Free market solutions to problems vs. Government

[Libertarian666]

(This new thread was suggested by kshartle.)

First, everyone even vaguely interested in this topic should read Alongside Night, which is available free here:
http://anarplex.net/hosted/files/Alongs ... free30.pdf

(I recommend downloading it for better presentation; my browser didn't understand the fonts so they looked pretty bad).

Then we can discuss the solutions presented in that book.

[Kshartle]

Of course presenting problems the government is charged with solving and coming up with ideas the market could offer instead is always a good thought experiment.

As a bonus, any entrepreneurial members may get an idea and implement it to make millions.

They can buy gold, stocks, bonds, whatever with the millions. Could even set up a charity or training program to help workers displaced by automation 

It could even be a profit-generating business to help them. That would be the best since it would be self-sustaining.

We might be able to solve everything, right here.

Or it goes nowhere.

[moda0306]

The free market isn't necessarily self-sustaining.  There are plenty of environmental problems that occur when you have externalities that you don't have to pay for, and that nobody could reasonably make you pay for.

Interestingly, the most sustainable form of economy (hunter/gatherer economy that lives in a reasonable equilibrium with the environment around them) isn't enough to be able to claim resources as your own (according to Libertarian666's standards), because you didn't develop land from its natural state.

That seems like quite the paradox to me.  The only sustainable model is legitimately forced of land because an unsustainable model can turn that land into a factory cattle farm?

Am I missing something here? 

Sorry if I'm kind of hijacking the thread, but private property is vital to market economies.

[MediumTex]

The V-50 course from the 1970s goes into this topic in great detail.  The whole program is like 60 hours or so.  I've listened to the whole thing and it's pretty good, though it could have been presented in half the time.

[Kshartle]

The free market isn't necessarily self-sustaining.  There are plenty of environmental problems that occur when you have externalities that you don't have to pay for, and that nobody could reasonably make you pay for.

Interestingly, the most sustainable form of economy (hunter/gatherer economy that lives in a reasonable equilibrium with the environment around them) isn't enough to be able to claim resources as your own (according to Libertarian666's standards), because you didn't develop land from its natural state.

That seems like quite the paradox to me.  The only sustainable model is legitimately forced of land because an unsustainable model can turn that land into a factory cattle farm?

Am I missing something here? 

Sorry if I'm kind of hijacking the thread, but private property is vital to market economies.

This is very relevant....the problem of private property enforcement. This is a monster of a problem and we definately attempt (very poorly I think) to solve this by creating an institution that claims for itself the right to violate private property.

Any notion of a non-government society working needs to have a market solution for the problem of private property as well as the environment.

Jesus I thought you would start with smaller problems like the post office. This one is epic. We may need to dance in and out of it for a long time. Diversions are welcome. When I get a good thought on it and time I'll add. I've done a lot of thinking and reading in this area.

[Pointedstick]

It's one of moda's stronger points. I have difficulty addressing it myself.

[doodle]

I know this is an anonymous forum, but I have to say that Kshartle really, really reminds me of this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

[doodle]

What I don't understand is that the underlying moral foundation of libertarianism is the Non Aggression Principle. But who is going to enforce that principle? In an anarchic world of non-enlightened individuals, the non-aggression principle really just seems like defacto might = right.

[Kshartle]

I know this is an anonymous forum, but I have to say that Kshartle really, really reminds me of this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

got me, Stefan here.....j/k

I have listened to Stefan quite a bit and freely admit I'm a big fan of his work.

Schiff, Rockwell, Tom Woods, Harry Browne, Ayn Rand and many others have been major influences.

[Kshartle]

What I don't understand is that the underlying moral foundation of libertarianism is the Non Aggression Principle. But who is going to enforce that principle? In an anarchic world of non-enlightened individuals, the non-aggression principle really just seems like defacto might = right.

Bingo, Bango, Bongo.

You got it brother. Dead on. Non-enlightened individuals + anarchy = chaos.

I've always said this ain't happening in our lifetime and not with the current crop of humans. I definatley think it's inevitable long-term. If it is true that non-violent solutions are superior to violent ones then it will win out. It requires enlightened people though. It at least requires a lot more enlightened people than we have now.

The non-enlightened ones only have to be rationale. The market will provide a reward and punishment system for irrational actions. This will be sufficient.

There will still be violence. There will only be the tiniest shred though compared to the present day. I'm not just talking about wars going away. I'm talking about the violence involved everytime you try to buy or sell anything. It's omni-present. The fact that I can only buy certain things in "illegal" transactions with shady people is the effect of the violent threat from government.

