Any of you define yourselves as Libertarians?

[Al68]

So alone in your fight, and so unwilling to answer direct questions. If you do believe in Judicial Activism, do you have any examples that spring to mind? You're the one defining yourself, and so far, only by vague and shifting rules you refuse to enunciate.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you spiking your koolaid again? There is no fight and I'm far from alone. Judicial activism is not a religion that one "believes in" or not, and my representation of myself has been flawless.

If it's your intent to derail and destroy another thread with nonsense, count me out of this one. If you have a specific, logically coherent question that contains no false premises, ask it.

 

[nismaratwork]

What the hell are you talking about? Are you spiking your koolaid again? There is no fight and I'm far from alone. Judicial activism is not a religion that one "believes in" or not, and my representation of myself has been flawless.

If it's your intent to derail and destroy another thread with nonsense, count me out of this one. If you have a specific, logically coherent question that contains no false premises, ask it.

You've described yourself as a "Libertarian" and a "Constructionist"... do you just believe some random grouping of junk, and feel the need to give it a name? 'Libertarian' isn't your magical catch-all. You asked for direct questions, and I gave you a "yes or no" based on your own espoused beliefs. I'd add, try to be polite, you're lowering the tone.

If you're a strict constructionist, then yes, JA should be part of your religion. If you think I'm harassing you, ask Evo... she can explain what it's like when I actually harass. I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of you; you're long on talk and short on backing that talk up. I'm not even asking you to justify your beliefs, just say what they entail; I'm tired of sparring over your special definitions of ideologies.

If I sound harsh, well... what can I say?... I'm not a fan of Kool-Aid.

 

[Al68]

You've described yourself as a "Libertarian" and a "Constructionist"...

If you mean "strict constructionist", yes, that's right.

do you just believe some random grouping of junk, and feel the need to give it a name?

Nope. See what happens when you ask a direct logically coherent question? (even if rhetorical).

If you're a strict constructionist, then yes, JA should be part of your religion.

Won't argue about what my religion should or shouldn't be.

I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of you; you're long on talk and short on backing that talk up.

You will never get a straight answer from me with questions that have false assumptions, false claims about me, or are logically incoherent. That's just the way I roll.

I'm tired of sparring over your special definitions of ideologies.

I've offered no such special definitions, and there has been no sparring over that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Repeating this lie over and over won't make it true.

First of all, I stated it as an opinion so it can't be a lie. Secondly, denying the obvious doesn't make it go away.

Anyone who thinks that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, or U.S. banking in general, represented "free-market capitalism" needs to take a kindergarten economics class somewhere.

Freddie and Fannie were only the tip of the iceberg. Unregulated dark markets were a primary cause of the failure along with unregulated lending practices. You can be condescending and offensive all you want, but the fact still remains that a lack of regulation and failures to enforce existing laws are what caused this disaster.

Greenspan himself admitted this shouldn't have been possible under free-market principles [the ones under which the system operated]. In other words, the model failed. Every Libertarian has to come to grips with this fact. Or are you calling Greenspan an economic illiterate? I have linked to his Congressional testimony several times before. I would assume that you know about this testimony as it is directly from the most powerful Libertarian of the last 30 years - a protege of Ayn Rand. Or is it necessary to link it again?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...The commission found substantial losses after reviewing more than 25 million loans purchased or guaranteed by the GSEs or the private sector, but delinquency rates of Fannie's and Freddie's loans were substantially lower than those securitized by Wall Street firms and others. Fannie and Freddie mortgages, by the end of 2008, were far less likely to be seriously delinquent than were other mortgages. For example, for borrowers with credit scores below 660, the difference was significant: 6.2 percent versus 28.3 percent.

The commission also concluded that Fannie and Freddie mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis due to their implicit government guarantee. Thus, they did not contribute to the significant losses that were central to the crisis...

