Cato: The Libertarian Alternative

[The Fade]

Lol the namesake of that institution is telling

 

[DEAD7]

Yeah, at this point that's basically conspiracy theory status. The socialists can claim that the wealthy rich who want to hold onto power are stopping their ideas from being implemented. WTF do Libertarians blame for literally no one ever successfully implementing their ideas even though they'd supposedly be better for every single sector of society?

The rich and powerful who want to hold onto power...
For all the corporate overlord talk that follows libertarianism, that money never flows their way, its always flows towards statist... why do you think that is?
In reality corporation want heavy regulation that they can help craft... they oppose free markets.



I think state forced integration has been a disaster, but ill gonnato the racist argument because 'freedom of association' can only be viewed through the lens of Americas Jim Crow era, with people actually believing apple or walmart would stop selling to negroes given the chance today.

 

[DEAD7]

Imagine being a black man in America and supporting someone who would have been against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Self hate is something else.

I'm not handicapped by the need to like a candidate. Its about policy.
Attack the actor all you want.

 

[DEAD7]

Here is libertarianism fully realized at the corporate level: How an Ayn Rand-Loving Libertarian Destroyed The Company He Runs With His Cultish Objectivist Theories

Here is libertarianism fully realized at the town level: The Town That Went Feral

Or this town too: The Rise and Fall of the 'Freest Little City in Texas'

Here is libertarianism fully realized at the city level: The Short, Unhappy Life of a Libertarian Paradise

Here too: THE MAKING OF A FREE CITY: The Foundation of Laissez-faire Capitalist Free Cities in Honduras in The Juncture of Globalisation

Here too: Abaco https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...85f8ae-d415-11e9-8924-1db7dac797fb_story.html

Here is libertarianism fully realized at the state level: The Great Kansas Tax Cut Experiment Crashes And Burns

Here is libertarianism fully realized at the national level: Somalia Lived While Its Government Died

Somalia is a failed state and the rest are half baked attempts at reducing govt. controls whilst remaining completely under federal jurisdiction, and in competition with statist.

That said, ideally one would want to strike a balance... something like 85market/15gov where govt. properly taxed the wealth created by free markets and redistributed that wealth via negative income tax or UBI of some kind eliminating poverty in the country.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The rich and powerful who want to hold onto power...
For all the corporate overlord talk that follows libertarianism, that money never flows their way, its always flows towards statist... why do you think that is?

Please, the average libertarian is far wealthier than the average American. People like Peter Thiel, Charles Koch, David Koch, and Rupert Murdoch have been some of the more powerful billionaires in the global political scene.

In reality corporation want heavy regulation that they can help craft... they oppose free markets.

And libertarians, despite their claimed ideals, keep helping them do that. Since they're virtually always aligned with the pro-corporate party (Republicans in the USA), they end up simply helping the corporations remove the regulations they don't like while never actually standing in the way of the regulations they do like. I can't think of a single time in American history where libertarians were important in reducing corporate power, while they're constantly helping Republicans strengthen it.

I think state forced integration has been a disaster, but ill gonnato the racist argument because 'freedom of association' can only be viewed through the lens of Americas Jim Crow era, with people actually believing apple or walmart would stop selling to negroes given the chance today.

Hmmm, I wonder what happened in history that made widespread segregation no longer tolerable like it was in living memory?

And businesses refusing to sell to Black folk together? Wouldn't be that many. But refusing to let Black folk move into the neighborhood or apartment building or enroll in the schools? EASILY. I mean our fukking president from just a week ago was pushing that shyt as a populist effort to get out the vote, come on now.

Somalia is a failed state and the rest are half baked attempts at reducing govt. controls whilst remaining completely under federal jurisdiction, and in competition with statist.

You ignored the Honduran free cities, that was created by libertarians at the federal level and it's a fukking disaster.

And the Somalia article was by a LIBERTARIAN who wanted to claim it. He wasn't the only one, just look at your idols:

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It | Yumi Kim

That said, ideally one would want to strike a balance... something like 85market/15gov where govt. properly taxed the wealth created by free markets and redistributed that wealth via negative income tax or UBI of some kind eliminating poverty in the country.

Strange how this has literally never happened, and all nations that have been successful at anything close to "eliminating poverty" do so via socialist means. This isn't just true in the West, even in 3rd-world countries like 20th-century India, it was the socialist states that fared the best.

