patrick.net

Remember, problems are manmade concepts. Many things deemed "problems" can be and should be ignored.

Regarding tobacco, nobody forced consumers to smoke. One must try to make informed choices and/or educated guesses. It is just a fact of life.

If God had not been a libertarian we would still have to live with those pesky dinosaurs.

In the '90s I was peripherally involved with the Libertarian Party in Orange County, CA. They were a bunch of VERY intelligent and interesting people, to be sure.

As far as running the country, though, they seemed to forget that not all Americans are upper middle class management types. They could NEVER give a straight answer regarding how their system would account for avarice and greed in human behavior. They sanctimoniously spoke of "stewardship" preventing owners from (for ex) clearcutting forests for a fast buck today, or motivating them to pay what it costs to collect and dispose of wastes rather than just letting them flow into the river or up the smokestack.

Politically, I consider myself most like a Libertarian, but as a political party in the USA general population, I don't see them getting far out of the 1-2% of the vote niche any time soon.

Some Big-L libertarians I have met tend to be quite fat.

I am definitely more neoliberal than libertarian, even though I am also fat.

There's a lot of the "Whitey" types over at Mises, if you include Confederate Apologists.

Automan Empire says

As far as running the country, though, they seemed to forget that not all Americans are upper middle class management types. They could NEVER give a straight answer regarding how their system would account for avarice and greed in human behavior

If you let the corrections brought on by the "management types" play out, then salaries and jobs will naturally adjust and shift towards the makers. There is no reason why so much money is being made in the parasitic sectors except for that they are being supported by the Fed and the government and that they have amassed quite a powerful lobby. In 2008 some people lost their jobs, but it was 4 managers for one maker (developer) if not more because the makers that directly produce for their salary were still needed. The ratio was even higher for wall-street employees. You don't need middle-men for house purchases, for asset management, to find the right doctor for you etc. Cities would find their natural balance between old folks and newcomers without being overrun and sold to the highest bidder by the politician making the most promises with other people's money - rents and house prices would be affordable. It really only takes a brief look to spot a distorted economy that has lost its balance, and to see, that a city like SF is already suffocating again under the choke-hold of the next bubble.

Krugman's followers are like a cult, and I get Disliked for pointing out even his most obviously false statements. For example, advocating yet again for another government spending program, Krugman claimed that there was only one, century-old rail tunnel under the Hudson between New York and New Jersey. ("There just isn't enough space for everyone to drive to work. But right now there's just one century-old rail tunnel linking New Jersey and New York - and it's running close to capacity. The need for another tunnel couldn't be more obvious.") In reality, PATH alone has two pairs of tubes, Amtrak has its own, and then there are the vehicular tunnels large enough they accommodate bus traffic, and the GW Bridge, also big enough for buses. But, since it's Krugman's "opinion," he never corrected himself; no matter how many bridges and tunnels impartial observers can actually count, Krugman proclaims there is only one. Even if you think that Krugman might have somehow miscounted initially, even though he lives in New Jersey and writes for the NY Times across the river in Manhattan, that would not explain why he never corrected his count; it was probably a lie from the start and certainly a lie as it continues to be published that way on NYTimes.com. Krugman wanted his deluded followers to believe it was "obvious" that everybody needed to spend billions of dollars building another rail tunnel, and NY Times wants his easily deluded audience. In commercial media, there is often "a check attached" where pundits with an audience talk up whatever publicists are promoting; as a reader, you can't always link any particular column to its sponsors, but lobbyists for many lemon socialist corporations harbor a particular hatred for libertarians, who oppose them at every turn. When I pointed out Krugman's false count to one of his followers, I got a Dislike and a reply saying false statements don't matter from a commenter who wrote, "to hell with civility."

Peter P says

Regarding tobacco, nobody forced consumers to smoke. One must try to make informed choices and/or educated guesses. It is just a fact of life.