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-03-03/news/bs-ed-fannie-freddie-20110303_1_fannie-and-freddie-freddie-mac-risky-mortgages/2

...The Commission concluded that this crisis was avoidable. It found widespread failures in financial regulation; dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance; excessive borrowing and risk-taking by households and Wall Street; policy makers who were ill prepared for the crisis; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels. Here we present what we found so readers can reach their own conclusions, even as the comprehensive historical record of this crisis continues to be written...

http://fcic.gov/

 

[Al68]

Freddie and Fannie were only the tip of the iceberg. Unregulated dark markets were a primary cause of the failure along with unregulated lending practices. You can be condescending and offensive all you want, but the fact still remains that a lack of regulation and failures to enforce existing laws are what caused this disaster.

Greenspan himself admitted this shouldn't have been possible under free-market principles [the ones under which the system operated]. In other words, the model failed. Every Libertarian has to come to grips with this fact. Or are you calling Greenspan an economic illiterate? I have linked to his Congressional testimony several times before. I would assume that you know about this testimony as it is directly from the most powerful Libertarian of the last 30 years - a protege of Ayn Rand. Or is it necessary to link it again?

First, you are misrepresenting Greenspan's testimony. Second, using his testimony the way you are is a classic logical flaw (appeal to authority). Third, can you not see the self-contradiction of calling someone the "most powerful libertarian Hint: if you hold someone in higher esteem than I do, he might not be much of a libertarian. :uhh:

Fourth, lending practices were not unregulated by any stretch of the imagination. Fifth, the system did not in fact operate in a free market, in any sense relevant to this issue. You're aware that "free market forces" exist in all markets, free or not? Sixth, while you can claim that this problem wasn't related to Fannie and Freddie alone, you can't deny they were the instigator and driving force behind toxic and subprime lending. They started the problem, they fell first, other banks fell because they were stuck with the bad assets Fannie and Freddie had promised to buy.

Changing the subject to talk about other factors that contributed doesn't change anything, since I have never denied that there were other factors.

But you have offered no evidence whatsoever that logically shows that this problem was caused by a free market, or that it would even be possible in a free market.

This has been pointed out to you before, and your only response that I can see is to repeat the same claims, point out the same Greenspan testimony that doesn't prove what you claim it does, then make the same claims as if they were generally accepted truth. You even claim this time that libertarians generally accept it as true, when you know that's a whopper. And Greenspan is your representative for libertarians? Oh, puleeese!

 

[nismaratwork]

First, you are misrepresenting Greenspan's testimony.<snip>!

In what way... you see, this is where I mean that you're long on talk and short on facts. You make statements, not arguments, and if you're a Strict Constructionist then by definition, you believe in JA. Thanks for at least one answer... maybe you can answer a few more?

 

[Al68]

In what way...

By claiming that Greenspan believed that the banking system was a "free market".

You make statements, not arguments, and if you're a Strict Constructionist then by definition, you believe in JA.

Yes, I believe judicial activist exists. It is real, not imaginary like the tooth fairy. :uhh:

Thanks for at least one answer... maybe you can answer a few more?

I'll answer any question that is logical coherent and doesn't contain false assumptions, same as always.

 

[nismaratwork]

First, you are misrepresenting Greenspan's testimony.

Please cite his testimony and explain how Ivan has misrepresented it.

Second, using his testimony the way you are is a classic logical flaw (appeal to authority).

No... every use of a quote or asessment isn't that... it's called a basis for an argument, an example. You should peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority and here's a hint as to where you went wrong:

2.there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter.

Third, can you not see the self-contradiction of calling someone the "most powerful libertarian"?

You don't take well to rhetorical points you're not in the process of making do you? Again, what you describe is really very distant from Libertarianism; ignorance of what you really want doesn't give you the right to give that a title.

Fourth, lending practices were not unregulated by any stretch of the imagination.

Not unregulated, by poorly regulated in theory and in practice. Would you agree, or disagree? In either case, why?

Fifth, the system did not in fact operate in a free market, in any sense relevant to this issue.

Your free market doesn't remain free when humans are involved... nothing will match your vision of a free market after a while. What is it that you believe is so fantastic about a truly free market, and how do you believe that it won't be exploited by cartels of various stripes? In short, why do you think the evolution of finance won't repeat again and again?

