enterprises?

Perfect libertarianism would mean absolutely no restraint on behavior that isn't inherently criminal, yes. And by inherently criminal I mean like theft or fraud, or (initiating) force, as in robbery or assault. To use the min wage example, offering to pay someone less than an arbitrary amount isn't inherently criminal, so it's anti-libertarian to use force to prevent such a mutually agreed to private transaction. Ditto for other restrictions on economic liberty. And ditto for private agreements in general. Government, not being a party to a transaction, using force against the parties to a transaction to prevent the parties from conducting it, is anti-libertarian.

But theft and fraud are very different. Not only are the acts inherently criminal, but government's involvement is as an agent of a party to the "transaction", not as a third party interfering by forcing its will on the parties to a transaction.

Can one be essentially a libertarian and also a republican or a democrat? Or has the term taken on a different meaning which precludes its association with either the ideal or de facto meanings of those labels?

It depends on the issue. On social issues, both parties are a mixed bag depending on the issue. Economically, the Democratic Party is consistently economically authoritarian, while the Republican Party generally pushes in the libertarian direction, even if not really libertarian.

But I'm unaware of any nationally elected Republican or Democrat that I would call "essentially a libertarian". There are some Republicans that might be called "somewhat libertarian", just because they consistently push in that direction economically, and are libertarian on most social issues.

But many more Republicans might be called even "mostly libertarian" if it weren't for their position on abortion. I have never understood why that one issue seems to represent both the most noticeable exception to libertarianism among many, and the most noticeable exception to authoritarianism among others. It just seems to me to be the "odd duck" issue for many.

But that is just my general impression, not exactly hard data. I'm too lazy right now to gather data about politicians' voting records on various bills.

 

[ThomasT]

Thanks for your comments Al68. My replies to your points below. Maybe I'm not, strictly speaking, a libertarian. I'm not really so much interested in labels as I am interested in evaluating the 'best' courses of action wrt specific criteria. For example, wrt abortion, which you mentioned, if the object is to keep fetuses alive, then don't do abortions. But suppose the mother doesn't want the baby. Well then deliver the baby and put it up for adoption. I don't see the problem with this, although I must admit that I've not thought about it at all. (maybe you or someone can enlighten me wrt why this is such a difficult consideration) Anyway, not to get too far off topic ... to your comments:

I'm not sure either now. I (perhaps too hastily) assumed that you were using the word freedom to mean # 4 in your list above (exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want) since that's the most significant effect of material wealth.

Well, that's one effect of material wealth, but maybe not the most significant. It's partly, but not essentially, what I was referring to.

Rather, I was more pointedly referring to "the right and power to act ... in a manner of one's own choosing" and "the capacity to exercise choice; free will ...".

That is, not only does material wealth enable one to avoid the most obvious pitfalls of poverty, but it also enables one to more closely approximate one's most honorable desires, not only for oneself but for others.

Anyway, any and all aspects of freedom/liberty are related. And wrt any adversarial situation involving a decrease/increase in the adversaries' respective liberties/freedoms we evaluate the situation wrt some criterion. A government of the people, for the people and by the people would be expected to evaluate such a situation in terms of a criterion that represented the best interests of the people. Now, does the term "the people" mean the tiny minority who are wealthy or the vast majority who are not wealthy?

Here's the essential problem or choice wrt the continual adversarial situation, as I currently see it (subject to immediate change given certain information or argument). Either one is on the side of the wealthy, whose interests are necessarily at odds with the poor, or one is on the side of the poor, whose interests are necessarily at odds with the wealthy -- taking the terms "wealthy" and "poor" in a relative sense.

Perfect libertarianism would mean absolutely no restraint on behavior that isn't inherently criminal, yes. And by inherently criminal I mean like theft or fraud, or (initiating) force, as in robbery or assault.

I think that by "inherently" criminal you mean "obviously" criminal. Well, that's a problem wrt to, not exclusively modern, but certainly current complexities. The behavior of certain people in the financial sector wasn't obviously criminal, but it was criminal nonetheless. The invasion of Iraq (a sovereign country that posed no immediate threat to the US) wasn't obviously criminal, but it was criminal nonetheless. We all know now, in retrospect, that allowing the financial sector the freedom to do what it did was a mistake. We all know now, in retrospect, that electing Bush and the members of congress who supported his actions was a mistake. The crimes of these people are crimes against humanity, because their crimes affected the lives of millions. But they'll go unpunished. Such are the liberties/freedoms that wealth can buy.

