Someone over at the Elhafnawy piece claims that left-libertarians exist because Bill Maher is one.
I told him that it takes more than wanting legalized dope to be a libertarian, and to respond here. I wonder if he’ll have the moxie?
61 thoughts on “An Idiotarian”
Comments are closed.
I hope he shows up. Since he hasn’t shown up yet, I browsed the web and found these links “http://leftlibertarian.org/what-is-left-libertarianism” and
“http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/12/left-libertarian-vs-right-libertarian.html”
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism”
Kind of interesting! The approach to immigration is one non-drug issue (one that makes sense to me) and the approach to corporations in another non-drug (& sex) issue (although I don’t understand their approach).
This site has an alternate take:
http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-left-libertarian.html
“[Right-Libertarians] defend major corporations as though they were market actors, forgetting that the business regulations and taxes they complain about function as privileges for big business against small firms and self-proprietorships.”
What about George Orwell, patron saint of anti-statism for a lot of libertarians, and a socialist? or Thomas Paine?
No, they’re not libertarians. At least I’ve never thought of them as such, and in thinking about it…no. There is no such thing as a libertarian socialist. It is an oxymoron.
“[Right-Libertarians] defend major corporations as though they were market actors, forgetting that the business regulations and taxes they complain about function as privileges for big business against small firms and self-proprietorships.”
No, they don’t. Not the smart ones.
If major corporations are market actors (e.g., as Microsoft was before the government went after it), they’re defended, but not if they’re paying off politicians to give them a non-market advantage. The notion that libertarians or free-market conservatives reflexively defend big business is a myth, easily debunked by reading a few issues of Reason Magazine.
Most ‘left-libertarians’ are anarcho-syndicalists who got tired of people sniggering at them & re-branded after the Spanish Civil War. I used to know one, and got tired of his crap during the last election.
Maher isn’t a left-libertarian. He’s just a typical village atheist, with the usual hedonistic self-indulgent affectations.
Well, here I am. Nice site by the way.
I have to start off by saying that you somewhat paraphrased me incorrectly. I did not say “that left-libertarians exist because Bill Maher is one.” I stated “I would argue that Bill Maher is a good example of a left-libertarian.” But to be honest, I should not have picked a fight about left-libertarians. After reading some of the links that Bob provided I found that I wasn’t to far off the mark though. Wiki states “Left-libertarianism combines the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally.” At first I thought this was indeed contradictory because if one has inherent self-ownership then shouldn’t that include the right to improve your life by any means so long as it doesn’t infringe on another individuals right to do the same? Then I realized that what that must mean is social freedom i.e. legalized drugs and prostitution etc.
I think that’s a legitimate interpretation, considering left-libertarianism seems more a meta-politics thing and not a coalition of people defining a platform.
As for Maher, I was incorrect to use him as an example for I see now he is not.
Glad you showed up, Chad. But I was actually more interested in some elaboration on this:
Starting, of course, with what you think are “left” and “center.”
Left-libertarianism combines the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally. At first I thought this was indeed contradictory
It’s not contradictory. It’s just that it can only exist at time equal to zero. As soon as you turn the clock on, and people start doing things, then they start working, and then you run into the contradiction, which is that people who supposedly have “self-ownership” can’t own the results of their own labor — because allowing that always leads to unequal onwership of “natural resources” — which means people effectively do not own their own labor.
So under a left-libertarian system, I can do “anything” as far as my self and my body goes and no one will interfere — provided that what I do creates no external value whatsoever. As soon as what I do change the world for the better, the rest of you assert an unlimited right to interfere.
So basically the “liberty” aspects of left-libertarianism only apply to a single moment, frozen in time. Or perhaps to an individual locked in a closet, who cannot affect anyone or anything else by what he does — he’s free to smoke dope in there! Or masturbate! Or shout slogans against the state!
Not a very interesting philosophy, practically speaking. Reminds me vaguely of solipsism or the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics. Sterile.
I’m not sure anyone could define the center short of some meaningless statement like “The center is the combination of conservative and liberal political worldviews.” Not sure if I want to go there in any specifics because the specifics are relative. For instance, during Clinton’s time in office the center would probably be looked at as to the left of what the center was under Bush. Would anyone agree with that?