Sixth, while you can claim that this problem wasn't related to Fannie and Freddie alone, you can't deny they were the instigator and driving force behind toxic and subprime lending. They started the problem, they fell first, other banks fell because they were stuck with the bad assets Fannie and Freddie had promised to buy.

Given the number of assets related to mortgages and other lending Frannie & Freddie (and oh yes... the one still standing...) were involved in, you're at least partly correct. If you're laying blame where these toxic assets werre bundled and sold, then you need to look elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong... I get it... you mean that they allowed people not otherwise able to buy homes when they shouldn't have. True, but "started the problem"... you might as well just blame poor people for wanting to own a home... or maybe Goldman-Sachs, and others who so kindly made the whole thing a gamble and REALLY took out the economy?

Changing the subject to talk about other factors that contributed doesn't change anything, since I have never denied that there were other factors.

True... changing subjects doesn't help you at all.

But you have offered no evidence whatsoever that logically shows that this problem was caused by a free market, or that it would even be possible in a free market.

You've offered nothing, but rhetoric... if you want more, offer more.

This has been pointed out to you before, and your only response that I can see is to repeat the same claims, point out the same Greenspan testimony that doesn't prove what you claim it does, then make the same claims as if they were generally accepted truth. You even claim this time that libertarians generally accept it as true, when you know that's a whopper. And Greenspan is your representative for libertarians? Oh, puleeese!

Are you really missing his point, or being intentionally coy?

 

[nismaratwork]

By claiming that Greenspan believed that the banking system was a "free market".Yes, I believe judicial activist exists. It is real, not imaginary like the tooth fairy. :uhh:I'll answer any question that is logical coherent and doesn't contain false assumptions, same as always.

Thanks for the straight answer... pity two threads and half a dozen posts were needed, but... fussy eaters...

So, what do you call judicial activism, and how does it compare to activism in the executive and legistlative branches?

 

[Al68]

Please cite his testimony and explain how Ivan has misrepresented it...No... every use of a quote or asessment isn't that... it's called a basis for an argument, an example. You should peruse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority and here's a hint as to where you went wrong: ...You don't take well to rhetorical points you're not in the process of making do you? Again, what you describe is really very distant from Libertarianism; ignorance of what you really want doesn't give you the right to give that a title...Not unregulated, by poorly regulated in theory and in practice. Would you agree, or disagree? In either case, why?...Your free market doesn't remain free when humans are involved... nothing will match your vision of a free market after a while. What is it that you believe is so fantastic about a truly free market, and how do you believe that it won't be exploited by cartels of various stripes? In short, why do you think the evolution of finance won't repeat again and again?...
Given the number of assets related to mortgages and other lending Frannie & Freddie (and oh yes... the one still standing...) were involved in, you're at least partly correct. If you're laying blame where these toxic assets werre bundled and sold, then you need to look elsewhere. ...Don't get me wrong... I get it... you mean that they allowed people not otherwise able to buy homes when they shouldn't have. True, but "started the problem"... you might as well just blame poor people for wanting to own a home... or maybe Goldman-Sachs, and others who so kindly made the whole thing a gamble and REALLY took out the economy?...True... changing subjects doesn't help you at all...You've offered nothing, but rhetoric... if you want more, offer more...Are you really missing his point, or being intentionally coy?

Too much delusional incoherent nonsense for me to go back and forth with you on. I already told you I will not help you destroy another thread with your nonsense.

 

[nismaratwork]

"Ninety Nine percent of people in the world - and the rest of us are in great danger of contagion." (William Whyte)

Too true.

I'd add, a bit of old wisdom from a modern source:

"In any agenda, political or otherwise, there is a cost to be borne. Always ask what it is, and who will be paying. If you don’t, then the agenda makers will pick up the perfume of your silence like panthers on the scent of blood, and the next thing you know, the person expected to bear the cost will be you. And you may not have what it takes to pay.” (Richard K. Morgan)

edit: I have to say, I feel that modern Libertarians don't appreciate that constant cost, and simply wish for it to be kept far away from them... minimized by supposedly even distribution. In short, I'd say that it's moral cowardice, insofar as there is anything else in politics. It's religion, a dream of a market that never existed, and people who will never allow it to comet to pass. It's foolhardy and a sign of political immaturity, and a stunted sense of the world beyond one's own backyard.

