social issues & the free market

[Jack V Savage]

So, ancient Rome didn't have the concept of private property? And what's the point of currency if you cannot buy or sell more or less freely? And currency is ancient in concept and exists even in places/societies that didn't have strong central government.

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

Even in BC the idea of private property was common.

Again, it depends. Ancient Rome had *a* concept of private property, but a significantly different one from the "free market" that we think of now. The point is that our conception of property rights has never existed and cannot exist without a strong state. If you look at places with no state or a very weak one, you don't see anything like modern property rights.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We rarely agree. But this is one of those times. As corrupt as the financial agencies have been lately, due in part from government acquiescence, they'd be much worse if there were no regulations. Who actually, is asking for anarchy though?

There are anarchists on the far left. They don't advocate modern property rights, though, as that is completely incompatible with support for no or small gov't.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

That's my point. Who are you addressing with that post? I haven't seen 1 person advocate for some 100% free market fantasy.

Yet you're like the fourth poster who's pretending someone did. It's just really strange. You know, cult like.

Except you have people talking in here about the exact thing youre disagreeing with...

People are saying in a free market things would self regulate and that's not the truth.. The financial sector is the perfect example of thugs in suits and ties.. Theyre all cheats and liars.

 

[ben236]

There are anarchists on the far left. They don't advocate modern property rights, though, as that is completely incompatible with support for no or small gov't.

I think you're confused as to what libertarians mean when they say "small government."

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think you're confused as to what libertarians refer to when they say "small government."

No, I know exactly what they refer to when they say small gov't. I'm saying that it's not small gov't at all, but more of an occupying force model, where the gov't's purpose is to protect the opulent minority from everyone else.

 

[ben236]

No, I know exactly what they refer to when they say small gov't. I'm saying that it's not small gov't at all, but more of an occupying force model, where the gov't's purpose is to protect the opulent minority from everyone else.

It's not small gov't compared to what? It's pretty obvious that the size of the government that libertarians advocate for is much smaller than what it is currently in most places.

 

[OldGoat]

There are anarchists on the far left. They don't advocate modern property rights, though, as that is completely incompatible with support for no or small gov't.

Depends on what you mean by small government. It's not a given that small government is equivalent to no property rights.

 

[dza76wutang]

Except you have people talking in here about the exact thing youre disagreeing with...

People are saying in a free market things would self regulate and that's not the truth.. The financial sector is the perfect example of thugs in suits and ties.. Theyre all cheats and liars.

1.) "All" is a bit aggressive, no?
2.) The issue is incentives and regulations. There is nothing inherently good or bad about Finance, it's just a mechanism to move resources around, typically through monetary devices.

If you want to change any behavior you need to either add regulation or change the incentives.

I don't think the free market would, on its own, cure all of society's ills. A bit of regulation, a bit of tax and redistribute, nothing overbearing but there is no reason for a nation as wealthy as ours to allow people to go without food, clothing, or shelter.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's not small gov't compared to what? It's pretty obvious that the size of the government that libertarians advocate for is much smaller than what it is currently in most places.

Once you take the huge leap to having gov't-enforced property rights, it all comes out in the wash. A better description of what libertarians want than "small gov't" would be "less democratic gov't." Their object isn't to have gov'ts have less power, but for gov't power to be directed less toward the desires of the population as a whole.

Depends on what you mean by small government. It's not a given that small government is equivalent to no property rights.

Yes, of course it depends what you mean. You can mean actual small gov't or you can mean gov't that just basically acts as a protective force for the rich.

 

[ben236]

Once you take the huge leap to having gov't-enforced property rights, it all comes out in the wash.

In what way?

 

[OldGoat]

Once you take the huge leap to having gov't-enforced property rights, it all comes out in the wash. A better description of what libertarians want than "small gov't" would be "less democratic gov't." Their object isn't to have gov'ts have less power, but for gov't power to be directed less toward the desires of the population as a whole.



Yes, of course it depends what you mean. You can mean actual small gov't or you can mean gov't that just basically acts as a protective force for the rich.

A) It's not really a huge leap.

B) Democratic is not equivalent to good. A pure unconstrained democracy has no inherent problem with slavery for example. It helps to constrain any government, even democratic ones, with the concept of intrinsic human rights. Including the right to ones labor and property rights.

 

[Jack V Savage]

In what way?

A gov't that enforces property rights and does a little to balance that out isn't in any real sense bigger than one that enforces property rights and doesn't balance it out.

A) It's not really a huge leap.

B) Democratic is not equivalent to good. A pure unconstrained democracy has no inherent problem with slavery for example. It helps to constrain any government, even democratic ones, with the concept of intrinsic human rights. Including the right to ones labor and property rights.