Your argument would fail on multiple levels. First off, it would absolute fukk up the environment royally, an issue you still don't want to address. When left alone, capitalism always favors short term personal gain over long-term societal harm. Companies repeatedly dump whatever shyt they want into the water supply and kill off whatever endangered species is in their way. Even if 90% of companies won't do it, all you need is to find the ONE company that is willing to destroy that particular forest/reef/river, and it's fukked. Because there's more profit in destroying nature than in preserving it.

Second, it would only exacerbate education and health inequalities. Even if you "eliminated poverty" at the absolute level, all of the health and education resources would still flow to the relatively rich instead of the relatively poor. You'd set up a perfectly tiered system, where the absolute best doctors and schools were exclusively for the people who could pay the absolute most, and it worked it's way down until the poorest got only the worst. In fact, there might not even be enough qualified doctors and teachers for them, because without government to prop up the school costs and pay rates for people serving the bottom level, med schools might not even train enough students to serve everyone. Why go through all that work just to heal poor people who pay shytty rates when there are numerous other ways to make much more money off of the top of the pyramid?

 

[BaggerofTea]

If I was a sociopath, I would be a libertarian.

A libertarian civilization is a sociopaths wet dream.

1. Minimization of laws that are designed to keep human beings from harms way (predatorship) in a variety of facets

2. Minimum funding to an over arching government apparatus designed to enforce such laws

That extends every where, economically, environmentally, socially, health and safety.


A lot of these libertarian folks are sick people under a veneer.

 

[DEAD7]

Please, the average libertarian is far wealthier than the average American. People like Peter Thiel, Charles Koch, David Koch, and Rupert Murdoch have been some of the more powerful billionaires in the global political scene.

Their contributions pale in comparison to statist funding... you cant seriously be suggesting equal footing among corporate America.
Big business, always sides with govt.
How Much Big Tech Companies Donated In 2020 Election | Observer

And libertarians, despite their claimed ideals, keep helping them do that. Since they're virtually always aligned with the pro-corporate party (Republicans in the USA), they end up simply helping the corporations remove the regulations they don't like while never actually standing in the way of the regulations they do like. I can't think of a single time in American history where libertarians were important in reducing corporate power, while they're constantly helping Republicans strengthen it.

You overestimate the influence of the libertarian party in congress... and as a progressive you should understand purity gets you nowhere. Just because your agenda/candidate are being ignored doesnt mean you vote for the opposition.

But refusing to let Black folk move into the neighborhood or apartment building or enroll in the schools?

This segregation persist under state regulation. Racist have just refined it... one of the factors that steered me towards libertarianism.
Trump is an outlier and i'd caution against treating him as the norm.

You ignored the Honduran free cities, that was created by libertarians at the federal level and it's a fukking disaster.

And the Somalia article was by a LIBERTARIAN who wanted to claim it. He wasn't the only one, just look at your idols:

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It | Yumi Kim

The free cities in Honduras were never designed to become private cities, much less Galt’s Gulch-style utopias. They were partnerships between the private sector govt. meant to spur hong kong like growth. The Honduran courts ruled them unconstitutional and struck them down.
I'd throw out a failed socialist experiment, but theres no need, im sure you understand how things can appear to be one thing, and be labeled thatt thing, but really be nothing close...

Strange how this has literally never happened, and all nations that have been successful at anything close to "eliminating poverty" do so via socialist means. This isn't just true in the West, even in 3rd-world countries like 20th-century India, it was the socialist states that fared the best.

Is this a its never happened so it can never happen argument? or it isnt practiced anywhere so it must be dog sh*t argument?

Your argument would fail on multiple levels. First off, it would absolute fukk up the environment royally, an issue you still don't want to address. When left alone, capitalism always favors short term personal gain over long-term societal harm. Companies repeatedly dump whatever shyt they want into the water supply and kill off whatever endangered species is in their way. Even if 90% of companies won't do it, all you need is to find the ONE company that is willing to destroy that particular forest/reef/river, and it's fukked. Because there's more profit in destroying nature than in preserving it.

Second, it would only exacerbate education and health inequalities. Even if you "eliminated poverty" at the absolute level, all of the health and education resources would still flow to the relatively rich instead of the relatively poor. You'd set up a perfectly tiered system, where the absolute best doctors and schools were exclusively for the people who could pay the absolute most, and it worked it's way down until the poorest got only the worst. In fact, there might not even be enough qualified doctors and teachers for them, because without government to prop up the school costs and pay rates for people serving the bottom level, med schools might not even train enough students to serve everyone. Why go through all that work just to heal poor people who pay shytty rates when there are numerous other ways to make much more money off of the top of the pyramid?