@Al68: For you... all I hear is, "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" (Therefore I conclude that Carthage must be destroyed) said by Cato the Elder... I doubt you understand the reference.

 

[BWV]

Yes, but a Hayekian rather than a Rothbardian one

(i.e. pragmatic & utilitarian arguments for free markets vs. rights-based ones)

with the caveat that leverage in the financial system does need to be monitored and regulated

The Austrian narrative of cheap credit distorting the price system leading to a misallocation of capital, followed by a painful adjustment is better IMO than the Keynesian animal spirits / demand story (not that psychology is not an issue). Both are better than the neoclassical / efficient markets model which has difficulty even admitting the existence of bubbles.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, but a Hayekian rather than a Rothbardian one

(i.e. pragmatic & utilitarian arguments for free markets vs. rights-based ones)

with the caveat that leverage in the financial system does need to be monitored and regulated

The Austrian narrative of cheap credit distorting the price system leading to a misallocation of capital, followed by a painful adjustment is better IMO than the Keynesian animal spirits / demand story (not that psychology is not an issue). Both are better than the neoclassical / efficient markets model which has difficulty even admitting the existence of bubbles.

Well... I think in practice those signals are lost in noise, so the vision of a better market isn't possible going this route. On the other hand, pragmatism can be spoken to... better than "rights", which are a crock.

Still, how do you prevent cartels from preventing market signals from working?

 

[BWV]

Well... I think in practice those signals are lost in noise, so the vision of a better market isn't possible going this route. On the other hand, pragmatism can be spoken to... better than "rights", which are a crock.

Still, how do you prevent cartels from preventing market signals from working?

rights are not a crock, the right to own property or the fruits of one's labor is as fundamental as freedom of speech or religion

according to Hayek, the information reflected in prices are primary reason why planned economies fail:

Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge. But a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules; the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others in that he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation.

To know of and put to use a machine not fully employer or somebody's skill which could be better utilized, or to be aware of a surplus stock which can be drawn upon during an interruption of supplies is socially quite as useful as the knowledge of better alternative techniques...

Fundamentally, in a system where the knowledge of the relevant facts is dispersed among many people, prices can act to coordinate the separate actions of different people in the same way as subjective values help the individual to coordinate the parts of his plan.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hayek.htm

Conspiracies by firms to rig prices are, and should remain illegal (not withstanding the difficulty of maintaining a cartel - it is too profitable to cheat). The history of anti-trust actions is that they tend mechanisms for rent-seeking by competitors rather than protection of consumers. All the alleged monopolies - from Standard Oil to Wal Mart - got their size by aggressively lowering prices to consumers. The first action under the Sherman Act was brought against Swift by competing meat processors - Swift's refrigerated rail cars made delivery of meat much cheaper and safer. You would be hard pressed to find a single case in the history of anti-trust actions where consumers were actually harmed.

 

[nismaratwork]

rights are not a crock, the right to own property or the fruits of one's labor is as fundamental as freedom of speech or religion

I should be clear: Intrinsic rights, Divine rights... legal rights are not a crock.

according to Hayek, the information reflected in prices are primary reason why planned economies fail:


http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hayek.htm

Conspiracies by firms to rig prices are, and should remain illegal (not withstanding the difficulty of maintaining a cartel - it is too profitable to cheat). The history of anti-trust actions is that they tend mechanisms for rent-seeking by competitors rather than protection of consumers. All the alleged monopolies - from Standard Oil to Wal Mart - got their size by aggressively lowering prices to consumers. The first action under the Sherman Act was brought against Swift by competing meat processors - Swift's refrigerated rail cars made delivery of meat much cheaper and safer. You would be hard pressed to find a single case in the history of anti-trust actions where consumers were actually harmed.