So without government research into the hazards of smoking and government required warnings and government generated information you would be totally dependent on the tobacco industry advertising. Exactly how informed would your choices be?

How do I make an informed choice about industry dumping millions of tons of poisons into the air, soil, and water like the 1950's? How do I make an informed choice about the food I buy being processed in rat and feces infested processing plants like the 1930's?

Libertarians seem to have lots of snappy answers but no solutions. I don't care much for Krugman but he's right with this one.

bob2356 says

So without government research into the hazards of smoking and government required warnings and government generated information you would be totally dependent on the tobacco industry advertising. Exactly how informed would your choices be?

Someone has to do this job. The government is doing it, and hence no private consumer protection industry has been started yet. The only question is whether it is better to one monopolistic rating agency, or multiple of them? You are basically asking the same garden variety liberal question "But who will build the roads?".

Here is an answer for you:

An entrepreneur has gambled his home on building a toll road after becoming frustrated at council delays in clearing a commuter route blocked by a landslip.
Mike Watts is charging motorists £2 per journey to use his bypass made from rolled chippings and avoid the closed section of the A431 between Bath and Bristol.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11008835/Entrepreneur-builds-private-toll-road-after-landslip.html

Automan Empire says

They could NEVER give a straight answer regarding how their system would account for avarice and greed in human behavior.

This is the key problem.

The key assumption in Randism and Libertarianism, is that all humans will behave rationally and for the common good because.... well they throw a lot of reasons out, but none of them hold up under scrutiny.

I used to believe quite fervently in this bullshit when I was a Libertarian.

Alan Greenspan was the champion of this pie in the sky bullshit, thinking that all the regulators needed to do was sit on their hands, even being quoted as saying "fraud doesn't exist" to Brooksley Born. Later after he blew up the economy he had to admit begrudgingly there was a "flaw in his model". In the worst case Libertarians take it for granted that fraud will be APPARENT and evident to sophisticated investors, who will drop that fraudster like a hot potato and thus systemic fraud cannot build up unnoticed. A painfully naive assumption as it turns out.

I'm still ashamed about my magical thinking in this regard. I don't think Greenspan is though.

To the article's point about government regulation. How often does a government agency do more harm than good on the very subject they are supposed to resolve?

Dept of Energy to make the US energy independent and don't say they had anything to do with fracking?

Dept of Education and lower test scores.

Homeland Security more expensive scanners and TSA agents but any better security?

Sarbanes Oxley has yet to find one single financial irregularity in it's 15 yr history at a huge cost.

OSHA and safety? the safety gets better because of technology which has nothing to do with OSHA.

The police will tell you that they have reduced crime which is bullshit, as the decrease in crime is because of demographics.

Even the law about seat belts did not lower injury because of not wearing them it has been demonstrated that people become more careless when wearing them thus causing injuries.

What is infinitely more effective is to allow the people to solve their own problems without the government nannying them or putting them in the frame of mind to be nannied.

The example given on this subject is Somalia. But the reality is that Somalia's standard of living has gone up since they got rid of their dictator government, and have since gone to a tribal law.

Somalia: How Has Life Changed?
Index 1991 2011 (or latest)
Life expectancy 46 years 50 years
Birth rate 46 44
Death rate 19 16
GDP per capita $210 $600
Infant mortality 116 deaths

http://mises.org/daily/5418/anarchy-in-somalia

curious2 says

Krugman's followers are like a cult, and I get Disliked for pointing out even
his most obviously false statements.

I think you get disliked because you're kind of a superior a-hole.

Whether or not Krugman is correct about the number of tunnels into NY from NJ doesn't say anything about the merit of his economic theories. The fact that you feel the need to post the same thing on (at least) 2 different threads says more about you than Krugman or his "followers".

Paul Ryan is not a Libertarian- he is a huge statist who voted for the bailouts, no PLEADED FOR THEM
http://www.eQUi5GhLoR4

Vicente says

This is the key problem.