To use the min wage example, offering to pay someone less than an arbitrary amount isn't inherently criminal so it's anti-libertarian to use force to prevent such a mutually agreed to private transaction.

The minimum wage law was enacted in the first place because without it employers would take undue advantage of employees. We have a minimum wage law for essentially the same reason that we have a maximum work week law and a child labor law and laws against sweat shops and laws requiring proper safety procedures and equipment, and laws requiring rest periods, etc., etc. History has taught us that employers will, if allowed the freedom to do so, treat employees like animals -- that employers value profits above people. This is not to say that current employees would not have the same tendencies were they to become employers. It's expected that they would. And the same laws constraining the actions of their current employers would then apply to them. Like I said, people will be people. We are what we are. We're all built essentially the same. Selfish and greedy to the bone. All of us. Every man/woman has his/her price and his/her breaking point. It's a testimonial to the wisdom of the founding fathers of the United States that they set down in the basic law of the land provisions for prohibiting the dominion/sovereignty of the very wealthy, and it's a testimonial to the ingenuity of subsequent generations of politicians and employers that they've found various ways of successfully circumventing those prohibitions.

Ditto for other restrictions on economic liberty. And ditto for private agreements in general.

But I would hope you agree that economic liberty doesn't mean, in a libertarian democratic society, the 'liberty' to exploit the disadvantaged. 'Private' agreements between relatively wealthy employers and relatively poor employees that perpetuate the poverty of the employees is not "libertarian". It's simply exploitative in the basest and most selfish sense. There's no honor, no real freedom in this sort of behavior. It's joyless and ugly. This isn't libertarianism. It's just a disgusting expression of greed and selfishness -- albeit not unexpected and wholly rationalizable given our species' history.

Some time ago Proctor and Gamble, after posting profits of more than 6 billion dollars for its most recent fiscal year, laid off thousands of people. Apparently they hadn't made enough money that year. So, Michael Moore takes them this gigantic cardboard replica of a check for, like, $26 and tries to engage a spokesperson in conversation asking, "How much is enough? Will this help?" Or something to that effect.

Government, not being a party to a transaction, using force against the parties to a transaction to prevent the parties from conducting it, is anti-libertarian.

Wrt my conception of (anti) libertarianism, government can help create and foster a general climate of coercion by simply doing nothing. In which case the relatively wealthy will, undoubtedly, simply run roughshod over the relatively poor. If that's what libertarianism means then I'm certainly not a libertarian.

For those who think that unconstrained, undisciplined human action, wrt any regime, can lead to anything that might be called progress or freedom of the majority of the people, then I think that history has already proven this to be an incorrect idea.

But theft and fraud are very different. Not only are the acts inherently criminal, but government's involvement is as an agent of a party to the "transaction", not as a third party interfering by forcing its will on the parties to a transaction.

How are we to prevent theft and fraud by the super wealthy and super powerful corporations that dominate our economy/society without government regulations and actual enforcement of those regulations?

 

[Al68]

But suppose the mother doesn't want the baby. Well then deliver the baby and put it up for adoption. I don't see the problem with this, although I must admit that I've not thought about it at all. (maybe you or someone can enlighten me wrt why this is such a difficult consideration)

It's difficult because in many cases the mother not only doesn't want the baby, she chooses not to deliver.

Now, does the term "the people" mean the tiny minority who are wealthy or the vast majority who are not wealthy?

It means both. But neither has the right to use force to get their way.

Here's the essential problem or choice wrt the continual adversarial situation, as I currently see it (subject to immediate change given certain information or argument). Either one is on the side of the wealthy, whose interests are necessarily at odds with the poor, or one is on the side of the poor, whose interests are necessarily at odds with the wealthy -- taking the terms "wealthy" and "poor" in a relative sense.

Those two sides combined only represent those whose interests are anti-poor or anti-rich, and who place their interests first. Libertarianism is about political philosophy, not "interests".