The bank robber doesn't need to shoot anyone for the theft to be considered violent. Brandishing the gun is sufficient.

[Pointedstick]

What I don't understand is that the underlying moral foundation of libertarianism is the Non Aggression Principle. But who is going to enforce that principle? In an anarchic world of non-enlightened individuals, the non-aggression principle really just seems like defacto might = right.

Bingo, Bango, Bongo.

You got it brother. Dead on. Non-enlightened individuals + anarchy = chaos.

I've always said this ain't happening in our lifetime and not with the current crop of humans. I definatley think it's inevitable long-term. If it is true that non-violent solutions are superior to violent ones then it will win out. It requires enlightened people though. It at least requires a lot more enlightened people than we have now.

The non-enlightened ones only have to be rationale. The market will provide a reward and punishment system for irrational actions. This will be sufficient.

There will still be violence. There will only be the tiniest shred though compared to the present day. I'm not just talking about wars going away. I'm talking about the violence involved everytime you try to buy or sell anything. It's omni-present. The fact that I can only buy certain things in "illegal" transactions with shady people is the effect of the violent threat from government.

The bank robber doesn't need to shoot anyone for the theft to be considered violent. Brandishing the gun is sufficient.

which promotes a world of enlightened individuals more? saying we are unenlightened and must have a government using force to keep us in line, or saying the non aggression principal is the base of our system and work toward living up to it.... seems to me the former view is the more aligned with might makes right.... saying some "other" should have the might and be trusted to know what is right vs the individual being required to develop an understanding of it.

Yeah. The problem with libertarianism is that it requires libertarians. If we all agreed about things like non-aggression, and we behaved in a more logical, high-functioning manner, I could see a government-less society working very well.

But because as of right now we don't actually live in that world, libertarianism increasingly seems like a rainbow we will be forever chasing but will probably never reach. All these discussions about how things ought to work, how the world is ordered all wrong, how people would ideally behave... it's fascinating, but ultimately much of it is just academic in the flawed, complex, violent world we actually inhabit. While I would like to work toward a libertarian future and the emergence of a more libertarian mindset among my fellow man, I must admit that we do not live in a libertarian present. And that means tempering my enthusiasm for hypothetical libertarian solutions with the cold water of reality. We all have to work within the system we inhabit. It is not enough that a policy moves in what we believe to be the right direction; it must be palatable enough to the men of the present or it will be jettisoned. So we can try to move society in the direction we'd like, but we can't avoid seeing it for what it is and reacting accordingly.

I'll get back to Jeffrey Tucker's completely unnecessary arrest. Mouthing off to a cop is just about the dumbest thing I can imagine. But to him, the dumbest thing he could imagine was being stopped on pain of violence by a vehicular predator intent on robbing him. Unfortunately, the world he lives in has vehicular predators with guns who rob you, and his failure to acknowledge this and develop techniques to deal with it cost him dearly. It's like non-government highway robbers. In the face of their existence, should a traveler of 150 years ago have expressed sincere outrage at their existence? Of course not; they should react in an appropriate matter, by practicing avoidance, sticking to safer routes, hiding valuables, hiring guards, carrying weapons, etc.

[Libertarian666]

All of these issues are addressed in the book I mentioned at the top of this thread. Really, it's much more efficient to read that and discuss the merits and flaws of the approach it outlines than to try to figure everything out from scratch.

It's also an excellent novel in its own right. Read it and see.

[Kshartle]

Thinking of non-violent solutions to problems that the government is currently attempting to solve is a great way to make the world better, move towards a better society and life....and possibly make a buck.

It's way more than academic in my opinion.

[doodle]

Thinking of non-violent solutions to problems that the government is currently attempting to solve is a great way to make the world better, move towards a better society and life....and possibly make a buck.

It's way more than academic in my opinion.

Not disagreeing. But, we are working in a very imperfect and unfair world and your solutions would seem to make our world even more imbalanced and unstable. If wealth disparity in society continues to grow its effects could destabilize everything. The immoral action of taxing certain wealthy individuals could serve a greater end which is to keep society from coming completely unglued. People seem to view wealth in a relative way. It isn't the fact that you are better off in an absolute sense which leads to contentment, it is how well off are you compared to your neighbors. Strict equality in the form of communism has been shown to be an ineffective way to structure society. However extreme inequality as we see in many of the worlds most unstable and revolutionary countries is an equally bad way. Some form of progressive taxation....moderate socialism if you will seems to work out very nicely. Yes, it might violate certain fundamental moral principles....but at the end of the day it seems to produce the overall greatest level of happiness. So, between following the moral principles that lead to extreme latin American style inequality and periodic revolutions or breaking the moral principles and having a more stable society....I would choose the later.