...And in a Libertarian world, who is taking anti-trust actions, who writes the laws and enforces them? In short, how do you keep it Libertarian for more than the moment of its inception, when cartels are SO profitable, despite the maintenance. History shows that free markets just do not remain free, and I think your view of Standard Oil is only technically correct.

Once they lower prices and destroy competition, they're now free to treat workers like junk, and raise prices.

Comcast is a fine example, even if they're fighting a losing battle, they're retarding progress by trying to maintain exclusivity in lines that belong to all of us.

 

[BWV]

...And in a Libertarian world, who is taking anti-trust actions, who writes the laws and enforces them? In short, how do you keep it Libertarian for more than the moment of its inception, when cartels are SO profitable, despite the maintenance. History shows that free markets just do not remain free, and I think your view of Standard Oil is only technically correct.

Once they lower prices and destroy competition, they're now free to treat workers like junk, and raise prices.

Comcast is a fine example, even if they're fighting a losing battle, they're retarding progress by trying to maintain exclusivity in lines that belong to all of us.

Cartels are subject to the Prisoners Dilemma problem so they don't work for very long (OPEC is a great example)

the fallacy is that somehow firms in a competitive marketplace become so dominant they are immune from competition - the truth is otherwise. Usually by the time the government has gotten around to putting an anti-trust action together the firms are already on the decline. The DOJ case against IBM's computer monopoly was finally dropped in the 1990s, likewise Microsoft's decline coincided with several anti-trust suits.

In a libertarian world the same people write the laws as do now - which means that well-intended regulation becomes captive to rent-seeking by corporate interests. More government power over the economy increases the payoff to lobbying and provides bureaucrats and politicians with capital for patronage

 

[nismaratwork]

Cartels are subject to the Prisoners Dilemma problem so they don't work for very long (OPEC is a great example)

the fallacy is that somehow firms in a competitive marketplace become so dominant they are immune from competition - the truth is otherwise. Usually by the time the government has gotten around to putting an anti-trust action together the firms are already on the decline. The DOJ case against IBM's computer monopoly was finally dropped in the 1990s, likewise Microsoft's decline coincided with several anti-trust suits.

In a libertarian world the same people write the laws as do now - which means that well-intended regulation becomes captive to rent-seeking by corporate interests. More government power over the economy increases the payoff to lobbying and provides bureaucrats and politicians with capital for patronage

You may be right, but how long does an OPEC need to be around to do immense and lasting harm?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In a libertarian world the same people write the laws as do now - which means that well-intended regulation becomes captive to rent-seeking by corporate interests. More government power over the economy increases the payoff to lobbying and provides bureaucrats and politicians with capital for patronage

As opposed to periodic global economic collapse through market fluctuations? Tough choice.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should be clear: Intrinsic rights, Divine rights...

Consider it a definition, not an appeal to authority.

 

[BWV]

As opposed to periodic global economic collapse through market fluctuations? Tough choice.

Oh, they are not opposed, you can have both (which we did)

The banking regulatory system in the US became totally captive to the interests of Wall Street and the Banking sector

 

[Gokul43201]

A free market can't fail to self-regulate because a free market by definition is a self-regulating market.

I think when people say things like "failure to self-regulate" they mean failure to prevent large-scale instabilities from existing. I have yet to see a paper that proves that large scale instabilities are incompatible with a free market (and this is not for lack of searching). In whatever papers I have read, they freely adopt models that do permit instability, the most common being the approximation of a damped, driven oscillator, which we know is unstable a large range of parameter space. If you have a reference for a proof of the above conjecture, I'd love to see it.

I like the philosophy of Libertarianism. It would be a pleasantly welcome surprise to find that it also produces high mathematical stability. I think it wouldn't be very nice to have socio-politico-economic systems that have a lot of unpredictable (or hard-to-predict - which they all are, unless you're a Hari Seldon) instabilities.

 

[nismaratwork]

Consider it a definition, not an appeal to authority.

Hmmm... I'm not sure what you mean?