I think that by "inherently" criminal you mean "obviously" criminal.

No, that's not what I meant at all. I meant inherently.

The minimum wage law was enacted in the first place because without it employers would take undue advantage of employees.

Offering to pay someone for their labor is taking "undue advantage"? That makes no logical sense.

history has taught us that employers will, if allowed the freedom to do so, treat employees like animals -- that employers value profits above people.

Again, makes no sense. Profit is the reason for the employer offering the job to begin with. "Profit" and "people" are not opposing choices. In the absence of force and fraud, no employment would exist that wasn't mutually beneficial.

But I would hope you agree that economic liberty doesn't mean, in a libertarian democratic society, the 'liberty' to exploit the disadvantaged.

No, but many use the word "exploit" to refer to mutually beneficial arrangements that result from the absence of force and fraud.

'Private' agreements between relatively wealthy employers and relatively poor employees that perpetuate the poverty of the employees is not "libertarian".

You're right. Libertarian agreements are made in the absence of force and fraud, and as such simply do not happen unless they are beneficial to each party.

How are we to prevent theft and fraud by the super wealthy and super powerful corporations that dominate our economy/society without government regulations and actual enforcement of those regulations?

Laws against fraud and theft are not anti-libertarian, like I said before.

I know my responses are far too brief to adequately explain my position, but libertarianism is easy to research online. And economically, it's virtually identical to classical liberalism, which is also easy to research online.

 

[ThomasT]

Thanks for the comments Al68. I suppose that we differ on whether the employer-employee situation is inherently adversarial. As I see it, the situation can be mutually beneficial while still being adversarial. The goal of each group is to maximize their benefits wrt their common enterprise. Given that there is a finite amount of wealth to be gotten from the enterprise, then, obviously, as employers' benefits increase, then employees' benefits decrease, and vice versa.

What I'm concerned about, and what I think is contrary to what I currently understand as the philosophy of libertarianism, are situations where employers, due to their greater wealth and power (and considering the immediate subsistence needs of current and prospective employees) are able to effectively bind workers to subsistence level (or below) wages when it really isn't necessary, wrt any criterion other than simple greed or avarice, to do so. I think that this is the general sort of situation that the US's federally mandated minimum wage was enacted to prevent. So, I consider a minimum wage law to be essentially libertarian wrt its intent.

Now, does the shared political enterprise of a group of people whose espoused political goal is government of the people, for the people, and by the people entail constraining the (more or less predictable given what we know of human nature) actions of the most wealthy and powerful among them? I think it does. Is this consistent with a libertarian philosophy? I think it is.

I know my responses are far too brief to adequately explain my position, but libertarianism is easy to research online. And economically, it's virtually identical to classical liberalism, which is also easy to research online.

Yes, I would suppose that my orientation might be characterized as liberal (in the current US sense) libertarian. I do appreciate your comments, and will continue to monitor them in these forums even if not replying/responding to them. There are of course philosophical, semantic, economic, etc. considerations, implications, etc. that might be explored/discussed. And, as you suggest, much of this is online. It's just nice to be able to engage someone, albeit somewhat indirectly, in conversation about these things. As you might have already determined, I'm not a particularly political 'animal' -- ie., not particularly astute wrt either political trends or philosophies, either current or historical. But I like to think that I can continue to learn. And, I think that I'm learning. Anyway, I apologize for any of my considerations that might have been unnecessarily pedestrian. Anything you might want to say regarding the deep meaning of libertarianism is welcomed. Otherwise, and in any case, as it suits my impulsive and admittedly scatterbrained inquisitive nature I'll probably be looking this stuff up on the internet anyway. Currently, the engineering and building of gothic cathedrals has captured my fancy -- and this could take a while.

 

[Al68]

Thanks for the comments Al68. I suppose that we differ on whether the employer-employee situation is inherently adversarial. As I see it, the situation can be mutually beneficial while still being adversarial.

We don't differ at all on that, I agree completely if by adversarial, you mean competing interests.

Given that there is a finite amount of wealth to be gotten from the enterprise, then, obviously, as employers' benefits increase, then employees' benefits decrease, and vice versa.