No ones argued for no regulation or no govt.
In fact I clearly stated there should be a balance.
Public schools should exist, public colleges should be free... and eliminating poverty will improve health inequality.


As for your environment , Im in the 'we tech our way out or we're fukked' camp, so we'll find no common ground there.

 

[DEAD7]

1. Minimization of laws that are designed to keep non blacks from harms way in a variety of facets

2. Minimum funding to an over arching oppressive apparatus designed to enforce such laws

That extends every where, economically, environmentally, socially, health and safety.

 

[BaggerofTea]

Its easier for people to be rapacious , manipulate and take advantage of others.

A society like that creates a lot of vulnerability. And that is a impulse control issue to a lot of mentally unwell human beings

 

[Professor Emeritus]

As for your environment , Im in the 'we tech our way out or we're fukked' camp, so we'll find no common ground there.

I'll just agree to disagree on everything else, because this one position is so fukking stupid and ignorant of both history and the environment that no one could possibly say they've researched the issue at all and still propose it in good faith.

There is no tech that stops a person from profiting by cutting a forest down. There is no tech that stops a person from profiting by polluting.

It doesn't matter HOW much tech you create. First off, virtually all tech simply ends up creating a different consumption issue, you trade one set of environmental issues for a different one. Second, merely removing one incentive for cutting down a forest will do nothing to eliminate the other incentives, and capitalists are infinitely capable of finding new ways to profit off of something.

So long as we have a system based on constant-growth capitalism, there will always be SOMEONE looking to turn a short-term profit by destroying part of nature. People are increasingly desperate to pay off their loans and will remain so. The system requires growth or the interest can't be paid. Long-term sustainable solutions will never be in vogue because those loan payments are always coming due. That is impossible to prevent with tech, and in fact tech is only making it easier to destroy the world faster.

 

[DEAD7]

I'll just agree to disagree on everything else, because this one position is so fukking stupid and ignorant of both history and the environment that no one could possibly say they've researched the issue at all and still propose it in good faith.

There is no tech that stops a person from profiting by cutting a forest down. There is no tech that stops a person from profiting by polluting.

It doesn't matter HOW much tech you create. First off, virtually all tech simply ends up creating a different consumption issue, you trade one set of environmental issues for a different one. Second, merely removing one incentive for cutting down a forest will do nothing to eliminate the other incentives, and capitalists are infinitely capable of finding new ways to profit off of something.

So long as we have a system based on constant-growth capitalism, there will always be SOMEONE looking to turn a short-term profit by destroying part of nature. People are increasingly desperate to pay off their loans and will remain so. The system requires growth or the interest can't be paid. Long-term sustainable solutions will never be in vogue because those loan payments are always coming due. That is impossible to prevent with tech, and in fact tech is only making it easier to destroy the world faster.

I dont disagree with your assessment of the situation, but if we dont tech our way out somehow, we are fukked.
The global changes to behavior required to fix things the way you would like, simply arent on the table.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I dont disagree with your assessment of the situation, but if we dont tech our way out somehow, we are fukked.
The global changes to behavior required to fix things the way you would like, simply arent on the table.

They are possible. Even fairly mainstream options like Donut Economics are possible. But for something potentially more effective in the long term, read Sacred Economics by Charles Eisenstein. All you have to do is create the right incentives in the system. Our current behavior isn't "inevitable" or "natural", it's the consequence of the systems we have chosen. If we choose a different system, we can create different consequences.

 

[Dorian Breh]

If I was a sociopath, I would be a libertarian.

A libertarian civilization is a sociopaths wet dream.

1. Minimization of laws that are designed to keep human beings from harms way (predatorship) in a variety of facets

2. Minimum funding to an over arching government apparatus designed to enforce such laws

That extends every where, economically, environmentally, socially, health and safety.


A lot of these libertarian folks are sick people under a veneer.

I'll just agree to disagree on everything else, because this one position is so fukking stupid and ignorant of both history and the environment that no one could possibly say they've researched the issue at all and still propose it in good faith.

There is no tech that stops a person from profiting by cutting a forest down. There is no tech that stops a person from profiting by polluting.

It doesn't matter HOW much tech you create. First off, virtually all tech simply ends up creating a different consumption issue, you trade one set of environmental issues for a different one. Second, merely removing one incentive for cutting down a forest will do nothing to eliminate the other incentives, and capitalists are infinitely capable of finding new ways to profit off of something.

