patrick.net

@RMB,

But isn't having the government enforce laws against murder, rape and (per our example) slavery essentially demanding the government to "deal with social and moral issues"? Even enforcement of private property laws is a form of government "interference" with a pure state of nature/anarchy.

For that matter, all taxation, no matter what it's used for is still a form of "confiscation". However, it's not just used to support one individual's (mine/yours) beliefs, it's used to support the collective beliefs of a majority of the voting population.

Unfortunatley, taxation is the only mechanism yet discovered which corrects for externalization of costs in a large society. Without taxation, some clever people figure out how to be productive at the cost of society; effectively shifting the costs of their endeavors onto others. However, with taxation other clever people figure out how to do the same. The notion is that, at least with taxation by a democratic state, there is some means to correct for tragedy of the commons. In a capitalist anarchy, there is not.

We should also be clear about the distinction between libertarianism as an ideal and Libertarians as a political party. Ayn Rand called the latter pseudo-intellectual cranks who wished to be conservatives but without the moral obligations.

I believe that government is a necessary evil. Without it, society would quickly degenerate to a state of anarachy and brutality. Taxation is the price we pay for our security, protection of our bodies, private property and whatever else that we --as a society-- believe "should" be protected/regulated.

I agree that too many welfare/entitlement programs create abuses and disincentives to work (works the same for corporations as individuals), and there is no such thing as a perfect system. Even so, I believe as a society we are better off on the whole for having rule of law and some forms of "safety nets" than living in a purely Darwinian combat zone. There need to be some rules/limits to "acceptable" conduct. As in not selling products that kill/maim, or not being able to rape/molest children.

That said, the less government peddles influence with subsidies/protectionism, favors "special" groups over others and wastes money on non-productive self-perpetuating bureaucracies, the better. You have to have some government. The only problem is, where to draw the line?

As in not selling products that kill/maim

Let me clarify: I am NOT against drinking/smoking/guns as long as you are an adult willing to accept the consequences of your decisions to drink/smoke/shoot AND you don't cause unwarranted harm to me by doing so. I meant this more in terms of deliberately selling something defective that could kill/maim a consumer without their consent.

@Randy H:

Thanks --I agree.

Can self-sufficiency among the able bodied poor be incentivized in a manner that won’t harm those who have no choice in the matter (mostly the children of the entitled poor)?

Another question would be, even if some deserving people may be harmed, should they be ignored for the greater good?

Another question would be, even if some deserving people may be harmed, should they be ignored for the greater good?

Clearly yes, in a practical sense. But no, as an ideal. The problem is a slippery-slope risk. Once we confer the power to decide who is "deserving" to a plurality, there is a very real risk of tyranny of the "majority". The losers in this regard will always think the government tyrannical, and will be prone to disregard its authority over them.

Clearly yes, in a practical sense. But no, as an ideal.

Shouldn't practicality be part of the ideal?

The losers in this regard will always think the government tyrannical, and will be prone to disregard its authority over them.

True. Unless these people are physically segregated from the rest, their frustration can cause problems.

Well, we will have $385,000,000 worth of Halliburton built detention camps soon. We’ll put ‘em there!

What detention camp?

HARM, like most well meaning liberals, you are totally misunderstanding libertarianism (and therefore, freedom). Libertarianism mixes very well with morality. I am a libertarian and also consider myself to be a morally upright person. I fail to see the contradiction.

To me, the primary aspect of morality is accepting that no one has the right to use force (coercion, violence ...) against another. That is the essence of freedom.

That does not mean you cannot be charitable. On the contrary, you can donate all of your money to charity IF you want and still be a libertarian. As long as no one is forcing you to do this and as long as you are not someone else to donate his hard-earned to something that you feel is worthwhile, who stops you?

I see this misconception in a lot of my liberal friends. Let me clarify this once and for all: LIBERTARIANISM DOES NOT MEAN EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF! All it means is that every action should be voluntary and never done using force (taxes, which are collected under threat of penalty is coercive and therefore, immoral!). Man should (and I believe, will) help his fellow man and therefore, there is no real need to have big brother doing his version of violent, forceful, corrupt and inefficient forced-charity.

