social issues & the free market

[djacobox372]

Charitable giving would have to be increased 5 fold to even come close to what government programs provide for the needy.

 

[ben236]

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.

Umm... I never said that. I said that spending is often used for measuring size of government. It's certainly not perfect (and I never said anything to the contrary), but it's at least an objective measure.

And TBF, spending is required in order for government reach to be enforced, so it's not like gov't spending and gov't reach are independent of one another.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Umm... I never said that. I said that spending is often used for measuring size of government. It's certainly not perfect (and I never said anything to the contrary), but it's at least an objective measure.

And TBF, spending is required in order for government reach to be enforced, so it's not like gov't spending and gov't reach are independent of one another.

The height of the Speaker of the House is also an "objective measure." Big deal. A lot of significant spending is not measured (like tax cuts/incentives, which have exactly the same effect as spending on all affected parties) so your "objective measure" is biased against spending to benefit the non-rich. That, I guess, is how unreflective libertarian types can believe that property is compatible with a minimalist gov't and that interventions to balance the effects of enforcing property claims are the actual intrusion.

 

[James Keith]

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.

All rights protect the minority from everyone else. All rights encoded into law are by definition "undemocratic" as you say.

People have an economic incentive to use the govt to take from others just a they have an economic incentive to rob those weaker than themselves, and for that matter a biological incentive to rape females. That doesn't mean these impulses counter the existence of the relevant rights. On the contrary they are human weakness that contradict those people's own personally held principles generally. For example people who rationalize taxing the rich by presuming they are thieves who probably stole their wealth.

You might well define a "principle" (the basis for rights) as a belief that is not derived from one's personal economic benefit. And clearly the principle of ownership vs stealing is universally-held, even if you want to quibble with whatever things your favorite libertarian defines as being "ownable".

 

[Jack V Savage]

All rights protect the minority from everyone else. All rights encoded into law are by definition "undemocratic" as you say.

Yes. That is understood. So, like I said, when right-wing libertarians say they want a "small gov't," they don't actually want a smaller gov't; they just, like other rightists, want one that is equally or more powerful but less-democratic.

 

[ben236]

The height of the Speaker of the House is also an "objective measure." Big deal. A lot of significant spending is not measured (like tax cuts/incentives, which have exactly the same effect as spending on all affected parties) so your "objective measure" is biased against spending to benefit the non-rich. That, I guess, is how unreflective libertarian types can believe that property is compatible with a minimalist gov't and that interventions to balance the effects of enforcing property claims are the actual intrusion.

That's true. As I said it is by no means a perfect measure. That being said, libertarians oppose subsidies and tax loopholes so I'm not sure why you're making it out to be something libertarians support.

 

[James Keith]

Yes. That is understood. So, like I said, when right-wing libertarians say they want a "small gov't," they don't actually want a smaller gov't; they just, like other rightists, want one that is equally or more powerful but less-democratic.

A govt that enforces principles that were universally-held would only be dealing with bad eggs and some subset of desperate people in extreme situations. A willingness to use a legal avenue to take from others (i.e. democracy) is quite a different thing from violating a law to steal directly from others.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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

Do you mean in this thread specifically? Or in general? Because, in general, it would be anarcho-capitalists. Here is the website of one of their primary gurus.

https://freedomainradio.com/

 

[Jack V Savage]

A govt that enforces principles that were universally-held would only be dealing with bad eggs and some subset of desperate people in extreme situations. A willingness to use a legal avenue to take from others (i.e. democracy) is quite a different thing from violating a law to steal directly from others.

Well, note that non-democratic gov'ts also use legal avenues to take from others. And anarchy also involves people taking from others. But, yeah, if everyone in society agreed on political issues, democracy would be superfluous. Some day, right?

 

[TeTe]

You will never have an absolute free market. Even free market proponents understand this.

However, government intervention should only occur when there is a failure of the system (ie. Collusion, monopolies etc.) and to protect property rights.

Otherwise they should stay the f*ck away from the markets.

I agree, that's why protecting the rights of consumers is okay in my book.

But pumping billions into failing banks and other businesses that should have failed is another story. The plan didn't even work, newly solvent banks aren't even lending money now. They took the handout to save their own asses and are sitting on it.

 

[EleazarI**]

2) if the gov took less of my taxes then I'd have more to give to charity.

but would one give to charity

 

[Calmete]

Do you mean in this thread specifically? Or in general? Because, in general, it would be anarcho-capitalists. Here is the website of one of their primary gurus.

https://freedomainradio.com/

So you're addressing random people at completely random websites and speaking in general terms.