When I said that about you Mr. Simberg, I should have added “generally” to the end there. I also should have added that I remember agreeing with you on some aspects of space policy.
I do believe your view and most other conservatives view of anything left-of-center in stale and narrow. For instance, one may care about the environment and be concerned about man made climate change without being and environmentalist or in favor of a carbon cap and trade policy. Or that all liberals are communists or socialists, or that liberals don’t want a strong military etc. etc. There are varying degrees of political worldviews. I know you know this but it’s just easier on blogs and especially comments on a news article to broad brush people and make a few obtuse comments. And yes I realize how easy it to accuse me of doing the same thing.
Carl Pham writes:
“So under a left-libertarian system, I can do “anything” as far as my self and my body goes and no one will interfere — provided that what I do creates no external value whatsoever. As soon as what I do change the world for the better, the rest of you assert an unlimited right to interfere.”
And how does necessarily differ from right-libertarianism? As soon as you start using inputs other than your own body, you start requiring the consent of the individuals that claim a property right to those inputs, and they assert an unlimited right to demand whatever price they like.
Of course, you can refuse to pay it, just as you can choose to emigrate from a left-libertarian state.
But it seems to me that the practical amount of liberty would depend on how property rights to land and natural resources were allocated under the status quo. If a small number of individuals ended up with most of the land (perhaps on the basis that their ancestors had stolen it from the original owners some time ago) you could end up with less liberty than if the same land was owned by a democratic government.
And how does necessarily differ from right-libertarianism? As soon as you start using inputs other than your own body, you start requiring the consent of the individuals that claim a property right to those inputs,
Geez you’re an idiot. You answered your own question in the next sentence. Weren’t you paying attention? It differs because I have to cut a deal with the individual owner of the input, as opposed to with the entire population of the world, or perhaps nation, if you LLs are OK with inequality between nations (my impression is that usually you’re not).
Why is it more efficient for me to negotiate with the owner of an input, rather than with 6 billion (or 300 million) of you? Hopefully that one’s pretty clear. Just in case it’s not, let me point out that the overwhelming majority of that 6 billion (or 300 million) are completely and utterly clueless about the proper value of the input, its relative scarcity or plentifulness, its burden on the environment, its possible substitutes, et cetera and so forth. How could you not? There’s no way every one of you can be perfectly educated on every conceivable input for every conceivable industry. So any majority decision by you is by definition the decision of a mob of ignoramuses.
Then again, in practise, of course, I wouldn’t negotiate with all of you. ‘d negotiate with a “people’s representative,” corrupt Congressman, bored and incompetent civil servant protected by union rules, People’s comissar, et cetera and so forth. Does that sound like a clean system? Think there’s just a little opportunity for corruption, for some to be “more equal” than others? Mmm. Consider history, fella, how things got done In The People’s Name in the USSR, Communist China, Chavez’ Venezuela, Mugabe’s Afrosocialist Zimbabwe.
and they assert an unlimited right to demand whatever price they like.
Yeah, well, they can demand all they want, but there’s this little equilibrium called supply and demand. If, as is almost always the case, there is someone else willing to supply what I want, then he and Mr. Unlimited Right get to compete for my money. The inevitable price war will result in me getting the input at close to the minimum cost each owner has to pay to provide it. That’s the way market economics has worked for millenia. This is well known, kindergarten stuff. Where the hell did you go to school? Borneo?
Furthermore, the crucial difference between my having to cut a deal with the owner of the input — or rather, with one of the many owners of equivalent inputs — and The People through their elected representative is that The People do have an unlimited power to set the price, whereas the individual owners do not. I can, vide supra, always buy from someone more reasonable if I only need to cut a deal with one among many owners. I have no such choice when I negotiate with The People’s representative, because there is no other supplier, there is no way to walk away and get what I want from someone more reasonable.
Sheesh. I can’t believe I’m even having this conversation in the 21st century. I feel like I’m explaining why the Earth is not flat.
Sheesh. I can’t believe I’m even having this conversation in the 21st century. I feel like I’m explaining why the Earth is not flat.
Pretty much defines the left. They’re economic flat-earthers.
“Pretty much defines the left. They’re economic flat-earthers.”
I knew I would find stupid comments like this on this site.
Just in case you didn’t know….
CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICY RUINED THE ECONOMY!
Is that because CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICY preceded in time the RUINED ECONOMY, Chad?
So we could equally well blame it on Obama’s election. Or on a conjunction — there must have been one — of the outer planets in 2008. Or on the Civil War!
Chad, with these most excellently creative thinking skills, unchained by any fussy insistence on logical consistency or empirical validation, let me advise you to go into finance, journalism, or government. Something creative. If you go into a field like, say, car engine repiar or lumberjacking or flying an airplane, you’ll probably kill yourself in short order.
CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICY RUINED THE ECONOMY!
Really?
Could you elaborate? We must have missed that.
Carl Pham:
You seem to be assuming that I personally consider myself a left-libertarian in general or the flavor that advocates common rights to natural resources in particular. I don’t. I’m just saying that left-libertarianism isn’t necessarily oxymoronic or self contradictory, although it can be, depending on the details and on your definition of left.
You also seem to be assuming that its advocates assume that left-libertarianism can and will be imposed worldwide. If you don’t have that, your government can’t collect arbitrarily large prices for your mineral resources because you can buy imported minerals insted.
Third, yes, the notion of common rights to natural resources could be implemented in an unpleasantly statist way. It could also be done as some variation of a Georgist tax on unimproved land value.
To the extent that such a tax replaces conventional taxes on labor or improved land value, you would be moving in a more libertarian direction as far as self ownership is concerned, because you are taxing the value of goods you personally didn’t create before you mingle your labor with their economic value.
You seem to be assuming that I personally consider myself a left-libertarian in general
You’re right, and I should not have. I’m sorry.
I’m just saying that left-libertarianism isn’t necessarily oxymoronic or self contradictory
Sure, okay. It just — as usual with collectivist utopian schemes — jams its head firmly up its own ass and grinds to a halt in a shower of shit and steel shavings as soon as you stop putting all your chess pieces (us) on the board and let real-world action commence. It’s an onanistic game for people with attention-deficit or socialization problems who find simulated World of Warcraft reality more convincing and interesting than actual reality.
You also seem to be assuming that its advocates assume that left-libertarianism can and will be imposed worldwide.
if the ethical principle here is that all natural resources are owned in equal shares by everyone, then you are either (1) racist, (2) cynical, or (3) antisocial if you believe that principle and do not attempt to extend its “benefits” to all mankind.
If you don’t have that, your government can’t collect arbitrarily large prices for your mineral resources because you can buy imported minerals insted.
You’ve forgotten about tariffs, I see. Sigh.
Third, yes, the notion of common rights to natural resources could be implemented in an unpleasantly statist way.
And in no other way, because it conflicts violently with the natural tendencies of human beings.
It could also be done as some variation of a Georgist tax on unimproved land value.
Well, first of all Henry George is a fruitcake, in his assertion that the value of land has zip to do with individual labor. There’s an Interstate by my house. I build a gas station and fast-food restaraunt, while my neighbor builds a cemetary. Which of our plots of land becomes worth more? But who cares, this is a digression.
Let’s just assume arguendo that you’re right, that we can ensure everyone now living has an equal share in the value of natural resources (undeveloped land, coal deposits, et cetera) presently unexploited and unowned.
Of course, as soon as we move forward in time, inequality develops, as people start trading their shares, and those more savvy in how they trade start to accumulate more of them, and those less competent start to lose them. Pretty soon, inequality develops, and we’re right back where we started. Plus, we’ve got lots of people who were born after the initial distribution who didn’t take place in the land grab rush, who have no shares at all.
Now what? Force everyone to put everything back in the pot, divide it up equally again? The permanent Revolution? Sounds like a direct route to economic chaos and the collapse of industrial civilization. We’ll be back to hunter-gatherers who only “own” what they can carry pretty soon.
Or do we face reality, give up on biannual re-redistribution, and just pay ourselves on the back because once in history, back in ’09, we all had equal shares. Ah, those were the days…
There is this basic problem with any “collective ownership” scheme. It fails to comprehend the fact that human beings are not identical. They are inherently unequal, and that will always produce inequality in income, success, happiness, et cetera and so forth. Even if any given collectivist redistributionist we-are-all-equal scheme succeeds perfectly, it will be promptly destroyed by the natural behaviour of human beings, unless that natural behaviour is brutally suppressed — unless we are all turned into complete slaves, no freedom at all.
