Public vs. Private
In a critique of Obama's inaugural address, John Cohen writes:
To suggest that anyone who'd like to see less heavy-handed government regulation thinks one person can do everything alone is a straw-man argument. It indicates a lack of understanding of how the private-sector economy works and how libertarians or conservatives actually think about economics. The private sector isn't just a bunch of people "acting alone." As Matt Welch pointed out in his critique of the speech, making and selling an object as basic as a pencil is such a complex endeavor that it takes lots of different specialists. No one person has the knowledge to accomplish that seemingly simple task; that's how decentralized knowledge is in society. And with a truly complex product, like a computer or movie, the need for people to work together is even greater still. The private sector isn't fundamentally about everyone being secluded and isolated from each other; it typically involves many people working together.
With markets and private enterprise, cooperation occurs voluntarily, for mutual gain. With government, "cooperation" occurs at the point of a gun, via coercion, generally solely to improve the interests of some third party who has clout with the political class.
You can pick Singapore but did you know they have a payroll tax about twice ours and it includes universal health care, subsidies for low income, social security as well as money for buying a house? You own the fund but the govt approves what you can spend it for.
that's pretty "un-libertarian", top-down, centrally-controlled - would you not agree?
really? well I've been asking Mesa to name a few and all I get is infantile name-calling. So you're calling CUBA a libertarian country? How about some others you think are that way?
are the only "Libertarian" countries totalitarian or are there some representative govt countries that are Libertarian?
it started out wild - no law west of Dodge, no God west of Pecos... etc.
most towns out west are collectively run by people who decide how services are to be provided and whether or not a private company can provide it. In fact, most towns, any private company has to get permission to provide services.... and usually are regulated .... even public-private has the govt in charge, right?
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
The amount of economic restrictions in Singapore and Hong Kong pales in comparison to anything in the West currently. This disparity continues to widen.
The size of the welfare/safety net state is miniscule compared to ours. Your scale is incorrect.
Wow is your reading comp horrendous, imbecile.
Marque said that what few totalitarian countries are expanding are doing so, precisely because they are adopting more libertarian/free market ideas, which refutes your assertions.
Idiot.
did Heritage tell you this:
"
Medisave
Medisave is a compulsory medical savings scheme with funds available to meet a portion of future personal or immediate family’s hospitalisation, day surgery and certain outpatient expenses.
Medisave is a subset of the mandatory Government pension scheme (the Central Provident Fund or CPF) to which a total of 33 per cent of wages is contributed (comprising 13 per cent employer contributions and 20 per cent employee contributions) to individual accounts to fund retirement and health related expenditure. Of the 33 per cent contribution, around 6 per cent to 8 per cent (depending on age) is credited to the employee’s Medisave account. In practice, Medisave covers approximately 85 per cent of Singapore’s population."
http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/healthcare/render2.asp?ID=13850
is this what you and Heritage call "libertarian"?
Correct Larry, that’s not pure libertarian, but it is 1 aspect of a much freer economy than ours, and Europe’s.
And it ignores the fact it will likely fail in some manner, if not entirely (all collectivist healthcare systems have failed or are failing). Just because it exists doesn’t mean it works, or won’t fail.
(It will likely survive longer than Medicare since Singapore has far superior growth than the US, see earlier discussion for reasons)
The larger picture which you miss entirely is that the clear historical trend and evidence in front of your imperceptive face is the failure of economic interventionism and collectivism, and the growth of free market economics in developing countries.
wait! Is Singapore a Libertarian type govt or not? You brought it up citing it as a good example then you turn around and say they are doomed to fail... and oh-by-the-way the "bigger picture" is blah blah blah...
geeze Meso... certainly you should agree that Singapore, if nothing else, is a classic centrally-planned, top-down, heavy-tax, entitlement-laden nation.
right?
but you still think they are better ...at least for a while.. until they "fail" because of their big govt flaws?
this is getting downright comical boy.
What's the 2nd most Libertarian-Lite country on your list?
Do you really have any countries that are not centrally-controlled, top-down?
see this has been my problem all along. I would actually like to see some countries that practice Libertarian principles... and I'm sure there must be some...right? - but I doubt seriously that Singapore is one of them. I heard that you can get the death penalty there for
possession of a gun. wrong?
All you can see are the things that reinforce your preconceptions. Count your liberties and open your mind to concepts you've never given much thought to!
Hapless and willfully ignorant. A sad combination.
Said the blind man....
Larry, as I said above, you are clueless.
Singapore doesn't have Doddering-Frank; they don't have Obamascare; they don't have Sarbanes-Oxley; they don't have the Clayton or Sherman Acts; they don't have the Securities Acts of 1933, 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, and subsequent additions; they don't have interstate commerce restrictions, and they don't have imbeciles like you to compare apples and oranges.