No, because the amount of wealth to "be gotten" is not finite. It depends on many factors relevant to this discussion, such as the willingness of investors to invest capital (increases with profit potential), efficiency of wealth creation (increases with economic liberty), etc.

This is something ignored or not understood by those who favor regulating private businesses, min wage laws, etc. Such laws reduce the size of the pie far more than they increase the percentage of the actual pie workers get.

What I'm concerned about, and what I think is contrary to what I currently understand as the philosophy of libertarianism, are situations where employers, due to their greater wealth and power (and considering the immediate subsistence needs of current and prospective employees) are able to effectively bind workers to subsistence level (or below) wages when it really isn't necessary, wrt any criterion other than simple greed or avarice, to do so.

That's simply not true. Employers must compete for workers, and any job a worker agrees to is not only beneficial to him, but logically the best offer among thousands of employers.

This market determined wage will necessarily have more buying power than a government imposed minimum wage combined with a floating dollar (its value depends on how hard a dollar is to obtain). This subject has been discussed in other threads, and much info is available online. There are arguments that a minimum wage is beneficial to workers, but the ones I've seen are either based on ignorance of how the floating dollar works, sound good superficially but fail under the slightest scrutiny, or are just not compelling.

I think that this is the general sort of situation that the US's federally mandated minimum wage was enacted to prevent. So, I consider a minimum wage law to be essentially libertarian wrt its intent.

Libertarian does not mean "good intentions", it means advocate of liberty. No liberty is being protected by minimum wage laws. They forcefully restrict liberty.

As a side note, you will probably notice that most arguments against economic libertarianism are based on references to good or bad intentions or motives. Such arguments are logically invalid, and are a classic example of the "ad hominem" logical fallacy.

No legitimate argument ever needs to make any reference to anyone's intentions or motives.

Now, does the shared political enterprise of a group of people whose espoused political goal is government of the people, for the people, and by the people entail constraining the (more or less predictable given what we know of human nature) actions of the most wealthy and powerful among them?

Yes, but the particular types of actions being constrained depends on whether such government is libertarian or authoritarian (or more common somewhere in between). A libertarian government only constrains actions which constitute force or fraud. It does not forcefully prevent people from entering into voluntary agreements that they determine are beneficial to them. And it's just false that such laws only constrain the actions of one party to the agreement, they constrain the actions of every party to the potential agreement.

But you're right that the actions of the wealthy are generally predictable. They are generally the actions that will result in the most profit for them. In a free market, those are exactly the same actions that maximize overall wealth creation, increase the actual standard of living of working people (not just their "wage" in dollars), increase technological advances, etc.

While many dispute that, it's a mainstay of libertarian philosophy, and can be researched online as well. Or Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" is a great book to read. Adam Smith was a leading figure of The Enlightenment, if you didn't know. As was John Locke, whose writings are excellent as well. Many forget that economic libertarianism was the main economic theme of The Enlightenment movement, now that Karl Marx and his followers have "de-enlightened" such a large percentage of the world's population with their propaganda.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Some time ago Proctor and Gamble, after posting profits of more than 6 billion dollars for its most recent fiscal year, laid off thousands of people. Apparently they hadn't made enough money that year. So, Michael Moore takes them this gigantic cardboard replica of a check for, like, $26 and tries to engage a spokesperson in conversation asking, "How much is enough? Will this help?" Or something to that effect.

This line of argument has always confused me. P&G apparently felt that these employees were making less money than they cost -- otherwise their desire for profit would encourage them to keep the employees. So what is the criticism, in particular?

• "The employees were making money for the company, so it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership is incompetent and as a result breached its fiduciary duty."
• "The employees were making money for the company, so it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership is insufficiently profit-focused and as a result breached its fiduciary duty."
• "The employees were not making money for the company, but it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership should have breached its fiduciary duty."

I suspect the third one is the intended meaning: that the company has enough money that it should 'share' it with employees, even those who are unproductive (in the sense that profits would increase if they were laid off). But in that case, the "why?" is obvious: it's illegal for them to do otherwise!

 

[Gokul43201]

So what is the criticism, in particular?

I think a link to the actual criticism will help more than speculation based on second hand data.