Simple, Supply Side Economics. The idea that you can give a rich person a tax break and they will go out and open a factory or somthing. That concept is nonscense and has now in my opinion helped to cause the economic collapse. Can anyone still argue that Supply Side econ works better than Keynesian Econ? Conservative polititions and pundits are still persuing policies based on this concept.
The idea that you can give a rich person a tax break and they will go out and open a factory or somthing. That concept is nonscense and has now in my opinion helped to cause the economic collapse.
Thank you for your uninformed opinion. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how lower marginal tax rates resulted in the economic collapse (as opposed to, say, the government encouraging the banking industry to giving people mortgages they couldn’t afford)?
Can anyone still argue that Supply Side econ works better than Keynesian Econ?
Yes, many can, and do, with good reason.
The idea that you can give a rich person a tax break and they will go out and open a factory or somthing
As opposed to what, Chad? What good is money if you just stuff the bills under the mattress? The only things you can do with money are (1) buy stuff, goods and services, or (2) invest it to get more money later on (which brings us eventually back to (1), but later).
(1) is a “stimulus” demand to the economy, what all you new-Keynesian nitwits now believe in, but you think it works better if a poor person has the “stimulus” because he doesn’t have as many options for (2), and (2) is just money down the rat hole, you put it in the bank and it just sits there, because banks can afford to pay you interest on your deposits even without lending your money out — they just go out back and snip off a few $10,000 bills from the money tree they’re lent by the Fed when they send in a copy of their charter to Washington.
Duh. It is, of course, (2) that results in the opening of new factories, because that’s how you multiply your capital — you invest it.
So there you have it, Chad my lad. Give a rich person a tax break and to the extent you’re right and he doesn’t go out and (help) open a new factory by depositing it in a bank, he must “stimulate” the economy via immediate demand in eaxctly the same way your Dear Leaders in Congress and the White House say it must be stimulated. Chad, ol’ petoir, meet your petard.
Can anyone still argue that Supply Side econ works better than Keynesian Econ?
Of course. But there’d be no more point in arguing it to you than there would be trying to teach calculus to the end of the horse opposite where the hay goes in.
Keynes said inflation and recession were impossible at the same time. Seems Carter and now Jimmy Jr. are once again putting lie to him thru their malactions. His debt spree and punishment of investment will force capital into commodities and spark a wave of inflation.
Did you see junior’s grades? (todays inflation numbers)
Typical, hateful sneers from you loons on the right.
The process that you so contritely stated is one process but not the driving process. (2) is not the way factories or anything else and opened. You aren’t going to invest in a product to be made if you have no one to sell it too. But you can come up with all the over stated elaboration you want, you will never get away from that fact.
Fair well, hope you all have fun wallowing in your anger.
Typical, hateful sneers from you loons on the right.
Do you expect anyone to find this kind of nonsense persuasive? What is “hateful” about anything written here?
…hope you all have fun wallowing in your anger.
What anger? We’re happy. We’re laughing at you, and your projection. Go heal thyself, Chad, and try to have a good life, regardless of your leftist delusions.
Carl Pham said,
“Of course. But there’d be no more point in arguing it to you than there would be trying to teach calculus to the end of the horse opposite where the hay goes in.”
That’s not hateful?
There you go again, just because I believe their should be some balance between the rich and people who work hard to become rich and that that is how you make more rich people doesn’t mean I’m an “ist” anything. And I don’t want socialism, but I don’t want laissez-faire econ either. Is that so wrong? I have read nothing here or at any other right wing blog that would indicate that conservative supply side econ is a strategy, it’s not, it a tactic.
This is exactly why I hate blogs, most people (including myself) don’t really have the time (or the education for that matter) to sight literature or classical examples .
And how in the world is this projection? I’m just tired seeing you right-wingers bullcrap comments on articles and the like. Can’t even have comments on a space article without someone making a disparaging comment about anyone with a “left” leaning idea.
Delusions? We shall see in 4 years…. 😉
No, we will see in 1.6 years Chad and I doubt you like what you see.
That’s not hateful?
Sorry, no, Chad. Implying that someone is impervious to knowledge is many things, but it is not “hateful.” No one here hates you. Do you even know what that word means?
