Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for the Presidential Nominee Position - Page 3

Originally Posted by shetline

And you haven't noticed yet that the closest thing to these libertarian ideals that's ever been tried can be seen in the early "robber baron" days of the early industrial revolution?

Originally Posted by drm

It will help you (and the conversation as a whole) if you actually read what I have posted.



I understand that you are trying to be clever here. I am willing to go along. What are those "things that we as people should never do" and why?

And while you are at it, you seem to have missed (or ignored) my questions:

Could you tell us what freedom means and looks like to you? You have not offered a clear, concise explanation of what freedom means to you. It might help this "discussion" get some real traction. I'd really like to hear what you think freedom and liberty mean. How would you define them?

Originally Posted by franksargent

EQUALITY!

Originally Posted by midwinter

I was going to respond, but there it is.

I just don't understand libertarians. I really don't get you people. Don't misunderstand; I understand libertarianism. I just don't see why anyone looks at it and gets a stiffie for it. And then to believe that it is a philosophy of individual freedom is to ignore the entire history of the economic wing of the philosophy. To believe in it as a moral philosophy is, well, archaic and bizarre and seems to ignore the many things Mill simply didn't get.

Can I employ 5-year-olds in my factory in potentially dangerous positions (e.g. pulling broken pieces of machinery out of a large lathe, say?)

If I own a factory, do I *have* to have a clock in it? It's a pain in the ass when the workers know how long they've been there. Can I fire anyone who wears a watch? Anyone who is literate? Believe me, this literacy issue was HUGE in the 18th century in England, when literacy rates shot up. Factory owners were deeply concerned about what would happen if their workers became literate.

Can I hire 8-year-olds to work a 14 hour shifts?

Can I hire small girls (say, 6 years old) as chimney sweeps?

Can I have sex with an 11-year-old so long as she's working as a prostitute?

Originally Posted by franksargent

EQUALITY!

Originally Posted by Jubelum

You are talking about pure Libertarianism.

Minor correction: it wasn't the "closest thing." It was the thing itself. It's where those beliefs come from, hence my picture of a London slum from the mid-19th century, when laissez-faire policies had really created an untenable situation.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Hyperbole. Hand waving what-ifs.

You are talking about pure Libertarianism.

Your child/labor examples are assuming the worst case scenario that no one would let happen. Why? Because there is room for the humankind-saving bleeding-hearts in there as well.

Originally Posted by drm

No he isn't. He isn't talking about libertarianism at all. He is talking about things that some people incorrectly think are libertarianism (as he is with the following statement):

He is operating from a simplistic, muddled, distorted and inaccurate understanding of history.

He need to read something besides Dickens.

Perhaps something that will not simply confirm his own beliefs but instead will challenge them. He could try this article for example: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_deta...er=articledate

Originally Posted by midwinter

a system of political economy exactly like what you seem to want.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Shameless distortion of my position. You know better than that.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Again, I cannot help but see the irony. Who had the gulags in the 20 century? The Communists. Yes, communism...the absolute antithesis of Libertarianism.

Originally Posted by midwinter

I'll also grant you that there was food available. I'll also grant you that the Irish couldn't afford it. I'll also grant you that the English refused to do anything about those prices, in part, at least, because they didn't want government to intervene.

Originally Posted by drm

You seem to have missed the point that it was government intervention, in the form of protectionist price supports (the corn laws), that kept food prices higher (much like steel, sugar, cotton and other similar price support/subsidy policies in the U.S. today). When these were eliminated, prices dropped (making them more affordable to, well, everyone, including the poor (Irish or not).

That is not libertarianism. Call it something else (many economists call it mercantilism). The foundational principle of liberty does not have the government taking (by force) money to give to its corporate "buddies" in the form of subsidies or price supports or whatever. This is the fundamental problem of state. Its ability to use force to take from one to give to another inevitably (and usually quickly) ends up in the hands of those that are corrupt (I would argue that it is corrupt to even desire the establishment of such power to begin with). The Utopians are the ones who think that if nobody ran the state, all will be fine.

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

The fundamental flaw with libertarianism is that it requires that everyone have the libertarian ethos...

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

what's to prevent a group of buisnessmen from banding together to fix prices?

Originally Posted by drm

You want. Fine. What gives you the right though to tell someone what they can make or sell?

Originally Posted by franksargent

I'm presuming you understand the difference between theory and practice?

Given the "nature of the beast" it's selfishness, it's territorial nature, your distortion of communism (that's with a small "c' BTW!) ideology, is laughable!

We are all waiting for your further discourse on Nazi Germany, BTW, as applied to AmeriKKKa!

That would of course be followed by your discourse on socialism, followed by your discourse on global conspiracies! \

Libertarianism ideologies/theories != Libertarianism realities/practices.

The true irony is that you fail to see the differences between ideologies/throeies versus realities/practices, given "the nature of the beast!"