 

[BWV]

I think when people say things like "failure to self-regulate" they mean failure to prevent large-scale instabilities from existing. I have yet to see a paper that proves that large scale instabilities are incompatible with a free market (and this is not for lack of searching). In whatever papers I have read, they freely adopt models that do permit instability, the most common being the approximation of a damped, driven oscillator, which we know is unstable a large range of parameter space. If you have a reference for a proof of the above conjecture, I'd love to see it.

I like the philosophy of Libertarianism. It would be a pleasantly welcome surprise to find that it also produces high mathematical stability. I think it wouldn't be very nice to have socio-politico-economic systems that have a lot of unpredictable (or hard-to-predict - which they all are, unless you're a Hari Seldon) instabilities.

the usual proof of the efficiency of unregulated markets is Pareto efficiency ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics ) which is based upon assumptions that are challenged by critics - "perfect information" being one example.

But this approach suffers from its obsession with equilibrium and simplifying assumptions (usually done so closed-form equations can be constructed).

A more interesting example arguing against the stability of unregulated financial markets (and applicable to the financial crisis) is here:

ABSTRACT: Dr. Stefan Thurner’s report analyses the development, buildup and unfolding of financial market crashes using a dynamic agent based model. The model simulates relevant conditions under which agents behave in financial markets and allows one to see how excessive leverage (the use of credit for speculative investments) is a prime source of vulnerability and can act as the catalyst for a crash. The model demonstrates how crashes result as a consequence of synchronization effects of the different actors in financial markets. The report concludes with recommendations, most notably the need for radical improvements in the transparency of creditor- debtor relationships between financial market participants, which would reduce the chance of synchronization.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/61/46890029.pdf

 

[Al68]

Yes, but a Hayekian rather than a Rothbardian one

(i.e. pragmatic & utilitarian arguments for free markets vs. rights-based ones)

with the caveat that leverage in the financial system does need to be monitored and regulated

rights are not a crock, the right to own property or the fruits of one's labor is as fundamental as freedom of speech or religion...

I'm sure you must realize that the caveat in your first post contradicts the right to own the fruits of one's labor in the next. The property being used as "leverage" is the fruit of a person's labor, presumably transferred via voluntary transactions, while the "regulator" is (presumably) a third party (government) that never received any ownership rights to the property from its owner(s).

 

[BWV]

I'm sure you must realize that the caveat in your first post contradicts the right to own the fruits of one's labor in the next. The property being used as "leverage" is the fruit of a person's labor, presumably transferred via voluntary transactions, while the "regulator" is (presumably) a third party (government) that never received any ownership rights to the property from its owner(s).

No, its a matter of degree. Hayek, for example, did not oppose reasonable social safety nets supported by taxes which a Rothbardian would as a matter of rights.

 

[Al68]

No, its a matter of degree. Hayek, for example, did not oppose reasonable social safety nets supported by taxes which a Rothbardian would as a matter of rights.

Of course it's a matter of degree, but perhaps I should have said that that caveat contradicts an absolute right to own the fruits of one's labor, not necessarily a partial right to it.

But the reason I pointed this out is that you seemed to take the Hayekian view in that first post, but the Rothbardian view in the other, where you said "the right to own property or the fruits of one's labor is as fundamental as freedom of speech or religion".

Did I misinterpret your post(s)?

 

[BWV]

Of course it's a matter of degree, but perhaps I should have said that that caveat contradicts an absolute right to own the fruits of one's labor, not necessarily a partial right to it.

But the reason I pointed this out is that you seemed to take the Hayekian view in that first post, but the Rothbardian view in the other, where you said "the right to own property or the fruits of one's labor is as fundamental as freedom of speech or religion".

Did I misinterpret your post(s)?

just as there is a range of interpretation of what the right to free speech includes, the same holds for property rights - reasonable levels of taxation (i.e. paying for the infrastructure that makes owning property possible - courts, police, armies etc) not being an infringement of them. Rothbard being an absolutist position

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm sure you must realize that the caveat in your first post contradicts the right to own the fruits of one's labor in the next. The property being used as "leverage" is the fruit of a person's labor, presumably transferred via voluntary transactions, while the "regulator" is (presumably) a third party (government) that never received any ownership rights to the property from its owner(s).