Another words, you're completely full of shit.

 

[James Keith]

Well, note that non-democratic gov'ts also use legal avenues to take from others. And anarchy also involves people taking from others. But, yeah, if everyone in society agreed on political issues, democracy would be superfluous. Some day, right?

The smaller the govt and less it did, the more universally-accepted its minimal set of powers could be. Similarly if it was more local.

Anarchists also propose letting people choose from among competing institutions that provide govt-style services. So all left-wingers could join the welfare state system and let the rest of us opt out. Since I am told the wealthy and highly-intelligent are disproportionately liberal, whilst the percentage of people on welfare is a tiny part of our budget, you are set.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

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.

Of course finance, "on paper" has nothing inherently wrong with it, but it is a mechanism used to do bad things. To cheat people, lie to people and its often rewarded with large sums of money.

For instance, Goldman Sachs is a company that uses finance in very bad ways.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Do you mean in this thread specifically? Or in general? Because, in general, it would be anarcho-capitalists. Here is the website of one of their primary gurus.

https://freedomainradio.com/

Do you have any refutation for the arguments put forward by Mr. Molyneux?

If not, then calling him a "guru" is a poisoning-the-well tactic trying to discredit someone's position that you have no counter argument to.

 

[ultramanhyata]

So you're addressing random people at completely random websites and speaking in general terms.

Another words, you're completely full of shit.

I wasn't even engaged in that debate with you. I was just trying to educate you, given your repeated, though vague, pleas for clarity on the issue. My error was in GAF.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Do you have any refutation for the arguments put forward by Mr. Molyneux?

If not, then calling him a "guru" is a poisoning-the-well tactic trying to discredit someone's position that you have no counter argument to.

Primary guru/leader/exponent/apologist/etc. Whatever. Can you name a more prominent voice for anarcho-capitalism on the scene today?

(Word to the wise: Your out of left field hyper defensiveness does come off a bit culty.)

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Primary guru/leader/exponent/apologist/etc. Whatever. Can you name a more prominent voice for anarcho-capitalism on the scene today?

(Word to the wise: Your out of left field hyper defensiveness does come off a bit culty.)

So, no actual refutation of any arguments, got it. Just more insults like calling me "culty".

If any argument that Mr. Molyneux has put forward lacks rigor or logic, then point out that argument and explain why it's invalid. If you're unable to do this, then you really just have an emotional disliking of such ideas, but your objections have no bearing in reality.

I'm not really interested in defending Mr. Molyneux, he's a big boy and can defend himself. I'm showing that your disliking of the concept of "Free-Market Capitalism" is based on emotion and not first principals. If you could refute even one argument put forth by Mr. Molyneux, I would be happy to listen, but that seems unlikely at this point.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

So, no actual refutation of any arguments, got it. Just more insults like calling me "culty".

If any argument that Mr. Molyneux has put forward lacks rigor or logic, then point out that argument and explain why it's invalid. If you're unable to do this, then you really just have an emotional disliking of such ideas, but your objections have no bearing in reality.

I'm not really interested in defending Mr. Molyneux, he's a big boy and can defend himself. I'm showing that your disliking of the concept of "Free-Market Capitalism" is based on emotion and not first principals. If you could refute even one argument put forth by Mr. Molyneux, I would be happy to listen, but that seems unlikely at this point.

What are Molyneux's arguments? Can you summarise them?

 

[ultramanhyata]

So, no actual refutation of any arguments, got it. Just more insults like calling me "culty".

If any argument that Mr. Molyneux has put forward lacks rigor or logic, then point out that argument and explain why it's invalid. If you're unable to do this, then you really just have an emotional disliking of such ideas, but your objections have no bearing in reality.

I'm not really interested in defending Mr. Molyneux, he's a big boy and can defend himself. I'm showing that your disliking of the concept of "Free-Market Capitalism" is based on emotion and not first principals. If you could refute even one argument put forth by Mr. Molyneux, I would be happy to listen, but that seems unlikely at this point.

Recap:

I posted a link to the FDR site in reply to another poster asking if anyone was actually a proponent of the market, entirely absent a state.

I used the word "guru" (instead of... what now?) to indicate Molyneux's prominence in the A-C community.

Now I am being challenged on the basis that I did not, also, veer completely off topic and make this thread a debate over Molyneux's philosophy. WTF?

I'll amend my previous observation: Your vibe is now super culty.