[doodle]

Now, I will add....if you take libertarianism and then temper it with a very strong social moral and religious framework which almost obligates those people who are blessed to contribute and donate back to the welfare of the community...this would probably be the ideal situation. Absent this overarching moral framework and in a culture that extols an "only the strong survive" type mentality as we do in America.....I don't think things work.

Historical communities in the United States looked very different than they do today. Whereas the rich today barricade themselves in gated communities and separate themselves as much as possible from the problems of the poor (save a few philanthropists) back in the day, if you were rich you were pretty much obligated to solve community problems and help people who had fallen on hard times. There wasn't anyone to physically force you to do this, but there was a tremendous amount of social pressure put on you to do this.

Maybe the rich would just prefer to pay their taxes and get on with their lives and have someone else deal with society's problems.

[Pointedstick]

Maybe the rich would just prefer to pay their taxes and get on with their lives and have someone else deal with society's problems.

A fascinating observation. Theory of comparative advantage and all... maybe the rich have simply decided that they're better at making money and outsourcing the charity makes more sense.

[doodle]

Maybe the rich would just prefer to pay their taxes and get on with their lives and have someone else deal with society's problems.

A fascinating observation. Theory of comparative advantage and all... maybe the rich have simply decided that they're better at making money and outsourcing the charity makes more sense.

The charity could be private as well. It doesn't have to be the government. Of course, this would require some embedded cultural moral that extolled the virtue of donating greatly in such a manner...otherwise, it has to be done through forced taxation (well not really in an MR world... ). If the rich Christians really took the message of Christ to heart, then we could probably eliminate government welfare programs and build a better society. Unfortunately, our cultural values recently seem to be more in line with what you see in any number of Hip Hop music videos.

[Kshartle]

The charity could be private as well. It doesn't have to be the government. Of course, this would require some embedded cultural moral that extolled the virtue of donating greatly in such a manner...otherwise, it has to be done through forced taxation (well not really in an MR world... ). If the rich Christians really took the message of Christ to heart, then we could probably eliminate government welfare programs and build a better society.

We probably shouldn't even bother with thread titles because the tangents can't be avoided (I'm guilty).

We don't still have people here making the case that welfare prevents or solves poverty in any way do we? Is that belief floating around?

[Xan]

If the rich Christians really took the message of Christ to heart, then we could probably eliminate government welfare programs

I think that's exactly backwards.  If we got rid of the government welfare programs, then it would allow rich people to take the message of Christ to heart and help people.

As it is now, government "care" is crowding out private charity.  Remember the private charity came first!  Suppose I'm a rich guy and I generally give 10% of my income to disabled/elderly so they can eat.  When one more comes to my door and asks for help, of course I'll give it to him.  What's one more?

Now suppose Government comes in, puts a gun in my face, and says we're TAKING that 10% to give to people who aren't working whether you like it or not!

When they come back and say "hey, it doesn't look like 10% is quite enough, maybe we should do more", then my reaction is going to be "not one more damn penny you flipping bastards".

Government "care" DESTROYS charity.  When it's forced and not voluntary, then it's not charity.  Rather than giving people an opportunity to take the message of Christ to heart and give to people of their own free will, we are taking money from them by force.  It's a shame.

i think Americans (and Christians) are in general pretty generous..
i wonder if its in part a situation where if government gets involved and takes money for welfare, it results in less charity than there would be otherwise, acting as an erosive force on the charitable nature of our society. why give if (according to popular understanding of taxes) you already have...

Maybe the rich would just prefer to pay their taxes and get on with their lives and have someone else deal with society's problems.

A fascinating observation. Theory of comparative advantage and all... maybe the rich have simply decided that they're better at making money and outsourcing the charity makes more sense.

if the rich are rich because they are skilled at getting the best return on a dollar invested or put to work, why would they abdicate charity to government to get a questionable results for the money put in. i would think free market would also be beneficial to getting results for problems of poverty

[Kshartle]

Unfortunately, the world he lives in has vehicular predators with guns who rob you, and his failure to acknowledge this and develop techniques to deal with it cost him dearly. It's like non-government highway robbers. In the face of their existence, should a traveler of 150 years ago have expressed sincere outrage at their existence? Of course not; they should react in an appropriate matter, by practicing avoidance, sticking to safer routes, hiding valuables, hiring guards, carrying weapons, etc.

