[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

[Kelly Anderson]

2011/5/11 Mr Jones <mrjones2020 at gmail.com>:
>> I agree with this, except for the "as a whole" part. I think there are
>> enough generous people, at least in a country like America, to care
>> for the truly indigent.
>
> I would love to think that's true.  And if I knew it to be true, I'd be all
> for govt being shrunk beyond belief.  But that'd require more than just
> meals/shelter for the indigent.  We'd still need roads, water, etc.

Large terrestrial transportation construction projects have almost
always been built primarily with public funds. Recently, they have
become a public/private partnership in many cases. The private parts
seem to be funded by private individuals who buy state bonds, but I
haven't done a lot of research on that aspect. I think that's because
of the difficulty in raising enough private capital for such
endeavors, and the associated risks. If the government did not build
road and dams and such, you can bet that such capital would be found
where it makes sense. For example, most of the buildings constructed
in large cities are not publicly funded. Great works like the
Manhattan skyline show what private capital can accomplish. I'm sure
that over time, more of the great buildings have had some government
involvement, but in general it's been private. The Empire State
Building was completed with private funds during the depression.

Interesting how airports are largely funded by the government, but
airplanes are not. Highways, but not cars. Funny how artificial this
model is. I appreciate the ingenuity of the model that says the
government owns the cars too, (or at least the batteries) like the
electric car approach they are trying in Iceland and Israel.

To get there from here, I think it would be pretty easy for the
government to sell water companies, roads, etc. to private
corporations. You could just as easily collect road use fees at the
gas pump for a  corporation as for a government, so it doesn't change
everything to a toll road. Given the current infrastructure deficit
and the national debt, selling off these public infrastructures would
be a good way to recover some sense of financial reality.

One of the excuses used against libertarian thought is, "it is a
natural monopoly, and we can't expect private industry to act
responsibly with monopolistic power." I would say the government does
no better with such systems because of the lack of checks and
balances. If it were a corporation with government oversight, then at
least there are two members involved in checks and balances.

>> The problem with government is you end up with
>> a program like Food Stamps that now serves 35 million people (12% of
>> the population). These are not all indigent. I know, I was on Food
>> Stamps myself for a while and I was by no means indigent at the time.
>> I just qualified for the program. I'm pretty sure I would qualify now.
>> I am not indigent, but I could steal money from all of you (at least
>> the Americans who pay taxes) by going down and applying.
>
> In order to qualify for foodstamps, you've got to have a fairly minimal
> income.  A 4 person family (2 adults/2kids) has to have an income under
> something like $36k/yr to qualify (not certain, but I'm fairly close I
> believe).  That's a pretty low income.  Unless you're living in some crime
> ridden inner-city, with horribly performing school systems, you'd have a
> hard time getting by.  Is this really how we should expect our families to
> live?

I know lots of people on food stamps that live with their parents in
$500,000 homes. It's easy to game the system. I don't begrudge the
people who take food stamps. My disgust is at the government that
keeps people like that from having true opportunity by overtaxing the
capitalists that could employ them if they were allowed to do so
competitively. The corporate tax structure in America is a crime.
Today, I heard the number 46 million people on food stamps. If using
food stamps were a disease, then this would truly be an epidemic.

>> I'm not familiar with Glencore, but I probably would not like what
>> they are doing. If you have an article to read or something, I'd be
>> glad to comment further.
>
> http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/20115723149852120.html

Apparently, aljazeera doesn't have a very responsive web server; or
the CIA is blocking access...  ;-)
I'm sure it is a fair and balanced story. I'll try again later...

Ok, MUCH later... if Glencore is doing insider trading, then they
should be punished for that. Sounds like that is something they have
been involved with, so they should be spanked for that. Being aided
and abetted by the United Nations in the food for oil fiasco, well, it
did say in the article that '"There will always be allegations that
they [Glencore] are dealing with some unsavory folks," said Chris
Hinde from Mining Journal magazine.' I suppose they were talking about
the UN there. ;-)

But markets such as Glencore are absolutely necessary. Not having
markets is VERY bad. Much worse than having people like Glencore bend
and break rules from time to time.

Please watch this very impressive TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/elene_gabre_madhin_on_ethiopian_economics.html

>> > Govt provides a kind of balancing against the power of capital (at least
>> > it's supposed to, when working properly).  What we've witnessed the past
>> > few'ish decades, is what happens when capital rules the roost
>> > semi-unchecked.  De-regulation hands the keys to the inmates.  On the
>> > other
>> > hand, micro-managed regulation mucks things up too; as always there's a
>> > balance to be found.
>>
>> Of course, there is balance. But to say that there are only two
>> players, government and corporations, in the game is disingenuous.
>
> Fair enough, there are other players.  To think that churches, and lobbyists
> (who lobbies for the poor, honestly, who can they afford?), non-profits etc
> can take care of the massive amount of underprivileged out there
> is disingenuous.  Even WITH the MILLIONS if not BILLIONS the govt throws
> towards the poor....they're still poor.  You mean to tell me, that if Uncle
> Sam didn't take a few bucks out of each check...all of a sudden these NGOs,
> and non-profits would miraculously be able to take care of everyone in need?
>  I don't buy it.  Granted I'm a cynic.