 

[Al68]

Some time ago Proctor and Gamble, after posting profits of more than 6 billion dollars for its most recent fiscal year, laid off thousands of people. Apparently they hadn't made enough money that year. So, Michael Moore takes them this gigantic cardboard replica of a check for, like, $26 and tries to engage a spokesperson in conversation asking, "How much is enough? Will this help?" Or something to that effect.

This line of argument has always confused me. P&G apparently felt that these employees were making less money than they cost -- otherwise their desire for profit would encourage them to keep the employees. So what is the criticism, in particular?

• "The employees were making money for the company, so it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership is incompetent and as a result breached its fiduciary duty."
• "The employees were making money for the company, so it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership is insufficiently profit-focused and as a result breached its fiduciary duty."
• "The employees were not making money for the company, but it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership should have breached its fiduciary duty."

I suspect the third one is the intended meaning: that the company has enough money that it should 'share' it with employees, even those who are unproductive (in the sense that profits would increase if they were laid off). But in that case, the "why?" is obvious: it's illegal for them to do otherwise!

I think the criticism might be "The employees were not making enough money for the company, but it shouldn't have laid them off because private companies exist to provide jobs as acts of charity, not because the jobs are profitable."

In other words, private companies should all just conspire with the Democratic Party to completely undermine the future economic growth of the country. Can you imagine how much lower our standard of living would be today if every company during the last hundred years chose to maintain all jobs that were no longer profitable? Yes, those jobs would still exist, but they are but a fraction of the jobs created since then as a result of private companies prioritizing profitability. And those jobs were not the kind of jobs anyone wants to do today.

 

[CAC1001]

I think the criticism might be "The employees were not making enough money for the company, but it shouldn't have laid them off because private companies exist to provide jobs as acts of charity, not because the jobs are profitable."

In other words, private companies should all just conspire with the Democratic Party to completely undermine the future economic growth of the country. Can you imagine how much lower our standard of living would be today if every company during the last hundred years chose to maintain all jobs that were no longer profitable? Yes, those jobs would still exist, but they are but a fraction of the jobs created since then as a result of private companies prioritizing profitability. And those jobs were not the kind of jobs anyone wants to do today.

That actually used to be the German and Japanese economic model, basically where the economy is dominated by massive corporations, usually owned by an economic elite (in Japan, they were known as zaibatsu up to WWII, then Japan got keiretsu, which are similar, but a bit different).

Basically these corporations were huge financial and industrial conglomerates and in addition to making profit, they were also seen as having other functions, such as providing jobs for the masses, providing healthcare, being strictly loyal to the home nation, etc...Germany has since become much more modern with far more small businesses in their economy than big ones, and Japan has changed, although keiretsu still exist in Japan (Kawasaki, Toyota, Mitsibishi, etc...).

America had a light-hearted version of this throughout the 20th century up until about the 1980s. You had the big, bureaucratic corporation in America, corporations were seen as inhumane machines. Today, the era of the big, bureaucratic corporation as it used to be is over, and corporations are seen as having to be very human, personable, flexible, adaptable, social, etc...

 

[Shaun_W]

I used to be very libertarian. Now I've rejected all political ideologies in favour of taking each issue individually and applying logic and reasoning to it and deciding based on that, not what some ideology says. Things are never black and white and people who believe in extremist ideologies by definition must think that they are.

 

[turbo]

I used to be very libertarian. Now I've rejected all political ideologies in favour of taking each issue individually and applying logic and reasoning to it and deciding based on that, not what some ideology says. Things are never black and white and people who believe in extremist ideologies by definition must think that they are.

Good post. There are plenty of issues on which I am more conservative than most people that I know, but that would be anathema to the radical neo-cons. For instance, a critical component in fiscal conservatism (IMO) is the establishment and enforcement of strict rules of conduct for financiers, brokers, bankers, etc, so they can't go rogue (gamble on highly-leveraged or falsely rated investments) and put investors and taxpayers at risk for their own benefit. Such behavior damned near plunged us into a Depression, yet there are Republicans fighting regulation of the financial markets. Why?

