What Happens to Jobless Individuals in a Free Market During Economic Downturns?

[DavidSnider]

Quick, somebody give their blow hard politicians the power to save them from that hell on Earth!

Seriously, I could say the same thing about foreign goods. You're making things up to avoid talking about that graph.

First of all, I never made any statements about giving politicians any sort of power.

Second, I don't see anything wrong with the graph.

What I'm asking you to consider is that not everything that is important to the well being of a society is based on GDP per capita.

How would you libertarians handle the problem of environmental destruction? Let's say factories down the road are polluting your farm, but you can't prove which one of them is responsible?

 

[fleem]

First of all, I never made any statements about giving politicians any sort of power.

Second, I don't see anything wrong with the graph.

What I'm asking you to consider is that not everything that is important to the well being of a society is based on GDP per capita.

How would you libertarians handle the problem of environmental destruction? Let's say factories down the road are polluting your farm, but you can't prove which one of them is responsible?

For the record I'm only "mostly" libertarian, and also the definition does have some ambiguity. I do believe the federal government should have power to regulate certain activity damaging the environment. Of course, ideally its done with real science (not through the "scientists" bribed with govt grants), and that's hard to implement. When asked about my political leanings, I usually mention some degree of state sovereignty. I believe the federal government has convinced the people that states should not have much power. But competition among the state governments would be a powerful force keeping government clean (taxpayers move away from corruption). Unfortunately its kinda harder to move out of the country to get away from corruption in the federal government. I doubt I need to point out that 95% of what the federal govt does is blatantly unconstitutional. Finally, i applaud states that defy the federal government's unconstitutional laws, like California and marijuana, because that sort of attitude is our only hope in keeping the federal government in check.

 

[DavidSnider]

ideally its done with real science (not through the "scientists" bribed with govt grants).

Is this truthiness or do you have a specific example?

 

[mheslep]

Maybe so, but the comment was along the lines of selling yourself into slavery to ensure you are kept (ie don't die of starvation).

This is a point about preservation which is the most fundamental need, it trumps expectations and aspirations. So within the context of the question, were are precisely the same as the people from 6th century Gaul.

Precisely because the vast majority of people know that there are opportunities for nearly everyone (unlike Gaul), that tomorrow may and likely will hold even more opportunities (unlike Gaul), then it makes little sense to sell away the rest of your life because today they are destitute. Furthermore, on average everyone around them is not destitute (unlike Gaul), in fact no matter where you are in this country there is likely a millionaire within a rocks throw with no connection to the King (unlike Gaul). There are churches and other charitable organizations within a rocks throw (unlike Gaul), all of which need have nothing to do with government. Despite all this people can and do resort to desperate actions in the moment. But given the above, it is simply ridiculous to make the comparison between 21st century free societies and Gaul in terms of subsistence living.

 

[skeptic2]

Precisely because the vast majority of people know that there are opportunities for nearly everyone (unlike Gaul), that tomorrow may and likely will hold even more opportunities (unlike Gaul), then it makes little sense to sell away the rest of your life because today they are destitute. Furthermore, on average everyone around them is not destitute (unlike Gaul), in fact no matter where you are in this country there is likely a millionaire within a rocks throw with no connection to the King (unlike Gaul). There are churches and other charitable organizations within a rocks throw (unlike Gaul), all of which need have nothing to do with government. Despite all this people can and do resort to desperate actions in the moment. But given the above, it is simply ridiculous to make the comparison between 21st century free societies and Gaul in terms of subsistence living.

I wasn't aware that this discussion applied to only this country. Look at Africa, look at Central America and large parts of South America. Look at parts of Asia and you will find areas where your post doesn't apply. In these areas it is not ridiculous to make that comparison.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Precisely because the vast majority of people know that there are opportunities for nearly everyone (unlike Gaul), that tomorrow may and likely will hold even more opportunities (unlike Gaul), then it makes little sense to sell away the rest of your life because today they are destitute. Furthermore, on average everyone around them is not destitute (unlike Gaul), in fact no matter where you are in this country there is likely a millionaire within a rocks throw with no connection to the King (unlike Gaul). There are churches and other charitable organizations within a rocks throw (unlike Gaul), all of which need have nothing to do with government. Despite all this people can and do resort to desperate actions in the moment. But given the above, it is simply ridiculous to make the comparison between 21st century free societies and Gaul in terms of subsistence living.

I think you were focusing too much on the literal points of the argument as opposed to the general meaning behind it. The original point was that, as you say, desperate times makes people do funny things, now as much as the examples chang (and have become less extreme) people will act in the same manner (to preserve themselves) be it in 6th C Gaul or 21st century western world.

Now the 'sell yourself into slavery becuase of strvation arguement' takes this to the extreme, and in modern 1st world countries will never happen as we have alternatives (charites/welfare). Without the security net of welfare (be it goverrnment or other) you will find that people can and will turn to similar measures that our ancient ancestors turned to.

So the comparison is far from rediculous in terms of human behaviour, in the outcomes and otions they have then yes.