The key assumption in Randism and Libertarianism, is that all humans will behave rationally and for the common good because.... well they throw a lot of reasons out, but none of them hold up under scrutiny.

I used to believe quite fervently in this bullshit when I was a Libertarian.

Alan Greenspan was the champion of this pie in the sky bullshit, thinking that all

Greenspan was no libertarian. Let's go with your premise, humans don't behave rationally, why would humans in a government with almost infinite power behave rationally, if power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Government is kept in check by voters in a Democracy. We have little to no say in who will be our corporate leaders, and if nepotism and golfing buddies define the boards.

Or don't you believe in democracy?

mell says

Greenspan was no libertarian.

Use Ron Paul as the example of what a libertarian is. Using Paul Ryan and Greenspan as Libertarian examples is like explaining Italian American behavior using Henry Winkler as an example

Vicente says

Automan Empire says

They could NEVER give a straight answer regarding how their system would account for avarice and greed in human behavior.

This is the key problem.

The key assumption in Randism and Libertarianism, is that all humans will behave rationally and for the common good because.... well they throw a lot of reasons out, but none of them hold up under scrutiny.

What I find interesting is that Marxism has the same flaw. People should still work hard and not be lazy, even if they aren't the direct beneficiary. Sure, some people would do that, and some people would spend money to reduce pollution. But. Not enough.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

mell says

Greenspan was no libertarian.

No but he is one of the few Federal Reserve chairmen to regularly eat Ayn Rand's stained, soggy underwear and follow her around on his knees begging her, with tears streaming from his eyes, 'FUCK ME, MOMMEEEEEE!'

That's indisputable.

sbh says

Government only increases the irrational behavior in humans? How 'bout you submit to a legal judgement of a private court adjudicated by CaptainShuddup? Is the rationality quotient rising in that scenario?

I think government can do more damage with irrational behavior than a single company or person, as has been observed throughout history.

CL says

Government is kept in check by voters in a Democracy. We have little to no say in who will be our corporate leaders, and if nepotism and golfing buddies define the boards.

Or don't you believe in democracy?

True, but usually corporations don't force you to consume their products or live a certain way, or give them money. I think democracy with limited government and laws on grounds of a solid constitution is a viable model.

Marxism solves that by using force. It's not a volunteer society.

Also, if one can't trust the government due to it being made of humans, why trust a marketplace made of same?

CL says

Marxism solves that by using force. It's not a volunteer society.

Also, if one can't trust the government due to it being made of humans, why trust a marketplace made of same?

Yes, thats all I was pointing out when answering Vicente, there is no right or wrong answer to that. But the marketplace usually doesn't have the power to force you into a certain type of behavior, although it can certainly influence you.

Vincente, this is the problem with debating with a Libertarian or a Marxist. You will never win the debate. Both can only debate on a theoretic level as to how things should or could work. When you point out there has never been a society or economy that has been successful following their models, they will both fall back on the same answer which is that their models were not "fully" implemented.

CL says

Government is kept in check by voters in a Democracy. We have little to no say in who will be our corporate leaders, and if nepotism and golfing buddies define the boards.

Or don't you believe in democracy?

What keeps democracy in check? ie 51% telling the 49% what to do.

CL says

Also, if one can't trust the government due to it being made of humans, why trust a marketplace made of same?

Because you have a truer democracy in a free market place.
Like something buy it. don't like it don't buy it-you can't be forced.
In government if its the law, esp a bad law you are stuck with it

smaulgld says

mell says

Greenspan was no libertarian.

Use Ron Paul as the example of what a libertarian is. Using Paul Ryan and Greenspan as Libertarian examples is like explaining Italian American behavior using Henry Winkler as an example

No true Scotsmen eh?

saroya says

Vincente, this is the problem with debating with a Libertarian or a Marxist. You will never win the debate.

Who says there has to be a winner?

"Just because I've voted Republican for every election for 20 years doesn't mean I'm a Republican."

LOL!