Can Learning About Libertarianism Lead to Fiscal Conservatism and Profit?

[MFriedmam]

1)read this faq http://www.lp.org/faq"
2)LEARN SOME ECONOMY...i suggest you Milton Friedman,Hayek,Mises,Fukuyama and ask yourself "why economists are always fiscally conservative?"
3)Read Ayn Rand...i suggest you the masterpiece Atlas Shrugged
4)http://www.heritage.org/Index/TopTen.aspx
5)Profit!

 

[Alfi]

I would suggest a 'How to become ..' should be supplemented with a 'Why you should become ...'

 

[DavidSnider]

Atlas Shrugged?

Gee, wouldn't it be great if all the rich people in the country purposely ruined their own companies, took money from the government and went into hiding? OH WAIT. THEY DID.

... and who was overseeing the Federal Reserve Board for the past 20 years to make it all possible? Could it be Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan perhaps?

 

[noblegas]

Atlas Shrugged?

Gee, wouldn't it be great if all the rich people in the country purposely ruined their own companies, took money from the government and went into hiding? OH WAIT. THEY DID.

... and who was overseeing the Federal Reserve Board for the past 20 years to make it all possible? Could it be Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan perhaps?

Ayn rand did not advocate for government bailouts nor believe that the government should provide any subsidies to companies who requested it. She argued that they were not real capitalists if they were wrongly receiving benefits from the federal government.

Greenspan abandoned her principles on how the economy should function for she argued that a capitalist society would function properly and fully only if the money supply was backed by a valuable commodity like Gold or Silver. Seems like you need to read Capitalist : the unknown ideal and Atlas shrugged. I don't think you understand any of the fundamentals ideas that Ayn rand was advocating for concerning the economy and her idea of Liberty.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I need to read some Rand. I keep meaning to but I am always certain that she will just annoy me.

 

[DavidSnider]

I understand the fundamental ideas perfectly. It's a philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world.

Maybe watch this interview sometime where the real world is asked about:


Some Gems:
The middle east has no rights to their oil because they didn't invent the technology to take advantage of it.

Schools for "Subnormal Children" should be shut down in favor of helping the gifted and talented meet their full potential.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some Gems:
The middle east has no rights to their oil because they didn't invent the technology to take advantage of it.

Schools for "Subnormal Children" should be shut down in favor of helping the gifted and talented meet their full potential.

I think these are sort of exaggerations. I have never heard of "shutting down schools for subnormal children" though I have heard of focusing on trade schools for those who may not be cut out for college and leaving college for those best capable of benefiting from it.

 

[Al68]

Atlas Shrugged?

Gee, wouldn't it be great if all the rich people in the country purposely ruined their own companies, took money from the government and went into hiding? OH WAIT. THEY DID.

... and who was overseeing the Federal Reserve Board for the past 20 years to make it all possible? Could it be Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan perhaps?

No, it was because of that socialist Chavez in Venezuela. He let that happen. It's all his fault. After all, he was in office when it happened.

Seriously, blaming a problem on Ayn Rand that happened because of actions Rand opposed is just delusional.

Those problems would be impossible in a society with that "philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world", if you're referring to free enterprise capitalism. It's pretty obvious you completely misunderstand the philosophy you're bashing.

The philosophy is called liberty, and fits perfectly well in the real world. It's economic oppression that fits some "contrived fictional world" where everyone excels and wealth is created despite the lack of incentives to do so. In the real world, restricting economic freedom impoverishes people.

Believing that people shouldn't oppress or coerce each other is just being a decent human being, despite claims of socialists and others that we're "for the rich", "against the working man", and various other nonsense designed only to stir up hatred.

 

[noblegas]

I understand the fundamental ideas perfectly. It's a philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world.

Maybe watch this interview sometime where the real world is asked about:


Some Gems:
The middle east has no rights to their oil because they didn't invent the technology to take advantage of it.

Schools for "Subnormal Children" should be shut down in favor of helping the gifted and talented meet their full potential.

Can you provide links for those quotes?

 

[DavidSnider]

Can you provide links for those quotes?

They weren't quotes, they were paraphrases from bits of the interview. Not sure exactly which part got to watch the whole thing.