 

[Shaun_W]

Good post. There are plenty of issues on which I am more conservative than most people that I know, but that would be anathema to the radical neo-cons. For instance, a critical component in fiscal conservatism (IMO) is the establishment and enforcement of strict rules of conduct for financiers, brokers, bankers, etc, so they can't go rogue (gamble on highly-leveraged or falsely rated investments) and put investors and taxpayers at risk for their own benefit. Such behavior damned near plunged us into a Depression, yet there are Republicans fighting regulation of the financial markets. Why?

Ideology. Putting ideology before reality.

The world would be a better place if everyone were to reject ideologies. People would probably think much more about the issue they're arguing about rather than reciting whatever their leader says.

There's also a lot less shame when you're wrong on something, because you don't have any emotional investment in a certain outcome being correct.

But then I can see why so many people just choose to be of a certain ideology: why think for yourself when other people can think for you?

 

[mheslep]

Ideology. Putting ideology before reality.

The world would be a better place if everyone were to reject ideologies.

Starting with the idealogy of rejecting ideologies.

 

[Al68]

For instance, a critical component in fiscal conservatism (IMO) is the establishment and enforcement of strict rules of conduct for financiers, brokers, bankers, etc...

So fiscal conservatism is essentially economic authoritarianism (or socialism)?

Establishing strict rules of conduct for private individuals (or groups) is fiscal conservatism? Are you joking?

And "radical neocon" means (slightly) more economically libertarian than Democrats? Is this "make up your own definition for words" day?

there are Republicans fighting regulation of the financial markets. Why?

Gee, maybe they are taking my side instead of yours because I voted for them while you voted against them. Imagine that. :rofl:

 

[Al68]

I used to be very libertarian...Things are never black and white and people who believe in extremist ideologies by definition must think that they are.

I can't resist quoting Barry Goldwater on this one, after he was referred to as an extremist for his often libertarian positions: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

 

[turbo]

So fiscal conservatism is essentially economic authoritarianism (or socialism)?

No. Conservatism implies protection of a viable system, and that means that risks and rewards need to be balanced. It is not "just fine" if a speculator leverages the investments of his clients into a liability of a few billion dollars, nor is it proper for the taxpayers to have to save his butt, and his multi-million dollar bonuses so he can find a way to pull that same crap a couple of years later.

Establishing strict rules of conduct for private individuals (or groups) is fiscal conservatism? Are you joking?

Not at all. If there are no rules for the fiscal market to adhere to, there can be no assumption of their acceptance of fiduciary responsibility, nor of conduct pursuant that acceptance. As a saver/investor, I prefer to have some ground-rules.

And "radical neocon" means (slightly) more economically libertarian than Democrats? Is this "make up your own definition for words" day?Gee, maybe they are taking my side instead of yours because I voted for them while you voted against them. Imagine that. :rofl:

Neo-cons rail for NO regulation on finance, markets, banking... Why is that? Neo-cons are not conservative in the least. They are radical pro-business/pro-power politicians that are concerned about piling up money and increasing their political influence. Barry Goldwater wouldn't stand a chance at getting GOP support today. He was a good man.

 

[Al68]

Neo-cons rail for NO regulation on finance, markets, banking... Why is that?

I just told you. Republicans are taking my side instead of yours because I voted for them and you voted against them. Why would you think they should take your side against mine after I voted for them? Don't worry, I'm sure they will betray me, they always do.

Barry Goldwater wouldn't stand a chance at getting GOP support today.

He would be called a "neo-con radical extremist pro-business/pro-power for the rich fatcat loving little children hater" by Democrats.

He was a good man.

Yes, he was. He was nothing like you think.

His economic positions were more like mine (and against yours) than any politician in Washington today. Are you not aware that he fought against the New Deal, Great Society, government economic regulation, and virtually everything you believe in economically? Do you have him confused with someone else?

 

[turbo]

He would be called a "neo-con radical extremist pro-business/pro-power for the rich fatcat loving little children hater" by Democrats.Yes, he was. He was nothing like you think. His economic positions were more like mine (and against yours) than any politician in Washington today.

Would you like to support those statements? And please do so with more than bluster and assertion. I was a Goldwater supporter as a teen, before I was old enough to vote.

 

[Al68]

Would you like to support those statements? And please do so with more than bluster and assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater. And there are many references at the bottom of that page.