 

[rootX]

I have some related questions about (ideal) free markets (run by real people):

1) How government should afford military expenditures? or Who should be responsible for the nation's defense?
2) What should be the government objectives?
3) What should be the course of action where government objectives and free market goals interfere?
4) Is free economy prone to more boom-busts (or greed)?
5) Will profit maximizing society be sustainable in the long run? Often, short term profit maximizing goals interfere with the long term sustainability.
Or, If free market can sustain itself in the long run?
6) Should there be any public services?

 

[arildno]

The concept of a free people, the worth and rights of the individual have radically changed over the last couple millennia, more so over the last two or three centuries. In the middle ages, generation after generation expected that the world would not change at all for them, even for their descendants, other than the possibility their social group might be obliterated. They were correct in that thinking. Before the settlement of North America, culminating with the American revolution, large societies had an expectation around the world that they would answer to a King/Emperor/Pope somewhere. There was zero expectation on the part of the average person that they could ever be King. That thinking has radically changed in the developed world.

Yawn.

If you were PHYSICALLY starving (and that is an OBJECTIVE, trans-historical condition!), you would rid yourself with such notions in the manner of..seconds.

You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food.

 

[mheslep]

Yawn.

How amusing.

You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food.

Yes quite right. Which has nothing to do with your assertions above. You are spouting nonsense there.

 

[mheslep]

I wasn't aware that this discussion applied to only this country.

Yes the discussion, as started in #42, applies to the developed world where there substantial economies in existence and the possibility of changing over to a 'wholly unregulated economy' has relevance.

 

[arildno]

Yes quite right. Which has nothing to do with your assertions above. You are spouting nonsense there.

Why?

Do elaborate..

 

[mheslep]

The isolated and likely temporary premise described here:

If you were PHYSICALLY starving (and that is an OBJECTIVE, trans-historical condition!), ...
You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food

is not the same as the widespread and nearly pandemic conditions implied for the actions described here

...you willing to agree to any sort of degradation.

We have pathetic letters from 6th century Gaul, where a man sells himself into slavery to the local land-owner in order to gain some sort of security in his life.

People sold their own children (if you were a carpenter, scraping by, and then had an accident making you unable to work for a long time; what would you choose: let all your children starve to death, or sell one to a guy who says he will be treated well, giving you the money to care for the others while you are ill?)...

People still do occasionally reach dire conditions in modern societies, but they visibly do not sell their children off. Or, in the rare tabloid story of some human monster who does so, it is not because of starvation conditions.

 

[arildno]

mhsleep:

Your "conditions" are mere, historical circumstances. They change profoundly over time, and can, of course, be reversed.

Not so with the condition of starvation.

Whenever it occurs, it leads to the same type of cravings within the individual, irrespective of the historical times he lives in.

Only insofar as the historical times happens to be amenable for him, in his condition, will he not sink into self-degradation.

And THAT is the argument for why we should have a system of minimum social aid.

Even a libertarian like Herbert Spencer understood that.

 

[AUMathTutor]

arildno:
"Yawn.

If you were PHYSICALLY starving (and that is an OBJECTIVE, trans-historical condition!), you would rid yourself with such notions in the manner of..seconds.

You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food. "

Alright, class, what logical fallacy is this?

 

[Evo]

Please use the "quote" function when replying.

 

[arildno]

arildno:
"Yawn.

If you were PHYSICALLY starving (and that is an OBJECTIVE, trans-historical condition!), you would rid yourself with such notions in the manner of..seconds.

You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food. "

Alright, class, what logical fallacy is this?

There is no fallacy.

It merely bumps into your indoctrinated head.

 

[AUMathTutor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Good guess, though! Thanks for playing, arildno!

 

[AUMathTutor]

Please use the "quote" function when replying.

Sure.

 

[kasse]

What are the drawbacks with having welfare like hospitals, school and a pension system in a free market society? Isn't it a pity if people regard taxing theft, and not a way to continue a safe society?

 

[AUMathTutor]

I hear a lot of people comare taxing to theft. In a sense, I suppose it's similar. However, I'm not sure if I know of a better way of providing, for instance, national security, than by taxing everybody and using it to fund a national military. Privatization comes to mind, but I'm not sure how that would work.

Social programs could more realistically be privatized. I think there's a possibility... I don't know if it would be better or worse, but I can imagine that anything other than the way things are now would be bad for a while, at least until things settled down. It wouldn't be an easy transition, in my relatively uninformed opinion.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I cannot really see any drawbacks of having hospitals, schools or pensions.

Cost... and that's it, but I would like to think that in this day and age money means less to people than the increased standard of living and health of all. Sadly people give more of a **** about their bank balances than helping others.

 

[turbo]

What are the drawbacks with having welfare like hospitals, school and a pension system in a free market society? Isn't it a pity if people regard taxing theft, and not a way to continue a safe society?

Do you have a point? Please make it if you do.

If you want to equate taxation with theft, you have a whole lot more history than the US to reference.

 

[Evo]

The thread is going nowhere. Closed.