So long as we have a system based on constant-growth capitalism, there will always be SOMEONE looking to turn a short-term profit by destroying part of nature. People are increasingly desperate to pay off their loans and will remain so. The system requires growth or the interest can't be paid. Long-term sustainable solutions will never be in vogue because those loan payments are always coming due. That is impossible to prevent with tech, and in fact tech is only making it easier to destroy the world faster.

Y'all reminded me of this blog post:

Meditations On Moloch

As a thought experiment, let’s consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.

But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let’s say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.

A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month – still a respectable sum.

But one farmer (let’s call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.

Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he’s not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too.

Once four hundred people disconnect their filters, Steve is earning $600/month – less than he would be if he and everyone else had kept their filters on! And the poor virtuous filter users are only making $300. Steve goes around to everyone, saying “Wait! We all need to make a voluntary pact to use filters! Otherwise, everyone’s productivity goes down.”

Everyone agrees with him, and they all sign the Filter Pact, except one person who is sort of a jerk. Let’s call him Mike. Now everyone is back using filters again, except Mike. Mike earns $999/month, and everyone else earns $699/month. Slowly, people start thinking they too should be getting big bucks like Mike, and disconnect their filter for $300 extra profit…

A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact.

This is just one example form that post, but the whole post is great, check it out brehs

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Y'all reminded me of this blog post:

Meditations On Moloch



This is just one example form that post, but the whole post is great, check it out brehs

Yup, and that's very much how the libertarian world works. I'll read the whole essay.

It's even worse when looking at the bigger picture, because the need to make those profits is driven by loans and interest:

Usury both generates today’s endemic scarcity and drives the world-devouring engine of perpetual growth. To explain how, I will begin with a parable created by the extraordinary economic visionary Bernard Lietaer entitled “The Eleventh Round,” from his book The Future of Money.

Once upon a time, in a small village in the Outback, people used barter for all their transactions. On every market day, people walked around with chickens, eggs, hams, and breads, and engaged in prolonged negotiations among themselves to exchange what they needed. At key periods of the year, like harvests or whenever someone’s barn needed big repairs after a storm, people recalled the tradition of helping each other out that they had brought from the old country. They knew that if they had a problem someday, others would aid them in return.

One market day, a stranger with shiny black shoes and an elegant white hat came by and observed the whole process with a sardonic smile. When he saw one farmer running around to corral the six chickens he wanted to exchange for a big ham, he could not refrain from laughing. “Poor people,” he said, “so primitive.” The farmer’s wife overheard him and challenged the stranger, “Do you think you can do a better job handling chickens?” “Chickens, no,” responded the stranger, “But there is a much better way to eliminate all that hassle.” “Oh yes, how so?” asked the woman. “See that tree there?” the stranger replied. “Well, I will go wait there for one of you to bring me one large cowhide. Then have every family visit me. I’ll explain the better way.”

And so it happened. He took the cowhide, and cut perfect leather rounds in it, and put an elaborate and graceful little stamp on each round. Then he gave to each family 10 rounds, and explained that each represented the value of one chicken. “Now you can trade and bargain with the rounds instead of the unwieldy chickens,” he explained.

It made sense. Everybody was impressed with the man with the shiny shoes and inspiring hat.

“Oh, by the way,” he added after every family had received their 10 rounds, “in a year’s time, I will come back and sit under that same tree. I want you to each bring me back 11 rounds. That 11th round is a token of appreciation for the technological improvement I just made possible in your lives.” “But where will the 11th round come from?” asked the farmer with the six chickens. “You’ll see,” said the man with a reassuring smile.

Assuming that the population and its annual production remain exactly the same during that next year, what do you think had to happen? Remember, that 11th round was never created. Therefore, bottom line, one of each 11 families will have to lose all its rounds, even if everybody managed their affairs well, in order to provide the 11th round to 10 others.

So when a storm threatened the crop of one of the families, people became less generous with their time to help bring it in before disaster struck. While it was much more convenient to exchange the rounds instead of the chickens on market days, the new game also had the unintended side effect of actively discouraging the spontaneous cooperation that was traditional in the village. Instead, the new money game was generating a systemic undertow of competition among all the participants.

This parable begins to show how competition, insecurity, and greed are woven into our economy because of interest. They can never be eliminated as long as the necessities of life are denominated in interest-money. But let us continue the story now to show how interest also creates an endless pressure for perpetual economic growth.

There are three primary ways Lietaer’s story could end: default, growth in the money supply, or redistribution of wealth. One of each eleven families could go bankrupt and surrender their farms to the man in the hat (the banker), or he could procure another cowhide and make more currency, or the villagers could tar-and-feather the banker and refuse to repay the rounds. The same choices face any economy based on usury.