And I don’t want socialism, but I don’t want laissez-faire econ either.
Are those the only two choices?
I have read nothing here or at any other right wing blog that would indicate that conservative supply side econ is a strategy, it’s not, it a tactic.
What does that mean? Do you even know the meaning of those words?
This is exactly why I hate blogs, most people (including myself) don’t really have the time (or the education for that matter) to sight literature or classical examples .
Let me translate. “Why I hate blogs is that they put up intelligent and reasoned, empirically based arguments that I don’t know how to counter, because by my own admission, I’m insufficiently educated to even understand them, let alone counterargue them (let alone even spell my attempts to do so correctly: hint — you mean “cite,” not “sight”), so I get angry and strike back with hate, and accuse my calm and rational tormenters of those emotions, because I don’t know what else to do.”
And before you object, note that you were the one who confessed to “hate” (you know, as in “I hate blogs”?) not us.
Think about it.
Ya, your right. Sorry
OK, Chad, while I or we appreciate your contrition (real, feigned, sarcastic?), what is it exactly that I/we are “right” about? There’s been a lot of discussion here, and you didn’t bother yourself to quote what you were actually responding to.
I should add, Chad, that we aren’t angry at you, and we don’t hate you, and we hope that you will come back, and read, and broaden your intellectual horizons.
We would like to engage with you on an intellectual level, and try to impart to you why we believe the things we do, if it won’t threaten your world view too much. We hope that you will be open to that.
Chad, I apologize. I should allow for the possibility that your ignorance is not your own fault.
Indeed, if you are a graduate of American public schools, it’s my generation’s fault, inasmuch as we middle-aged farts run the school boards and pay the taxes and we could have made sure the schools taught basic facts o’ life known since Adam Smith, but instead we have let them fill a young generation up with the densest concentration of vile intellectual Stalinist lies and half-truths since Japanese kids were taught to worship the Emperor in 1910. The fact that those young fools pushed Barry Oprompta over the top last fall is our bitter reward for having shirked our duties. Too bad, and good luck to us all.
I also called you personally an idiot, whereas you merely called the class of people who think like me stupid, which isn’t the same thing, quite. Mea culpa again. Don’t take it too personal. I’m just Rand’s Tasmanian devil freak show — For Entertainment Purposes Only. I snarl at tottering old ladies, trip up the postman and urinate on his pant leg, not only bite but infect with rabies the hand that feeds me. Grrrr growl blort drool fhzp.
Anyway, you deserve serious credit for venturing into the lion’s den, mixing it up with people whose ideas you despise (and who may despise yours). Bon voyage. There are actual human beings (as opposed to mad carnivorous beasts) lurking on TT who are worth meeting.
Carl writes:
“Indeed, if you are a graduate of American public schools, it’s my generation’s fault, inasmuch as we middle-aged farts run the school boards and pay the taxes and we could have made sure the schools taught basic facts o’ life known since Adam Smith, but instead we have let them fill a young generation up with the densest concentration of vile intellectual Stalinist lies and half-truths since Japanese kids were taught to worship the Emperor in 1910.”
Has something happened to the North Korean Board of Education that I missed, or are you getting a little bit carried away here?
Returning to the question of left-libertarianism:
Imagine someone in the US who was in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, recognizing same-sex marriages and freer immigration, and believed that people that wanted to burn their own US flag should be permitted to do so as long as they didn’t create a fire hazard. Suppose that this person had the median US political view on everything else.
Defining left and right as relative tendencies to vote with the positions taken by most Democrats and Republicans respectively in Congress, I think this person would be described as at least left leaning.
I also think the same person leans libertarian, relative to the median US voter.
Yes, he is “left leaning” and he holds some civil libertarian positions. That doesn’t make him a libertarian. A libertarian is a classical liberal, and believes in (e.g., the Reason Foundation’s motto) free minds and free markets. Libertarians believe that economic freedom is the foundation of the other freedoms.
Imagine someone who believes in freedom, including economic freedom, and believes that freedom ends only when someone else’s freedom is impinged upon. He thinks laissez-faire capitalism is the embodiment of freedom, and taxes are theft. He’s a libertarian.