You are so far deluded that you don't even understand the playing field, much less where it is located.
Cuba is moving in the libertarian direction, because the Progressive utopia was not working out.
He does change the subject or argue on the margins when you whack a hammer to the center of his argument.
Not sure what he is trying to gain by being purposely obtuse.
He is a leftist.
He is de jure obtuse.
Insipid jackass, they don’t have this
http://www.cfpb-lawblog.com/Regulators-Are-Only-Half-Way-Done-Compiling-With-Dodd-Frank
Or this,
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/obamas-consumer-finance-agency-just-handed-down-3000-pages-of-new-mortgage-lending-rules-now-a-lesson-on-unintended-consequences/
Which causes this
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/13/morning-bell-obamas-new-regulations-cost-billions/
Now sit down, shut the fuck up already, and pay attention, sniveling rat-faced git.
The U.S.S.R. was "developed"!? :|
That was a developing economy growth. China has grown in statist/fiat-currency economy.
Only for the most part the term "cowboy" was literal - you worked on a ranch tending to cattle for a pittance and not some gun-toting hero.
I s'pose the rejoinder is that those associations were voluntary community services as opposed to a government run police force hence was Libertarian.
There's an interesting hypothesis that "The Simpsons" is the prime reason nuclear power has been viewed as dangerous for the past 20+ years. When the series official started in Dec.1989 the Chernobyl incident was still fresh in peoples' minds.
Larry, you do not seem to comprehend what is being said here. I do not know of anyone who says that the government does not have a role to play in the economy. The primary roles are protection of private property, the rule of law, and enabling the market system to function. The founders of the United States, who were strong believers of limited government, endorsed these roles of the government and enshrined them in the Constitution.
What is commonly known as infrastructure (most roads and bridges, criminal justice program -- and national defense) have the free rider issue, and it is in the constitutional role of government to insure that we have these to promote the operation of the market system. (Incidentally, with advances in technology, there are ways now for providers of many roads to charge for their use. However, I do not anticipate this development in my lifetime.) As countless examples around the world illustrate, if the government does not play its role of private property protection and the rule of law, then the country will not have the wealth to tax to build its infrastructure.
By the way, your illustration of fire protection illustrates your unfamiliarity with the real world. There are places in the U.S. where fire protection is provided by a fee. If you do not pay the fee, the fire department lets your house burn down, but does protect your neighbors' house if they have paid the fee.
The issue that is being discussed is that politicians are going far beyond infrastructure and are using coercion (the power of the gun) to give political favors to their supporters. In the market system, a transaction takes place when there is mutual gain. In the government system, I can force you to do what you do not want to do -- even if it is against your spiritual beliefs or against the best interest of your family -- if I have the poltical power. The government system becomes even more troubling when I hear things like "this will only negatively impact 2% of the populaton." Well, if we confiscate the property of wiccans, that would only affect .05% of the population. Government should not be used to turn one group of people on another group.
AnInquirer, all due respects I DO comprehend. I'm asking for more precision in what people say is Libertarianism in govt and for some real world country examples of it.
There are 34 OCED countries and they are defined as thus: "... founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade. It is a forum of countries committed to democracy and the free-market economy, "
I'd say that's a pretty simple statement and I look at these 34 countries to see how they conform to the Libertarian principles espoused here and it especially fits your view " ...if the government does not play its role of private property protection and the rule of law, then the country will not have the wealth to tax to build its infrastructure."
I'll put one more thing in the mix that is espoused by OCED countries -
Human Development Index, and index that encompasses these things:
* A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth
* Education index: Mean years of schooling and Expected years of schooling
* A decent standard of living: GNI per capita (PPP US$)
These countries believe that it is the job of government to provide the basis for these things.
and it is the primary distinction between OCED countries and 3rd world/developing countries.
so what I would advocate is a Libertarian Index to compare with the OCED/HDI index.
do the two reinforce each other ...or are they basically incompatible with each other?
re: on the bomb-throwing words like "confiscation". how about a Confiscation Index that goes into the Libertarian Index?
I'd like to see some firmer articulation of what Libertarianism is and is not - as opposed to hearing from every Tom, Dick and Harry what THEIR PERSONAL view is.
how about it?
To bring another perspective on banks. More than any other reason, the main cause of the 2008 financial crisis -- and subsequent recession -- was government policy and action on housing. If the banks go under, it is not their money that they lose; it is your money. And it is your paycheck that does not go through if the banking system collapses. The FED is charged by law to maintain stability in the banking system. So it does make sense for the FED to "bail out the banking system." Important note: Bailouts are not designed to save the owners of banks, they are designed to save depositors. Owners of banks lost huge portions of their wealth, while the wealth of depositors was essentially saved. Moreover, the bailout of banks will approach $80 billion in profit for taxpayers. The TARP funds used for auto unions and HARP are a different story, but the bailout of banks essentially solved a liquidity (cash flow) crisis in banks with huge profits for tax payers.