How do we avoid the police, hide our valuables from them, hire guards against them, use weapons against them?

We don't and can't. Expressing outrage and pointing out the highway robbery is the only long-term solution. The police role of highway robbery is accepted, celebrated, damn near worshipped by some.

What you're saying is the smart thing to do is for everyone to just act like a slave forever. This is not a solution to anything.

It might be the purely rationale thing for any individual to do yes, particularly when given the choice of behaving like a good slave or going into a cage. Bowing down forever and not pointing out the obvious theft just dooms all the future generations to the slavery.

[moda0306]

If the rich Christians really took the message of Christ to heart, then we could probably eliminate government welfare programs

I think that's exactly backwards.  If we got rid of the government welfare programs, then it would allow rich people to take the message of Christ to heart and help people.

As it is now, government "care" is crowding out private charity.  Remember the private charity came first!  Suppose I'm a rich guy and I generally give 10% of my income to disabled/elderly so they can eat.  When one more comes to my door and asks for help, of course I'll give it to him.  What's one more?

Now suppose Government comes in, puts a gun in my face, and says we're TAKING that 10% to give to people who aren't working whether you like it or not!

When they come back and say "hey, it doesn't look like 10% is quite enough, maybe we should do more", then my reaction is going to be "not one more damn penny you flipping bastards".

Government "care" DESTROYS charity.  When it's forced and not voluntary, then it's not charity.  Rather than giving people an opportunity to take the message of Christ to heart and give to people of their own free will, we are taking money from them by force.  It's a shame.

It's not charity any less to claim resources as your own to be processed for a profit, and then charge those who were plundered (or those simply with nothing) for full value of those resources and take a full profit.

Withholding vital resources for someone else's labor is force... it just doesn't feel like it to the plunderer.

[Pointedstick]

How do we avoid the police, hide our valuables from them, hire guards against them, use weapons against them?

We don't and can't. Expressing outrage and pointing out the highway robbery is the only long-term solution. The police role of highway robbery is accepted, celebrated, damn near worshipped by some.

What you're saying is the smart thing to do is for everyone to just act like a slave forever. This is not a solution to anything.

It might be the purely rationale thing for any individual to do yes, particularly when given the choice of behaving like a good slave or going into a cage. Bowing down forever and not pointing out the obvious theft just dooms all the future generations to the slavery.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Excessive dogmatism about it can cause excessive negativity and predispose you to unwise courses of action. No, I'm not saying we should shoot the police or stand up to them, or any of that. Active like a slave to any individual officer is simply a way of removing yourself from the situation quickly and efficiently. I'm not trying to offer a solution to all of society. Just offering advice to the individual who wants to live a trouble-free life. Perhaps is is cowardly of me to not want to be a martyr and die on the cross of exposing the police for the thuggish oppressors they really are. But if that's the case, the vast majority of us are cowards.

All I'm saying is that despite the fact that the police exist and hurt people, you can avoid their danger. If you don't exceed the speed limit, smoke pot in public, dress like a hoodlum, or associate with shady characters, you'll probably rarely or never encounter them at all.

[doodle]

Well, the rich Christians didn't seem to have much of an issue enslaving people for hundreds of years...I'm not targeting Christianity as such, but religion has shown itself to be just another instrument if power over the millenia. Simply saying that if one were to remove the government from the role of taking care of those on societies fringes that all of the sudden there would be an outpouring of charity from religious groups is a bit over zealous. South America has a large and pious catholic population and there is enormously shocking wealth disparity in many countries.

We don't live in small communities with close interpersonal ties anymore. We live in giant impersonal industrial cities....this changes things. In addition, we have created a very strong capitalist narrative that praises to no end the capable and powerful among us. When was the last time you saw a rap video talking about how the meek are blessed and shall inherit the earth?

[Kshartle]

All I'm saying is that despite the fact that the police exist and hurt people, you can avoid their danger. If you don't exceed the speed limit, smoke pot in public, dress like a hoodlum, or associate with shady characters, you'll probably rarely or never encounter them at all.

Agreed. You are right this is not a solution to a..let's call it societal problem though.

[doodle]

Perhaps is is cowardly of me to not want to be a martyr and die on the cross of exposing the police for the thuggish oppressors they really are.

Thuggish oppressors to some and saviours to others. I don't want to intervene in a lot of the types of situations that we expect our police to rush into.....like a few weeks ago when there was a wild man on drugs in the park by my house walking around with a knife in a menacing manner.