 

[DavidSnider]

No, it was because of that socialist Chavez in Venezuela. He let that happen. It's all his fault. After all, he was in office when it happened.

Seriously, blaming a problem on Ayn Rand that happened because of actions Rand opposed is just delusional.

Those problems would be impossible in a society with that "philosophy made up for a contrived fictional world", if you're referring to free enterprise capitalism. It's pretty obvious you completely misunderstand the philosophy you're bashing.

The philosophy is called liberty, and fits perfectly well in the real world. It's economic oppression that fits some "contrived fictional world" where everyone excels and wealth is created despite the lack of incentives to do so. In the real world, restricting economic freedom impoverishes people.

Believing that people shouldn't oppress or coerce each other is just being a decent human being, despite claims of socialists and others that we're "for the rich", "against the working man", and various other nonsense designed only to stir up hatred.

1) Deregulation is not something Ayn Rand opposed.

2) Objectivists don't want economic freedom. They want strict control of the means of production. They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly. They want unlimited access to natural resources to do as they please and tend to have a disgust for the idea of keeping nature around for its own sake.

3) Look, I've read her books. She clearly supports a sort of oligarchy where the means of production and intellectual property are used to take advantage of people who don't yet have the ability to create that kind of technology.

 

[mheslep]

1) Deregulation is not something Ayn Rand opposed.

2) Objectivists don't want economic freedom. They want strict control of the means of production. They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly. They want unlimited access to natural resources to do as they please and tend to have a disgust for the idea of keeping nature around for its own sake.

3) Look, I've read her books. ...

Well then you miss read, especially when you say 'deregulation is not something [AR] opposed'. AR would never have had federal reserve board at all; it would not have existed to screw around with the interest rates. She would not have had something to deregulate in this case.

You also misstate AR re natural resources. AR would have all the natural resources owned by private entities to do with exactly as they please (barring externalities), to include setting up a park or preventing further development, exactly as private groups such as the Nature Conservancy have done. There are some good arguments that private ownership is superior for preservation given the record of some of the public parks.

 

[mheslep]

They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly.

So does the US constitution.

...nor shall any person [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[czelaya]

When I first heard of the word "libertarian" it was explained to me that libertarians were far right republicans. Then I briefly researched both the ideology and the political party. I specifically became very interested in libertarianism after reading Ron Paul's "The Manifesto". Soon afterward I read Charles Murray, "Why I'm a Libertarian" and David Boaz, "Libertarianism" that I found myself embracing the libertarian ideology as my own. I guess the greatest revelation of becoming a libertarian is that it's nothing new. It's basically the foundation of economic and personal freedom. Furthermore, I try to explain to people that libertarians are not far right republicans. But it seems that many democrats and republicans don't understand the Nolan Chart.

I've realized now to further educate myself in libertarian principles will require an extensive amount of studying and reading in economics (policies and history), world affairs, and government infrastructure. Thank you, Cato and Mises Institute.

 

[DavidSnider]

Well then you miss read, especially when you say 'deregulation is not something [AR] opposed'. AR would never have had federal reserve board at all; it would not have existed to screw around with the interest rates. She would not have had something to deregulate in this case.

I understand that, but again, the fantasy world where The Fed doesn't exist doesn't matter. What does matter is what people with Objectivist leanings do once they are put in real world situations and given real authority. Your argument reminds me of communists who say "Oh well, REAL communism has never existed, but I know it works!".

You also misstate AR re natural resources. AR would have all the natural resources owned by private entities to do with exactly as they please (barring externalities), to include setting up a park or preventing further development, exactly as private groups such as the Nature Conservancy have done. There are some good arguments that private ownership is superior for preservation given the record of some of the public parks.

I didn't misstate Ayn Rand. Yes, one of the consequences of private ownership of land is that some people may choose conservation. This is not the picture you will get out of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead where nature is around for no other reason than to be cut down and reshaped by the whims of the human mind.

 

[DavidSnider]

So does the US constitution.

The US constitution never defined what property was.

 

[Norman]

Interesting topic since I have some libertarian leanings in my political views. One thing that I feel is missed by the hardcore libertarians is that there are some things the government is actually good at (ok well maybe a better explanation is that there are somethings the government is better at than others).