What I'm saying is that if taxes were reduced, and government programs
were also reduced, that there would be an increase in charitable
giving. It would probably not be AS MUCH, but the money given would be
used MORE EFFICIENTLY, producing a similar or better outcome for the
world's poor.

Programs like the Grameen bank have done much more with much less.
Some Africans believe that aid is the CAUSE of their difficulties.
Some say Africa has come a long way. I think they could have
progressed further and faster without the direct aid. That's not to
say that they should not have help. The need to access capital is
absolutely necessary for entrepreneurial based growth.

Again, TED has a number of good talks along these lines.

>> There are a lot more players than that, including lobbyists, churches,
>> NGOs, non-profits, charities, professional organizations, unions, etc.
>
> It's funny you mention unions.  Seeing as big $$$'d interests are trying to
> tear apart any union they can across the land.  Unions lead to a strong
> middle class.  Something which I'm fully in support of; as the middle class
> goes, so goes the country.  $$$'d interests however, would have us cut off
> our nose, to spite our face (starve out the middle class, to increase q1, 2,
> 3, and 4 profits).  Currently in Ohio, there's rumor that the major
> contractors in town (Few big boys, lil' guys starved out by big guys as of
> past decade or so) are going to try and get $8/hr back from the Union
> Carpenters.  $16k/yr they want to take from these guys.  They're living in
> 25k sq/ft homes, driving 150k porsches....and they want 16k/yr from the
> pockets of the guys who broke their backs to get them that porsche/mansion.

Perhaps unions had their legitimate place in history, but mostly they
have been a front for socialist and communist agendas. Where they have
benefited the workers' short term interests, they have often fought
against their long term interests. By, for example, encouraging the
factory owners to move their production overseas or to non-union
places. As for building the middle class, here in Utah, we have a very
healthy middle class, thank you very much, with very few unions. I
don't think unions have had a lot to do with it, more likely just
overall economic growth.

> Again, I'm not a hater of the rich, I'm a hater of the poor (hate they even
> exist in this day and age).  I don't mind someone with $$$ making much more
> off of a group of individuals he pays well.  But pigs get fat, hogs get
> slaughtered.  When is enough truly enough?  Does one need enough to support
> 100 families to feel satisfied?  1000?  1 million?

Let's do a mind experiment. What should happen in your utopian society
when someone gets up one morning and decides that they want to become
an expert couch potato? Should society support their television habit?
Do they have an obligation to work at all? What is the remedy when
they don't work? Obviously, it isn't starvation.

I believe that we need more rich people. Obscenely rich people. And
while I personally would not be happy with more than about 30 million
dollars, I was happier when I wasn't broke.

>> All of these play a part, and I argue that some of them should play a
>> much bigger part than they do today.
>
> If the part they play, is up to the challenge at hand, by all means.  I
> don't care who's putting food in the mouthes, or clothes on the back...

As long as it's not from the sweat of your own brow... It is theft.
Plain and simple.

>> And government should play a
>> smaller part, for sure.
>
> Govt as of late (past few+ decades) has been a joke, I agree.  They don't
> need to be in every aspect of our life.  I'm no govt fan-boy I assure you.

Could have fooled me... ;-)

>  But less than I trust govt...I trust big $$$.  I'd love to think my fellow
> humans were empathic and forward-thinking enough to take care of one
> another...but that just isn't the case.

How many rich individuals do you know personally?

> And while I don't think we're all created equal, I do believe we all deserve
> an equal chance to do something with our life.

Just a second there big guy? Do you want an equal opportunity
(capitalism) or an equal outcome (socialism)?

There is a huge difference between these two world views. And just
what constitutes an "opportunity"? Do you have to have a government
provided college education? A government provided job? Research lab?
Where do you draw the line?

>Until we provide that equal
> opportunity, I'll be unhappy with the way things are.  I realize this means
> zero, but can't shake the fact that we're all standing on the shoulder of
> giants, and as such, should offer everyone else the opportunity to check out
> the view.  </idealistic rant>   ;)

In my opinion, a true libertarian society would give more people that
chance. Would there be more rich people too? You bet! That's how you
keep poor people from being so poor.

-Kelly