I won't bother to point to specific parts or references, unless you specifically want one for a particular issue, because they all say the same thing, and the overwhelming theme is obvious. Goldwater's political philosophy and positions are very well known, not in dispute, and easy to research. He was the ultimate "neocon" to the extreme by your definition. He was probably the single biggest target in history of the Democratic Party's "extremist, for the rich, anti-worker" accusations.

I was a Goldwater supporter as a teen, before I was old enough to vote.

And obviously you had no idea what his political views actually were, and still don't. And how can you not remember Democrats attacking him the exact same way they (and you) attack Republicans today? Almost word for word.

 

[turbo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater. And there are many references at the bottom of that page.

I won't bother to point to specific parts or references, unless you specifically want one for a particular issue, because they all say the same thing, and the overwhelming theme is obvious. Goldwater's political philosophy and positions are very well known, not in dispute, and easy to research. He was the ultimate "neocon" to the extreme by your definition. He was probably the single biggest target in history of the Democratic Party's "extremist, for the rich, anti-worker" accusations.And obviously you had no idea what his political views actually were, and still don't. And how can you not remember Democrats attacking him the exact same way they (and you) attack Republicans today? Almost word for word.

You link a Wiki article as a reference without contextual support? I was there. I doubt that you were.

 

[Al68]

You link a Wiki article as a reference without contextual support?

OK, that was laziness on my part. That page contains many other references, and the purpose was to provide a general overview of Goldwater's political beliefs. And it is more than sufficient to substantiate my claim that Goldwater was far more economically libertarian than politicians in Washington today, as well as the specific claims that he was against the New Deal, etc.

I was there. I doubt that you were.

Doubt away. It's logically irrelevant.

 

[CAC1001]

Neo-cons rail for NO regulation on finance, markets, banking... Why is that?

Conservatives do not argue for no regulation of finance, markets, banking, etc...that would be silly. The big-L Libertarians, the kind who want to get rid of every major federal agency, seem to however.

Neo-cons are not conservative in the least. They are radical pro-business/pro-power politicians that are concerned about piling up money and increasing their political influence.

Your statements contradict one another. You say "Neo-cons rail for NO regulation" then "Neo-cons are not conservative in the least." Those two statements are contradictory. If anything, by your first statement, "neo-cons" are TOO conservative. They want TOO limited a government.

As for being pro-business, this is also contradictory. Regulation benefits big business, because it squeezes out competitors. There are very few, if any, highly regulated industries that are not dominated by very large, powerful corporations. Heavy regulation almost always leads to consolidation of an industry. The only time big business doesn't like regulation is once their industry has already become consolidated and dominated by large players. At this point, more regulation will just cost them profits.

Conservatives who are pro-business as opposed to pro-free market, are most certainly not for limited regulation.

Barry Goldwater wouldn't stand a chance at getting GOP support today. He was a good man.

I agree, but because he would be considered a right-wing lunatic by the establishment GOP, one of the Sarah Palin-Tea Party-Ron Paul crowd.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" ~~~ Barry Goldwater from his 1964 acceptance speech as the Republican presidential candidate.

He also proposed using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. He lost the election because he was seen as too far to the right by most people.

 

[Shaun_W]

Starting with the idealogy of rejecting ideologies.

It's not a political ideology.

I can't resist quoting Barry Goldwater on this one, after he was referred to as an extremist for his often libertarian positions: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

Well I also think liberty is extremely important, but I'm not naive enough to sincerely believe that libertarians as they exist in the modern world are solely about being defenders of our freedom. Most that I've met have been corporistists can class warriors. Don't think I've ever came across a true libertarian, and if I did I probably would still disagree with his him economically.

 

[Al68]

Well I also think liberty is extremely important, but I'm not naive enough to sincerely believe that libertarians as they exist in the modern world are solely about being defenders of our freedom.

That's what the word "libertarian" means. Someone who is not an advocate of liberty is not a libertarian.

Most that I've met have been corporistists can class warriors.

Then either you are wrong about them being libertarians, or you're wrong about them being "corporatists/class warriors". A single person cannot be both, although it is common for power hungry politicians to fraudulently claim libertarians to be "pro-corporation, for the rich, etc" because of their advocacy of economic liberty.