A) It really is a huge leap. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise, whether you think capitalism is good (if so, having it has to be a significant change) or not.

B) So what? Who said that democratic is equivalent to good? Anyone?

 

[m52nickerson]

I think if the government subsidizes the basic research into better solar and wind technologies then business will start selling them when the price becomes competitive with fossil fuels. Likewise, if carbon emissions are ruled to be harmful then the government could tax them as a negative externality and drive up the price of fossil fuel prices to where they're competitive with renewables. Or in the long term there will be less oil and gas, prices will rise, and solar and wind will be price competitive. None of those scenarios require the government to pick winners and losers and all allow free markets to do what they do best, namely find cheap solutions when governed by constraints. Besides, it's not like fossil fuel price will collapse all at once, I don't think gradual rises are going to cause market panic.

How is that not picking again? If government does the research they get to pick what area to do it in, which saves industry time and money but only those whom are in those areas. Taxing fossil fuels to let alternative power sources be competitive does not pick a winner, but it prevents the alternative from losing, it would also cut into fossil's profits.


I don't see a gradual rise in fossil fuels. Right now the markets freak out over small issues. Imagine if even 10% of the largest oil fields suddenly stopped producing meaningful amounts.

 

[ben236]

A gov't that enforces property rights and does a little to balance that out isn't in any real sense bigger than one that enforces property rights and doesn't balance it out.

This again, is a pretty vague response. "Balance it out" it what way?

 

[Calmete]

Except you have people talking in here about the exact thing youre disagreeing with...

People are saying in a free market things would self regulate and that's not the truth.. The financial sector is the perfect example of thugs in suits and ties.. Theyre all cheats and liars.

Ok, can you tell me who is advocating for no oversight over the free market?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

It should protect property rights. Not decide who gets to own the damn property.

You're under the delusion that property rights are antecedent to the rules established by governments. Property rights are the rules established by governments.

If you can't see the difference between a government protecting a man's property and a government deciding who gets to own what property, then I'm afraid, there's not much more I could say to you.

If it's not the government that determines who owns what, who does?

 

[Uchi Mata]

How is that not picking again? If government does the research they get to pick what area to do it in, which saves industry time and money but only those whom are in those areas. Taxing fossil fuels to let alternative power sources be competitive does not pick a winner, but it prevents the alternative from losing, it would also cut into fossil's profits.


I don't see a gradual rise in fossil fuels. Right now the markets freak out over small issues. Imagine if even 10% of the largest oil fields suddenly stopped producing meaningful amounts.

It's not picking because the government does research in many areas, they should just do more across the board. We don't really know what the next energy source will be; maybe research into small scale nuclear has a breakthrough. Maybe we learn how to generate energy from algae. My point is that if you just throw all your money at one industry you're picking a champion without giving other areas a chance to emerge, and people are really bad at predicting what the world will look like and what technological advancement will have occurred even 25 years in the future.

And oil fields don't really just 'stop producing'. Geologists and petrol engineers generally have a pretty good idea how much oil is available, and new technologies are still being created to drill deeper and unlock more resources. I don't really see a reason that progress would stop in the near future. This is not to say that oil won't be harder to get and more expensive in the future, just that it's unlikely to fall off a cliff in terms of production and leave humanity hanging.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This again, is a pretty vague response. "Balance it out" it what way?

Safety net, policies to encourage opportunity, progressive taxation, etc. Was that really not clear?

 

[ben236]

Safety net, policies to encourage opportunity, progressive taxation, etc. Was that really not clear?

A safety net could potentially be done in a small government format (or at least much smaller than now) if it were completely done in the form of tax rebates, though that's not how it's done virtually anywhere in the first world because the safety nets extend well beyond that and requires a lot of bureaucracy to run. Technically speaking though, size of government is often measured through spending and social programs do contribute to that.

I never considered the tax format to have anything to do with big or small government whether you use progressive or flat tax. You can still have a flat tax with big government and vice versa. It's just a means for collecting revenue either way.

"Policies to encourage opportunity" is once again really vague.

 

[Jack V Savage]

A safety net could potentially be done in a small government format (or at least much smaller than now) if it were completely done in the form of tax rebates, though that's not how it's done virtually anywhere in the first world because the safety nets extend well beyond that and requires a lot of bureaucracy to run. Technically speaking though, size of government is often measured through spending and social programs do contribute to that.

I never considered the tax format to have anything to do with big or small government whether you use progressive or flat tax. You can still have a flat tax with big government and vice versa. It's just a means for collecting revenue either way.

"Policies to encourage opportunity" is once again really vague.

I find you to generally be a waste of time, but I will remember that "size of gov't" just refers to spending (i.e., that it has nothing to do with gov't reach) in your view.