Sherman it's time for you to hop into your WABAC and fix things historically to fit your POV.

Originally Posted by drm

Well, first, greed or self-interest. But even if they get past this and they do fix prices, what's to a) force anyone to buy their products? or b) prevent a competitor not aligned with the cartel to come in and undercut (we assume that the cartel is fixing prices at higher than normal market clearing prices) the cartel? And even if neither a or b happen, and prices are raised, demand for the products will begin to fall. This will entice the fragile cartel to crumble as the participants seek out more sales to compensate for the hit on their profits (remember, teh companies involved are accountable to their shareholders, not the cartel).

Originally Posted by drm

Well, first, greed or self-interest. But even if they get past this and they do fix prices, what's to a) force anyone to buy their products? or b) prevent a competitor not aligned with the cartel to come in and undercut (we assume that the cartel is fixing prices at higher than normal market clearing prices) the cartel? And even if neither a or b happen, and prices are raised, demand for the products will begin to fall. This will entice the fragile cartel to crumble as the participants seek out more sales to compensate for the hit on their profits (remember, teh companies involved are accountable to their shareholders, not the cartel).

Originally Posted by addabox

Unless the company is privately held.

Originally Posted by addabox

Unless prices are being fixed industry wide.

Originally Posted by addabox

Unless the cartel operators erect barriers to entry in their market.

Originally Posted by addabox

And no one has addressed Midwinter's questions about child labor, working hours, working conditions, etc.

Originally Posted by addabox

If the answer is "if you don't like the working conditions get another job", why wouldn't exploitive labor practices become the national standard, since the businesses that saved money via such practices would have a competitive advantage?

Originally Posted by addabox

And who, exactly, wants to live in a country where shoddy, dangerous goods are corrected by "the market", i.e. people stop buying things that burst into flame, poison them or fall apart from under them, after a fair number of people are burned, poisoned or thrown to the ground? There's no a priori mechanism to weed out such products, since there is money to be made in the short term until word gets around. And what about when Chinese manufacturers realize that America is no longer doing all that dreary testing? I wonder what kind of marvels they might have in store for us?

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

what if the businessmen own >90% of companies that produce something vital like wheat?

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

what if ONE businessman corners a market for goods?

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Not all companies are publicly traded. NO company begins as a publicly traded organization.

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

The fact remains that even in the best case scenario you present depends upon the cartel self-destructing at some point in the future, before which time consumers are suffering the consequences of having an unregulated capitalist system.

Originally Posted by drm

How does this happen? Why?



Well, in economics, the thing we talk about is substitutes. These do not need to be exact substitutes. Chicken and beef are a good example. So while it is theoretically possible for this to happen it rarely does because of substitutes and because the monopolist rarely gets 100% of the market. Let's look at the famous whipping boy John Rockefeller. He owned about 90% of the oil extraction, refinement, distribution and retail sales. But he didn't raise prices. He kept his prices very low. In fact it was his vertical integration and efficiencies gained from that that enabled him to drive prices lower so that his product was accessible to more people. In fact Rockefeller, through his integration and productivity improvements, he lowered gasoline prices from $0.30/gallon in 1869 to $0.10/gallon by 1874 and to $0.06/gallon in 1897. Despite the fact that his competitors used the power of government to break up his company, at his height he still faced competition from Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, Gulf, and 147 other independent refineries. Because of this competition Standard Oil’s market share fell from 88 percent in 1890 to a mere 11 percent by 1911.




I didn't say anything about companies being publicly traded.



I suspect the cartel will self-destruct far sooner than you realize. Cartels are very fragile (unless they are forced or protected by the intervention of the state). Think through the logic of it. For someone to be enticed into a cartel, we assume it is because they are greedy and wish to maximize their profits. So, over gold one day, they convince the other players in their industry to join them and raise prices together by, say, 20%. Now, they are of course totally ignoring the possibility that people will seek and use alternatives to their products in the face of these higher prices. But, even if they don't, remember, these people are greedy (and obviously not to ethical) to what could be reasonably expect to happen next? Well, any one of them, knowing that everyone has agreed to 20% higher prices, see the opportunity to gain market share by secretly under-cutting his "partners" by just a few percent (he's still making more money at a higher price, but he's no stealing market share from his "partners" who are all keeping their prices even higher. Soon, the other begin doing the same until the price is bid down to the natural market price again.

Cartels are very fragile in a free market where the state is not erecting barriers to entry into the market and where "greed" or self-interest drives the players and where there are substitutes (and there always are. Not exact or perfect substitutes mind you but substitutes nonetheless.)

Whether the existence of Standard Oil was beneficial is a matter of some controversy. The notion that Standard was a monopoly is rejected by some economists, citing its much reduced market presence by the time of the antitrust trial. In 1890, Rep. William Mason, arguing in favor of the Sherman Antitrust Act, said: "trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to people of this country by the trusts which have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprise".