Here is a question on student loans. The government can borrow from China for 1 to 3% intrerest and lend those funds to students @ 5%. Should the government be involved in this profit-making activity?
TARP saved people's JOBS also. Most economists say those jobs would have been gone without the TARP; those are the same "depositors" you are talking about. Without the bank bailout and the TARP they would have lost their savings, their homes, their cars AND their jobs.
that's an area that people can agree or disagree on although I suspect most OCED countries see that kind of thing as a necessary function of govt - but I acknowledge the libertarians as a group do not.
re; borrowing from China to subsidize loans to students. What the govt is really doing is guaranteeing the loans made from banks, right, except perhaps for the tax credits although if not mistaken you don't get the credit for loans but you can write down the interest.
you will find that all of these things you speak of - the typical self-proclaimed Libertarian that frequents these and similar pages will oppose vehemently as "interference" from the govt.
King Crimson fan = dope smoker!
Larry, The government has changed student loans. Direct student loans are directly with the government. It was part of the Affordable Health Care Act -- a money making operation (in theory) for the government so that the bill's authors could say that the Act reduced the deficit. BTW, I am opposed to this action of the government. The interest rate on student loans is now political -- and a way that politicians can "buy" the votes of students and those with student loans. The political corruption in Direct Student loans is quite disgusting to me, but as long as the CBO assumes that students loans will be repaid (which is a questionable assumption in its degree), then the CBO will project a profit from this government enterprise. (Because the government cost of borrowing money is low, most government enterprises will be cheaper on paper; but the problems are numerous: decisions based on political power, undermining of private activity which normally would supply taxes for government operations . . . )
If libertarians participate in a discussion which covers the government role in causing the financial crisis and the legal obligation the FED has in the monetary system, I think that their hostility toward the bank part of TARP would be muted. In fact, some may be appalled at the government use of Mafia-type tactics that the government used in some cases in TARP.
Okay. I do taxes and am not familiar with the changes to student loans via the AHA. Would you have a link that shows it?
re: who permits student loans = not the POTUS, not the CBO, but Congress.
Larry: Thank you for citing Tombstone. That was a gang war, with both sides wearing government-issued badges.
actually it was not I.... but yes... sometimes ... the people that wanted law and order got more than they bargained for.... when they hired former outlaws to maintain law and order! ;-)
Here: The government by mandate made a rule that made student loans unprofitable for lenders, and then to save us from the evil lenders took over the whole program in 2010, and now is giving loans below market rates that we all have to subsidize now - in addition to just being a guarantor. And loan rates/obligations have been going down recently - not due to market interest rates, but to curry the votes of basement dwellers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_States#Federal_loans_to_students
geeze Marque2... I was looking for the part where the AHC act paid for them... and you are showing some bias here: " but to curry the votes of basement dwellers."
you realize of course that Congress is the one that sets the requirements and that these loans apply to virtually all students.
Are you saying that all students are "basement dwellers"?
I actually do not care for the student loan program myself but I think we need to be honest and truthful about the nature of it. We have way too much propaganda flying around these days and all kinds of assertions that simply are not true.
Troll = you
Are you stretching the issue again? And no - again I think most of the reductions during the campaign were done by executive order.
It is absolutely true that the government runs the system since 2010, because congress made the old system untenable, and took over the whole program to "save us" from congress did. And then rates were reduced, and payments reduced to curry favor.
You are just picking on the phrases I used to color my statements to make it less dull, and then claiming the whole thing is a lie.
Look at the wiki article. I am tired of your fraudulent argument techniques.
re: " Direct student loans are directly with the government. It was part of the Affordable Health Care Act -- a money making operation "
this is what YOU said - not me.
and THEN you said " but to curry the votes of basement dwellers." which is standard right wing blather ... these days. and implies that every single student is a 'basement dwelling".
nothing fraudulent at all in asking if the student loan program is related to the AHCA .. it did not sound right to me but if you could back it up..then i would accept. it. When i called you on it you say "tired of your fraudulent argument techniques'. WTF?
"Affordable Health Care Act " ??
When did I say that? I just referenced a Wiki article section which explained the whole thing.
Again - now you are ascribing fake facts to me. You must really feel like you are losing if you have to fake facts that other people stated.
I have in other threads said, that Like the Student loan program, it is quite possible that when Obamacare fails, the government will then have the opportunity to take over the entire healthcare system, to save us. Student loans was the template.