For instance, fundamental research. There is no money to be made in answering questions about the beginning of the universe. In an ideal libertarian society, however, that would mean the only way cosmology research would be done is with a grant from a wealthy individual. So, would that sort of question ever be answered? I don't know.

 

[noblegas]

I understand that, but again, the fantasy world where The Fed doesn't exist doesn't matter. What does matter is what people with Objectivist leanings do once they are put in real world situations and given real authority. Your argument reminds me of communists who say "Oh well, REAL communism has never existed, but I know it works!".

Yes, the capitalism rand has envisioned has never existed because no one has tried laissez faire capitalism, unlike communism. This country has truly never had a laissez capitalist economy, even Rand acknowledges this fact. Whereas communism has been tried in multiple parts of the world, and has failed multiple times. Show me a society that has tried to implement full blown capitalism.

I didn't misstate Ayn Rand. Yes, one of the consequences of private ownership of land is that some people may choose conservation. This is not the picture you will get out of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead where nature is around for no other reason than to be cut down and reshaped by the whims of the human mind.

What is your point? Humans have always been altering their surroundings to suit there needs. If humans did not reshaped nature for their benefit, we would not be where we are.

 

[Al68]

1) Deregulation is not something Ayn Rand opposed.

That's right, she opposed the government intervention (regulation) that caused our recent problems.

2) Objectivists don't want economic freedom. They want strict control of the means of production.

We want control of any property to belong to its owner, not ourselves. You are very confused. Being on the side of liberty is not the same as being on the side of any particular property owner.

They view intellectual property as a natural right rather than a state granted monopoly. They want unlimited access to natural resources to do as they please and tend to have a disgust for the idea of keeping nature around for its own sake.

You again are obviously trying to use a "bait and switch" for which "they" you are referring to. First you imply "they" means people like me, then you use it to refer to someone cutting down their own tree? Are you so confused as to not realize that a person could be in favor of someone else's liberty without actually being them?

3) Look, I've read her books. She clearly supports a sort of oligarchy where the means of production and intellectual property are used to take advantage of people who don't yet have the ability to create that kind of technology.

Total nonsense. If you believe that, you do not understand her words at all.

Do you really think that you have a good understanding of Rand's position when your understanding of it is so grotesquely different from the actual position of those of us who agree with it?

 

[DavidSnider]

That's right, she opposed the government intervention (regulation) that caused our recent problems.We want control of any property to belong to its owner, not ourselves. You are very confused. Being on the side of liberty is not the same as being on the side of any particular property owner. You again are obviously trying to use a "bait and switch" for which "they" you are referring to. First you imply "they" means people like me, then you use it to refer to someone cutting down their own tree? Are you so confused as to not realize that a person could be in favor of someone else's liberty without actually being them?Total nonsense. If you believe that, you do not understand her words at all.

Do you really think that you have a good understanding of Rand's position when your understanding of it is so grotesquely different from the actual position of those of us who agree with it?

Answer this:
Does objectivism support granting patents to individuals that allow the state to take away the property of another individual who materializes the ideas contained within the patent?

 

[Al68]

Answer this:
Does objectivism support granting patents to individuals that allow the state to take away the property of another individual who materializes the ideas contained within the patent?

No. It doesn't.

 

[DavidSnider]

No. It doesn't.

So there is no concept of intellectual property rights? Or just no penalty?

 

[Al68]

So there is no concept of intellectual property rights?

Sure there is, but that wasn't your question.

 

[DavidSnider]

Sure there is, but that wasn't your question.

Yes, it pretty much was. What you seem to be saying is that the state does have a right to restrict another person's personal property rights (I.E. restricting the sale of their property for a period of time) because they were not the first to patent it.

EDIT: You have since removed the line that said this.

 

[Al68]

Yes, it pretty much was. What you seem to be saying is that the state does have a right to restrict another person's personal property rights (I.E. restricting the sale of their property for a period of time) because they were not the first to patent it.

That's a very different question. Restricting someone from selling patented products is different from confiscating property. But you knew that when you asked the first question.

But even that restriction is considered a "necessary evil" since we would still be in the stone age otherwise.

EDIT: You have since removed the line that said this.

EDIT: Oops, I need to stop trying to edit my posts after I make them.