I could go on but I believe I have made my primary point and hopefully, HARM, it is clear enough. Thanks.

...but I can’t stand the cult of the victim in this country that believes that redress must be made to any perceived slight (or discrimination in the past) financially.

@SFWoman,

Me neither. It sickens me to see politicians and whole institutions devoted to the notion of permanent victimhood (often while peddling their OWN intolerant/rascist agenda, a-la MECHa). This is primarily why I do not consider myself a "liberal" in the classic sense.

@Sriram Gopalan,

So, I'm a "well meaning" LIBERAL, eh? ;-) Well, I don't know that many of my views would square well with a lot of hard-core lefties (fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility, limited government/welfare, guns 'n drugs, anti-illegal immigration, etc.), but I am socially very liberal.

every action should be voluntary and never done using force (taxes, which are collected under threat of penalty is coercive and therefore, immoral!

I don't see how any government could collect taxes without it being coercive. Once people got wind of it being voluntary, that would be the end of it.

Small sacrifices by lots of people are better for society than large sacrifices by the disadantaged or unlucky.

Huh? I have to disagree. It depends on how small the sacrifices are.

I first read about this on page A7 of the NYT a few weeks ago. What if these aren’t used for an ‘immigration emergency’, but to hold people the government finds subversive?

Well, I guess only the subversive people should be afraid then. I wonder what kind of immigration emergency do they have in mind. Perhaps a mass exodus from a close neighbor?

...to build immigration-detention centers that could total $385 million

Let's see, using real inflation and taking into account overhead and administrative costs that may be enough to build two detention centers to hold, oh, 200 men?

The silver lining of Libertarianism is...POLYGAMY!!. But why does polygamy in the U.S. always mean multiple wives and not multiple husbands?

The point of welfare, and other income or sustenance support programs is not to help anybody onto their feet. They(sic) point is to sustain those fallen through the cracks...

The real point of welfare is to pacify the masses so that there will be no support for insurrection against the government. Feed the people just enough so that they are soft and pliable and in the databases.

BTW, what does the government have to do with marriage? The government should not be regulating it at all, except that people deemed minors (i.e. under 18) should not be allowed to enter contracts by themselves (I guess marriage can be considered a contract).

I guess I am not a true libertarian. I do want the government to promote certain values, such as marriage, integrity, and commitment. I think it should really attempt to make divorces more difficult. At least, filing for divorce should be much more difficult and demanding than filing for bankruptcy.

The real point of welfare is to pacify the masses so that there will be no support for insurrection against the government.

Aren't there cheaper ways?

It is my opinion that capitalism and democracy (is there a more "capitalistic" form of government besides an anarchy?) are inherently unstable. A democracy, it is said, can only exist until people discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. At that point, another form of government can "buy" its way into power. Similarly, unfettered capitalism will see the most effective operators build up monopolies, then find ways to maintain them.

We have the benefit of living in a time where most of the excesses of capitalism have been curbed. I work for a biotech, and as part of our orientation we learned how most current health regulations came into existence. Back in 1937, the market demanded a liquid form of sulfa. A company discovered that it would dissolve in diethylene glycol, tested it for taste, smell, etc. and began shipping. Over a hundred people died before the problem was contained. Eventually, it would have been stopped, as selling toxic products is bad for business, but with a much higher death toll. ( http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/elixir.html )

Looking at the writings of Upton Sinclair (best known for _The_Jungle_, an expose of the meat-packing industry) and other "muckraking" journalists reveals a time in which market forces themselves provide coercion that most libertarians would consider improper if imposed by a specific entity (government or corporation) instead of by the market.

Oh, and on the meaning of "classic liberal". Classic liberals are the people who brought us the civil rights act and voting rights act, built massive public works projects like the interstate system, social security, and overall increases in standards of living that give us our current society. I'm not sure where this weird victimhood thing came from, but it's a definite cancer on the party. It's easy to talk about the virtues of smaller government and deregulation in the present day; especially since few remember what life was like before WWII, and fewer still before the 20th century.

Aren’t there cheaper ways?

Yes, but the massive flow of federal and state money into a local economy through welfare gives the government great influence at the local level that can't be had by regulatory power alone.