The Sherman Act prohibits the restraint of trade. Defenders of Standard Oil insist that the company did not restrain trade, they were simply superior competitors. The federal courts ruled otherwise.

Many analysts agree that the breakup was beneficial to consumers in the long run, and no one has ever proposed that Standard Oil be reassembled in pre-1911 form.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

This debate is simple. Some of you want lots and lots of governing. Some of us don't. We'd prefer to be left alone. Some of you want the power to make decisions for others. Some of us don't. We think we know better how to live our lives than the government does.

It saddens me the number of people who have been trained to look to the government to satisfy their need to control others. And it's working. And worst of all, many of you believe your own lies that we'd all go to social and economic hell if the government was not here taxing and spending "for our own good."

Originally Posted by franksargent

Businesspeople acting like criminals, nope, never heard of that happening!

Originally Posted by drm

How does this happen? Why?

Well, in economics, the thing we talk about is substitutes. These do not need to be exact substitutes. Chicken and beef are a good example. So while it is theoretically possible for this to happen it rarely does because of substitutes and because the monopolist rarely gets 100% of the market. Let's look at the famous whipping boy John Rockefeller. He owned about 90% of the oil extraction, refinement, distribution and retail sales. But he didn't raise prices. He kept his prices very low. In fact it was his vertical integration and efficiencies gained from that that enabled him to drive prices lower so that his product was accessible to more people. In fact Rockefeller, through his integration and productivity improvements, he lowered gasoline prices from $0.30/gallon in 1869 to $0.10/gallon by 1874 and to $0.06/gallon in 1897. Despite the fact that his competitors used the power of government to break up his company, at his height he still faced competition from Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, Gulf, and 147 other independent refineries. Because of this competition Standard Oil’s market share fell from 88 percent in 1890 to a mere 11 percent by 1911.

I didn't say anything about companies being publicly traded.

I suspect the cartel will self-destruct far sooner than you realize. Cartels are very fragile (unless they are forced or protected by the intervention of the state). Think through the logic of it. For someone to be enticed into a cartel, we assume it is because they are greedy and wish to maximize their profits. So, over gold one day, they convince the other players in their industry to join them and raise prices together by, say, 20%. Now, they are of course totally ignoring the possibility that people will seek and use alternatives to their products in the face of these higher prices. But, even if they don't, remember, these people are greedy (and obviously not to ethical) to what could be reasonably expect to happen next? Well, any one of them, knowing that everyone has agreed to 20% higher prices, see the opportunity to gain market share by secretly under-cutting his "partners" by just a few percent (he's still making more money at a higher price, but he's no stealing market share from his "partners" who are all keeping their prices even higher. Soon, the other begin doing the same until the price is bid down to the natural market price again.

Cartels are very fragile in a free market where the state is not erecting barriers to entry into the market and where "greed" or self-interest drives the players and where there are substitutes (and there always are. Not exact or perfect substitutes mind you but substitutes nonetheless.)

Originally Posted by Jubelum

People on endless welfare programs cheating the system and stealing from their fellow citizens, nope, never heard of that happening!

frank, you are making a case against a ghost. We will never have any form of government without control over labor conditions, product safety, environmental controls, etc. There is too much popular support for it, and IMHO it is necessary for BASIC needs. Same thing with infrastructure and all of these things you guys keep pointing to. "Well, I like driving on nice roads"... well shit, it's not like those things are going away. Ever. We expect them, enjoy them, and are willing to pay for them as a nation. Its the spending on things that we DON'T need that pushes many of us to say "wait a minute, this is about buying votes, not helping the People."

Originally Posted by drm

I did, but perhaps not explicitly enough for you to notice. Libertarianism deals with freedom of mature, able-minded adults. Adults are responsible for protecting and providing for their children. No one is suggesting that children can or should be exploited or enslaved.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Here's how I see it: Some people think the only threat to freedom is big gubbamint. Other people believe that history shows that a serious threat to freedom comes from wealthy and powerful private individuals, and that the government can enhance people's freedom by preventing that from occurring.

Originally Posted by franksargent

I'll agree with you on most of what you have stated.

There are too many special interest groups, both public and private. I'd like to disband the essentially two party system that seems to force a binomial distribution on what seems to be to be a normal distribution of political ideologies.

I see it as a min-max problem, minimize social costs, maximize freedom. Where we differ is in "The devil is in the details."

Originally Posted by midwinter

That was your answer? Those vague statements about how we all oughta lurve the children?

Simple questions. In a libertarian society, is there an age of sexual consent? Is there an age of majority? Is there anything to stop me from having sex with an 11-year-old prostitute? Is there anything to stop me from employing children in dangerous jobs?

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

libertarianism requires that we either ignore the instabilities that man's machiavellian psychology creates or that we stop concerning ourselves with how society progresses.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Yes, there is an age of consent. Yes there are laws for worker protection. Yes there are laws to prevent man's inhumanity to man.