The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.[2] James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose," "public interest," or "public benefit."[3]

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of Eminent Domain; i.e., the taking must be for public use and just compensation must be paid. Some historians have suggested that these limitations on the taking power were inspired by the need to permit the army to secure mounts, fodder and provisions from local ranchers and the perceived need to assure them compensation for such takings. Similarly, soldiers forcibly sought housing in whatever homes were near their military assignments. To address the latter problem, the 3rd Amendment was enacted in 1791 as part of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. It provided that the quartering of soldiers on private property could not take place in peacetime without the landowner's consent. It also required that, in wartime, established law had to be followed in housing troops on private property. Presumably, this would mandate "just compensation", a requirement for the exercise of eminent domain in general per the 4th Amendment to the Constitution [4] All US states have legislation specifying ED procedures within their respective territories.[5]

Your view is more of an emerging concept, but the reality is that with justification your land can be taken by the government. If that is abhorrant to you, then so are some of the founding principles of this country (which is fine IMO), much as we eschew slavery, and extend "equal creation" to all men, and women (in theory).

How does an absolutist perspective mesh with a gray world in any way? This is another example of what others have tried to point out; making a grand claim based on what you think SHOULD be, not what actually is legal or extant. Still, always a pleasure to see you backpedal from, "contradiction," to, "Of course it's a matter of degree." Where will you go next, if not away?

The idea that removing or diminishing centralized authority somehow increases individual freedom, much like the vision of a free market, is mostly absurdist in the face of history and human nature. IMHO.

 

[Newai]

A quick way to make a rough approximation: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I scored P=70% & E=60%, putting me on the boundary between centrist and libertarian.

That's a good link.

I'm at Personal=80%, Economic=60%

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh, they are not opposed, you can have both (which we did)

The banking regulatory system in the US became totally captive to the interests of Wall Street and the Banking sector

But there is no way a free market can avoid the causes of the collapse. A regulated market could but may not. Again, tough choice.

Gokul, in Greenspan's Congressional testimomy, he states that large oscillations are unvoidable but rare. What shouldn't have been possible are the reasons for the collapse.

If I understand Taleb's argument [Black Swan], we should see increasing instability with oscillations of ever increasing magnitude in a "free" global economy.

 

[ThomasT]

The idea that removing or diminishing centralized authority somehow increases individual freedom, much like the vision of a free market, is mostly absurdist in the face of history and human nature. IMHO.

I agree, and as BWV has pointed out, it's a matter of degrees of regulation. Apparently, if investment firms are allowed to overleverage, with a few people benefitting from that and a lot of people being hurt, then they'll do it. I would think that a Libertarian would be for this sort of regulation, not against it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hmmm... I'm not sure what you mean?

It is an axiom, not an appeal to God's authority. These rights are above the law, not derived from it. In other words, fundamentally, "the law" answers to the people, not the other way around. The law derives its power from the people.

Gingrich would argue that authority comes directly from God [he just did yesterday], but not all Libertarians are nuts.

 

[nismaratwork]

It is an axiom, not an appeal to God's authority. These right are above the law, not derived from it.

Ahhh, gotcha!

@ThomasT: Agreed.

 

[MECHster]

Secondly, denying the obvious doesn't make it go away.

Denying the obvious? Oh come on. Without the government policies which let those banks gamble with other people's money, they would have never acted as they did. The government was responsible to pay all of the "bets" the banks lost. The banks really had nothing to lose by taking advantage of the system. If they lost the bet, the government paid for it, if they won, they got paid, if the system collapses, they get bailed out. In all scenarios the government was a major player. Also, without the bail out, the banks would be MUCH more cautious in their "bets". Even if everything I just said is completely wrong, watch this video in which people who know more economics than you or I will ever know disagree with you. Even if you disagree with them, at least acknowledge the possibility of it NOT being a free-market collapse.