But he also believes that even people who start out with no money and no possessions, and thus will have to work for someone else for awhile, should be free. So he says “if you don’t pay someone a fair wage for his labor, and you take his labor anyway, you are stealing from him, and you aren’t free to do that.” Such a person, who merely advocates a minimum wage and no other limitations, would still be a libertarian, of the left-libertarian variety.
Such a person might also advocate a minimum allowable amount of safety in working environments. He would still be a libertarian (of the left-libertarian variety.
Heck, such a person might go hog-wild and say “And if you poison people’s air against their will, you’re also taking away their basic freedom to live”, so this left-libertarian might advocate a minimum allowable amount of environmental pollution, but again, otherwise be in favor of a tax-free laissez-faire capitalist environment. He might not even be interested in a government – he might just think that just as murder is grounds for self-defense, polluting their air or not paying them a fair wage is also grounds for self-defense.
His society might not make any sense, but only because he is a libertarian, of the left-libertarian variety.
I can hear it now: “But you choose to work elsewhere!” Imagine a society of wealthy factory owners who get together and decide to not pay their workers anything. This isn’t slavery – the workers are free to leave. But there is nowhere to go for a poor person – the owners own everything. Fortunatel, the factory owners offer various enticements: some offer free lodging, others offer free food, some offer free cable TV, etc — to qualify, you just have to put in some backbreaking work 12 hours a day. The factory owners encourage the workers to shop around, and find the best deal – there are a lot of choices out there (just none that actually pay decent wages, by prior agreement of the factory workers.)
A Left-Libertarian sees that this is going to lead a communist revolution by the workers, or at the very least, it is going to lead to statism, which is bad enough! So he starts promoting this leftist idea of a minimum wage. The factory workers laugh at him. So he and his friends oust them by force, takes over their factory, and set up their utopia – a laissez-faire capitalist, tax-free, government-free, free speech zone, which has an abhorence of crimes such as murder, rape, theft, lousy wages, bad working conditions, and environmental pollution. They all get wealthy and live freely and happily ever after.
Correction: the factory owners laugh at him, of course. In fact, they even say that he isn’t really a libertarian at all!
Such a person, who merely advocates a minimum wage and no other limitations, would still be a libertarian, of the left-libertarian variety.
No, he wouldn’t.
Imagine a society of wealthy factory owners who get together and decide to not pay their workers anything.
I find it easier to imagine a planet of unicorns. You have a very vivid imagination, Bob, but the real world doesn’t work like that.
Rand, thanks for answering. I’ve appreciated your blog even more than usual this week. I hope this is as much fun for you as it is for me.
The real world doesn’t work like that.
In what sense hasn’t the world worked like that for most of history? One key criticism of libertarianism is that it was only in recent times that a middle class arose. Most of human history involves exploited workers at the bottom. A Left-Libertarian seeks to address that. It isn’t clear to me what to call someone who advocates no government (or minimal government), laissez-faire capitalism, free speech, and other freedoms, other than a libertarian. Libertarians are against some crimes, like murder. If someone decides that inadequate payment for labor is also a crime (or alternatively, that conspiracies to control wages is a crime), why are they not a Left-Libertarian? What would you call them?
There has never in the history of mankind been a situation in which factory owners have successfully conspired to not pay their workers, or if they did, they would have been unable to do so without the abetting of a government. It does not, can not happen in a free market.
If someone decides that inadequate payment for labor is also a crime (or alternatively, that conspiracies to control wages is a crime), why are they not a Left-Libertarian?
No libertarian would consider “inadequate” (whatever that means) payment for labor a crime, if the labor is offered willingly at the agreed-upon compensation. It would only be a crime if there was an agreed-upon wage, and then the wage wasn’t paid (fraud). Anyone who believes that someone other than the employer and employee know best what the correct wage is cannot be a libertarian, by definition.
I don’t understand what you are saying.
Just in American history alone, it appears that you are ignoring slavery on plantations and underpaid workers in sweatshops. I don’t see how a free market prevents either of those situations. I suppose you can play word games with slavery all day, explaining how that isn’t a free market, so perhaps the the sweatshop example is the one we should focus on.
Bob, I don’t have to “play word games with slavery.” This is exactly what I was talking about. How long would slavery have lasted if it hadn’t been legal? How would it happen without the connivance with a government?