So imagine now that the villagers gather round the man in the hat and say, “Sir, could you please give us some additional rounds so that none of us need go bankrupt?”

The man says, “I will, but only to those who can assure me they will pay me back. Since each round is worth one chicken, I’ll lend new rounds to people who have more chickens than the number of rounds they already owe me. That way, if they don’t pay back the rounds, I can seize their chickens instead. Oh, and because I’m such a nice guy, I’ll even create new rounds for people who don’t have additional chickens right now, if they can persuade me that they will breed more chickens in the future. So show me your business plan! Show me that you are trustworthy (one villager can create ‘credit reports’ to help you do that). I’ll lend at 10 percent-if you are a clever breeder, you can increase your flock by 20 percent per year, pay me back, and get rich yourself, too.”

The villagers ask, “That sounds OK, but since you are creating the new rounds at 10 percent interest also, there still won’t be enough to pay you back in the end.”

“That won’t be a problem,” says the man. “You see, when that time arrives, I will have created even more rounds, and when those come due, I’ll create yet more. I will always be willing to lend new rounds into existence. Of course, you’ll have to produce more chickens, but as long as you keep increasing chicken production, there will never be a problem.”

A child comes up to him and says, “Excuse me, sir, my family is sick, and we don’t have enough rounds to buy food. Can you issue some new rounds to me?”

“I’m sorry,” says the man, “but I cannot do that. You see, I only create rounds for those who are going to pay me back. Now, if your family has some chickens to pledge as collateral, or if you can prove you are able to work a little harder to breed more chickens, then I will be happy to give you the rounds.”

With a few unfortunate exceptions, the system worked fine for a while. The villagers grew their flocks fast enough to obtain the additional rounds they needed to pay back the man in the hat. Some, for whatever reason-ill fortune or ineptitude-did indeed go bankrupt, and their more fortunate, more efficient neighbors took over their farms and hired them as labor. Overall, though, the flocks grew at 10 percent a year along with the money supply. The village and its flocks had grown so large that the man in the hat was joined by many others like him, all busily cutting out new rounds and issuing them to anyone with a good plan to breed more chickens.

From time to time, problems arose. For one, it became apparent that no one really needed all those chickens. “We’re getting sick of eggs,” the children complained. “Every room in the house has a feather bed now,” complained the housewives. In order to keep consumption of chicken products growing, the villagers invented all kinds of devices. It became fashionable to buy a new feather mattress every month, and bigger houses to keep them in, and to have yards and yards full of chickens. Disputes arose with other villages that were settled with huge egg-throwing battles. “We must create demand for more chickens!” shouted the mayor, who was the brother-in-law of the man in the hat. “That way we will all continue to grow rich.”

One day, a village old-timer noticed another problem. Whereas the fields around the village had once been green and fertile, now they were brown and foul. All the vegetation had been stripped away to plant grain to feed the chickens. The ponds and streams, once full of fish, were now cesspools of stinking manure. She said, “This has to stop! If we keep expanding our flocks, we will soon drown in chicken shyt!”

The man in the hat pulled her aside and, in reassuring tones, told her, “Don’t worry, there is another village down the road with plenty of fertile fields. The men of our village are planning to farm out chicken production to them. And if they don’t agree … well, we outnumber them. Anyway, you can’t be serious about ending growth. Why, how would your neighbors pay off their debts? How would I be able to create new rounds? Even I would go bankrupt.”

And so, one by one, all the villages turned to stinking cesspools surrounding enormous flocks of chickens that no one really needed, and the villages fought each other for the few remaining green spaces that could support a few more years of growth. Yet despite their best efforts to maintain growth, its pace began to slow. As growth slowed, debt began to rise in proportion to income, until many people spent all their available rounds just paying off the man in the hat. Many went bankrupt and had to work at subsistence wages for employers who themselves could barely meet their obligations to the man in the hat. There were fewer and fewer people who could afford to buy chicken products, making it even harder to maintain demand and growth. Amid an environment-wrecking superabundance of chickens, more and more people had barely enough on which to live, leading to the paradox of scarcity amidst abundance.

And that is where things stand today.

The whole chapter (hell, the whole book) is an incredible read.

Sacred Economics: Chapter 6, "The Economics of Usury" - Sacred Economics | Charles Eisenstein

 

[acri1]

Libertarianism is just an ideology designed to rationalize economic and social inequality. I'm good...