 

[DavidSnider]

That's a very different question. Restricting someone from selling patented products is different from confiscating property. But you knew that when you asked the first question.

But even that restriction is considered a "necessary evil" since we would still be in the stone age otherwise.

Well, the circumstance I was thinking of is compensating the owner of the patent for all the items sold illegally.

The idea that we would be in the stone age if the state didn't enforce monopolies seems like an odd thing for an objectivist to be saying.

 

[Al68]

Well, the circumstance I was thinking of is compensating the owner of the patent for all the items sold illegally.

The idea that we would be in the stone age if the state didn't enforce monopolies seems like an odd thing for an objectivist to be saying.

I agree, but an objectivist wouldn't use the word "monopoly" to describe intellectual property rights, since it has another very common specific meaning.

But this is a case of libertarians making an exception to the normal case, similar to the way that public roads are an exception to the normal case of non-intervention of government.

Libertarians are not anarchists. You are simply giving an example of a libertarian compromise with statism.

 

[DavidSnider]

Libertarians are not anarchists. You are simple giving an example of a libertarian compromise with statism.

Yes, I am. That compromise is made because despite all the tough talk about free markets and competition, they too want some form of upper hand on other people.

 

[Al68]

Yes, I am. That compromise is made because despite all the tough talk about free markets and competition, they too want some form of upper hand on other people.

That sounds strange as a criticism of libertarianism. We're not libertarian enough for you?

We also support laws against fraud, murder, assault, etc. We are just way too oppressive.

Edit: I guess it only sounds strange because most of the criticism comes from a completely different direction.

 

[mheslep]

The US constitution never defined what property was.

Alright, but what ever we agree to be property (when you referenced it above), it is not granted by the state. Ownership of property is indeed a natural right in US history, not to be taken away arbitrarily by the state, and certainly not granted by the state.

 

[Al68]

The US constitution never defined what property was.

The US constitution specifically authorizes congress to protect intellectual property rights by "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;".

 

[DavidSnider]

The US constitution specifically authorizes congress to protect intellectual property rights.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

This does not define ideas as property. This is granting congress with powers. It is not saying that intellectual property is a natural right.

 

[Al68]

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

This does not define ideas as property.

Of course not, ideas are not intellectual property. Inventions are. It's not like I will get a patent for my "idea" for a car that runs on water. I would have to actually invent such a design first. Then the invention may get a patent, not the "idea".

This is granting congress with powers. It is not saying that intellectual property is a natural right.

I agree, it's just authorizing congress to protect intellectual property rights. The constitution is the legal charter for the federal government, not a philosophy handbook.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Alright, but what ever we agree to be property (when you referenced it above), it is not granted by the state. Ownership of property is indeed a natural right in US history, not to be taken away arbitrarily by the state, and certainly not granted by the state.

As noted 'Intellectual Property' is a legal fiction granting the temporary right to exclusive use of an idea for profit. It is in fact given and taken away by the government and not considered a natural right.

Of course not, ideas are not intellectual property. Inventions are. It's not like I will get a patent for my "idea" for a car that runs on water. I would have to actually invent such a design first. Then the invention may get a patent, not the "idea".

A rather niggling and inaccurate distinction. A drawing and description on a piece of paper is all that is required for a patent. This would generally fall under the category of "idea". The idea need not have actually been fully realized in a complete and fabricated form and doesn't even necessarily need to actually work in order for it to be patented.
Also while patents are more precise in delineation copyright is not. Copyright is far less detail oriented. It only requires that one has used a very similar idea or even just a single part of an idea that is significantly similar to another.

 

[mheslep]

As noted 'Intellectual Property' is a legal fiction granting the temporary right to exclusive use of an idea for profit. It is in fact given and taken away by the government and not considered a natural right.

No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of rights under the US constitution. All of those rights - speech, property, free association - are there before the government comes into being. And absent the rule of law, if I have a bigger stick than yours, I can come and deprive you of any of them, property and speech. We might have a lengthy discussion on the definition and limits of these rights, but government is instituted to secure these rights, not give them. The constitution is mainly a negative document insuring the government does not similarly infringe on them.

Saying that, say, the patent office of the government gives me intellectual property rights is like saying the county property deeds office gives me the rights on my home.