Don't think I've ever came across a true libertarian, and if I did I probably would still disagree with his him economically.

Libertarians do in fact exist exist. I'm one of them. And yes, you probably disagree with me economically.

 

[ThomasT]

This line of argument has always confused me. P&G apparently felt that these employees were making less money than they cost -- otherwise their desire for profit would encourage them to keep the employees. So what is the criticism, in particular?

* "The employees were making money for the company, so it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership is incompetent and as a result breached its fiduciary duty."
* "The employees were making money for the company, so it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership is insufficiently profit-focused and as a result breached its fiduciary duty."
* "The employees were not making money for the company, but it shouldn't have laid them off. The company leadership should have breached its fiduciary duty."

I suspect the third one is the intended meaning: that the company has enough money that it should 'share' it with employees, even those who are unproductive (in the sense that profits would increase if they were laid off). But in that case, the "why?" is obvious: it's illegal for them to do otherwise!

I think Moore's intention was to paint an emotional picture regarding his view that our values of justice and equality, and the best interests of certain communities, are at odds with the profit-motivated usual practices of big business.

As for why the P&G employees re the Moore thing were laid off, I don't think it's usually a matter of being able to calculate the extent to which an employee is "making money for the company", or not. Rather, it's just standard practice for any company, especially a large one, to continually review and determine whether it can lay off a certain number of employees, perhaps increasing the workload of a certain number of remaining employees, while meeting projected necessary levels of production, and thereby increase the bottom line. Nothing wrong with that. It's just business as usual. And it isn't unfair because employees know this, or at least they should, and thereby agree to it, at least tacitly, on being hired.

However, to some, normal 'downsizing' can seem unnecessary and unfair. Moore's craft, just like much government and corporate propaganda, capitalizes on common, uninformed perceptions and sentiments. P&G posted $6B in profits that year, the company was in no trouble, so why lay a bunch of people off? Although this is just one aspect of how good managers run profitable companies, and although it isn't necessarily unfair or contrary to the public interest, it can be perceived that way depending on how it's presented and who it's being presented to.

While Moore's P&G thing isn't really illustrative of it, there is, nevertheless, a necessary conflict between libertarianism and egalitarianism. Many modern societies ostensibly embrace the ideals of both. But the extremes of both philosophies are mutually unrealizable. So societies have evolved various practical syntheses of the two.

There is necessarily a line beyond which, and there will arise situations wrt which, considerations of public responsibility supercede 'business as usual' and the accumulation of personal wealth. The US has some examples of this in its history.

I used to be very libertarian. Now I've rejected all political ideologies in favour of taking each issue individually and applying logic and reasoning to it and deciding based on that, not what some ideology says. Things are never black and white and people who believe in extremist ideologies by definition must think that they are.

I agree that this is the most sensible and most productive way to approach things.

Identifying with ideological labels doesn't serve any good purpose. It just tends to divide people and keep them ignorant.

 

[readaynrand]

Just seeing if there are others out there on this board.

Not libertarian, but objectivist.

What's the difference between the two? Libertarians hold the non-aggression principle as a moral absolute, whereas objectivists hold the principle of egoism as the moral absolute. In many cases libertarians and objectivists agree, but there are some major disagreements, for example about matters of foreign policy and intellectual property. Some libertarians are also anarchists, whereas objectivists are minarchists.

 

[Al68]

Not libertarian, but objectivist.

What's the difference between the two? Libertarians hold the non-aggression principle as a moral absolute, whereas objectivists hold the principle of egoism as the moral absolute. In many cases libertarians and objectivists agree, but there are some major disagreements, for example about matters of foreign policy and intellectual property. Some libertarians are also anarchists, whereas objectivists are minarchists.

Libertarianism is the core political philosophy of objectivism, so there is no difference politically. But libertarians (including objectivists) do disagree among themselves on some issues, like those you mention. But they share the core tenet that the legitimate reason to use force is to protect liberty, not to enforce a social agenda against people, or to control, shape, mold, or "better" society by using force to deprive people of their liberty.

The interesting thing about objectivism is that much of its core (non-political) philosophy is embraced universally by the scientific community, and much of society in general, but most of those same people reject (or ignore) that same core philosophy when applied to politics.