As for “sweat shops,” who are you to determine whether or not they were “underpaid”? Was someone forcing them to work there at those wages at gunpoint? If they weren’t getting paid enough, why did they continue to do it?
People work in sweatshops when it is best arrangement affordable to them. Capitalism requires money. Unbridled capitalism has led to sweatshops. Sweatshops succeed nobody (or not enough people) were offering better options. This is a fundamental problem with capitalism. It is also a more general problem in history, which is why the human race went thousands of years without a middle class. Communists, Socialists, Democrats, and Republicans have all offered solutions for addressing the problem via government. There are a variety of Left-Libertarians who are also addressing the problem via a non-governmental libertarian solution. How does Right-Libertarianism (or just plain old “Libertarianism”, if you prefer) address the problem? Denying that the problem exists is to deny human history in general, and the modern history of capitalism in particular.
No, Bob, sweat shops are not a “problem of capitalism.” They are a solution of capitalism. Without them, people starved. As nations develop, productivity improves, as does income, but “sweat shops” (which is really a meaningless phrase — yes, people sweat there, as they sweat at lots of jobs — all it means is that they’re not being paid as much as Bob wants them to be paid) brought millions out of poverty in the past, both here and abroad, and continue to do so.
You think that murder is unacceptable, but do you think that the working conditions described in Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” are acceptable?
If so, fine, but two points:
1) Most people don’t think such conditions are acceptable or ethical. Sinclair’s book itself led to the FDA rather than to a minimum wage or OSHA, but the unacceptability of working conditions like those described in the book led to workplace reform. If you don’t understand that extremely horrible workplace conditions are unacceptable to most people, you might never understand why libertarianism doesn’t catch on here (or anywhere), and you might never understand why the US has the kind of capitalism it has. Actually, I think you’ve given a lot of thought to all of it, probably more than I have, and I don’t understand why you’re not acknowledging that just as murder is repulsive, wage-slavery and horrible working conditions are repulsive – so repulsive an immediate remedy is needed when such conditions are discovered. I grant that we could reasonably disagree on how bad conditions must be to be unacceptable, but you’re acting like unacceptable conditions haven’t routinely emerged from unbridled capitalism.
2) a left-libertarian might say that a morass of governmental regulation is an undesirable cure, as it cuts too deeply into people’s freedoms, and so they propose minimally-intrusive non-governmental solutions. Why you want to assert that they aren’t libertarians at all is beyond me, but they aren’t the same as any of the various leftists I’ve ever heard of, so I think they need some sort of label that goes beyond “idiot”. (I know I’m setting you up for a joke, but I’m being sincere here.) Rather than spar with you,I’d really be interested in hearing what you think (at your convenience); the full picture, pros and cons.
Bob, do you have any knowledge of that period of history and what was going on in the meat packing industry other than Upton Sinclair’s account?
Nope! I’m an ignorant ignoramus! What do you think I should know?
Well, to start, who do you think asked, encouraged, lobbied, bribed for regulation of the industry, and why?
Also, ask yourself, why wouldn’t the industry compete to provide the best quality of meat, and for the best workers?
My understanding was that the Jungle came out, people were grossed out, Sinclair was disappointed (“I aimed for their hearts but hit their stomachs”, but the resulting uproar hurt sales badly enough that the meat packers pushed for the regulation. Is that what you want me to acknowledge? Sure. But why did it come to that? The meat packers pushed for as little as would be needed get meat sales revived… …and OSHA and the minimum wage were still the future. (And I’m focusing on working conditions, as Sinclar hoped, rather than on meat quality.)
As for your second question, I can think of quite a few answers that are stereotyped – like “Greed!” – but you probably want to make a different point, and I’m listening.
It does look like you are sidestepping the original issues:
Does unbridled capitalism produce unacceptable conditions? Can left-libertarian (whatever you want to call it) provide answers a libertarian would prefer to statist solutions? Does your version of libertarianism provide immediate relief to unaceptable working conditions?
Bob, why, in a world in which meat packing had become abominable in the public mind, didn’t a meat packer establish its own standards, and advertise them, and outcompete the other meat packers?
It does look like you are sidestepping the original issues
No, I’m emphasizing them.
Does unbridled capitalism produce unacceptable conditions?
No evidence for that, yet.