L8R
My apologies margue2 - it was here: " AnInquirer Larry, The government has changed student loans. Direct student loans are directly with the government. It was part of the Affordable Health Care Act -
but you DID say this: " but to curry the votes of basement dwellers." and it's legitimate to ask you
if you mean all the students that get loans? what did you mean by that?
I answered your questions above
BTW the person you were lambasting - and accused me of saying was basically right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010
I stand corrected. thank you for the reference.
Right on Kurt. Remember the "Big Dig" in Boston? Talk about crony insiders, unions, epa restrictions and inept regulators. This project took twice as long and cost twice as much. I can't wait till they are running my healthcare.
margue2, save your efforts. Larry is a committed, progressive, big gov'mint should do it all type.
Larry, what does the DNC pay you to monitor Libertarian blogs and post their claptrap?
Actually I support toll roads and property acquired willing-seller, willing-buyer but I do point out to folks that most of the roads we now enjoy for "free" were not acquired that way nor are they paid from from tolls but rather taxes.
I support parents paying for everything over and above basic core academic courses in public schools and I support private schools also.
I support the individual mandate where people have to set aside money for their retirement rather than end up needing government assistance.
I favor making Medicare priced to what it actually costs.
I could go on and on with this but the germane point is that i'm not hard right and I'm not a libertarian loony. I'm pragmatic and realistic about the role of government ESPECIALLY in a society that is governed by representative election.
no realistic individual can seriously think that water, sewer, electricity, and other utilities could be entirely privately built and operated without some means to go through property owned by others.
If we actually operated that way, we're be more like a third world country with water coming from wells, sewer in the streets and electric and telephone wires festooned from one house to another on 2x4s and whatever else people could jury-rig together.
the 'free market' does not provide this stuff in countries where there is limited or no government.
On the contrary - those countries are mostly economic basket-cases...with the "haves' living behind walls and venturing forth only with bodyguards... etc.
If Libertarianism was truly a viable approach, we'd see some real examples on it on a planet with more than 200 countries especially since everyone of those countries sprang up originally with little or not govt - ostensibly the best incubation for libertarianism.
Libertarianism is the economic/governance equivalent of Luddite thinking. Libertarianism is essentially incompatible with countries that have elected governance. The majority of people do not want it and that's how they vote. The only countries where Libertarianism has a theoretical chance is in 3rd world countries it would seem but in those countries where you do not have elective governance, you have dictators and strongmen and the countries under their rule don't seem to be exactly bastions of Libertarianism either, Right?
Larry, the Luddites are you and your fellow traveler regressives. You endorse failed economic philosophies and methods; we are attempting to alert you to your own blind and willful ignorance.
It is hysterical and incredibly unsettling from a popular governance perspective that you are so flagrantly stupid that you literally can’t see the evidence in front of your face that Keynesianism, and along with it
Regressivism, has completely failed.
Regressivism, as an adjunct of Keynesianism, is slightly more defensible in that it relies on government as competent actor, which has been historically disproved manifold, hence the accurate term "regressive," but a viable mechanism for failure nonetheless.
However, the economic evidence that Keynesianism doesn’t work is now complete. The stimuli failed. The economy is contracting. Our fiscal and monetary position is extremely precarious, and additional actions could literally cause worldwide implosion.
The only practitioners remaining are in (failed) academia, the Fed (most of them), and the Obamalini administration.
Economic Luddism is alive and well in the regressive movement, and is destroying not only the country, but the world now. For that, you should be very proud.
see if there were any countries that actually worked the way you folks say they should, you might have a leg to stand on but when none of the 200+ countries work that way- and the only ones that ever used to are long gone - but you cling to that philosophy - that's what's LUDDITE!
when you say "failed economic policies", you basically mean every single industrialized country in the world, right?
:-)
Larry, you are correct, prior to the enactment of the Securities Acts of 1799 and 1804, and HUD, Departments of Energy, Education, Homeland Security, Interior, and the rest in 1807, we had a very libertarian society. It hasn’t ever existed.
God, are you stupid.
so there are no Libertarian countries left in the world?
how many were there to start with?
Many.
That’s the fucking point, obtuse asshat.
The rise of the regressive “modern” state has led to 1) large bureaucracy, which has led to 2) economic stagnation, and failure.
Libertarian economies, when & where they have existed (early US, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.) always expand.
Large state interventionist economies have failed.
Q.E.D.
They put the first man in space, moron.
By any standard, they were developed.
Pay attention, dumbfuck.
How many collectivist economies have succeeded, ObtuseLarry?
If Libertarianism is superior to the "modern regressive state" how come they don't win out over the long run? Are you saying that all people everywhere pick wrong?