Hi Harm,
First of all, I greatly enjoy having discussions here on this forum. There is obviously quite a few people with some intellect here. That said, I wanted to throw in a few thougths.
As far as Libertarianism and it's perception in the US, I think that just as ultra conservatism casts a negative shadow on the republican party, Ultra Liberals do the same kind of damage to the democratic party. To be Libertarian is in itself a fairly abused word, where people these days seem to confine it to very exacting dertails. The same can be said for conservatism.The fact is that Most people in this country are right in the middle, with liberal and conservative opinions.Unfortunatly, these people usually don't do much about voicing their opinions.
I grew up in the rural south with fairly liberal parents even though dad more conservative and mom is more liberal in her views. I have lived in Boston, NY, and now CA. To say the least, I have come full circle and seen both extremes: People with blind faith in their beliefs, but more often than not, someone else's beliefs rather than theirs. In essence, the liberal and conservative mindset were tacked onto the two parties. This in turn has created a giant "pissing contest", where both groups lob grenades back and forth with little effect.
I worked briefly for a non profit publishing company that was selling a book during the election. I won't mention the title, but it was about the need for the democratic party to seperate itself into metropolitan and "retropolitian" regions- the retro areas being the red states, and the rest- mostly in CA, NY, MA etc being blue. The book goes on and on about how that where I'm from is extractive, not interested in development of breakthrough technology, or a model citizen in the representation of human rights. I could go on and on,but the book was utter garbage. The book sold very well, probably to countless individuals who've never left CA or lived in anywhere except the 2 coasts. So they believed the book to be the gospel truth.Utter misguided propaganda written by a billionaire eccentric.
So what we have now are 2 vehemently opposed parties who will not listen to each other. This country must have BOTH liberal and conservative minds at work together.

Enter the "modern" age of computers and technology,particularly in California. The way capitalism works in the job economy is the desired effect of the never-ending push for growth, profits, and lowering the bottom line no matter what the costs are. It basically eats itself to death.If it means cutting 25,000 jobs, so be it. In a place like California where the average engineer makes 3 times that of an engineer anywhere else, and ten times that of someone in Asia, and this is quite a predictment. I feel that we are in the start of another industrial revolution. The diffrence is that this time around, the factory floor is no longer just an extension of the company office next door. Instead, places like China, India, and many other developing countries will serve this purpose. The other diffrence is that instead of the usual knob pushing, lever pulling assemblywork given to the term "factory", the new factories in the developing world will also be those that house intellectual design, developing high-end technological products at a enormous rate. There are over 750,000 Chinese engineers graduating EVERY YEAR.. an army of researchers and developers working for 10k a year.Thus the engineer of today may be no more within 10-15 years. The circle has come round' again, as it has over and over, and unlike the last revolution, the saving grace will be a reverse of what has occured last time as undeveloped parts of the country become more of the hotbeds that once dotted CA,NY, and so on.This is the only way, for I see no way for a heavily overpriced region such as CA being able to hold onto talent, jobs, or skills compared to the rest of the country.Perhaps a period of economic instability is on the horizon. I know all of that above sounds far-fetched.

HARM and hate to rent,

Think about this. There are contradictions in what both of you are saying. HARM says he wouldn't mind his taxes going to help people in need. But he also says if there were no coercive nobody would pay them. How about you, HARM? From your statement, it does look like you would pay. And so would many other folks with similar viewpoints to yours!

Just the fact that more than 30% of the folks feel that high taxes are necessary and that they would be willing to pay them, is evidence that people are willing to help their fellow man, isn't it?

Just remember - there are no aliens in government. They are all human beings too. And they are elected by human beings too. To say that men will elect other men who will collect taxes to help people, but men will not directly help other men is illogical. If it is true that most people, left to their own, will not help others, then the only politicians who get elected would be the ones who promise zero taxes. Why isn't that happening?

I am not even going to get into how taxes are spent in actuality. I am also going to not talk about ineffeciency and corruption which are unavoidable with dealing with other people's money.

HARM, I just find it amusing to find you say - "I don't mind paying taxes, some of which might end up in the right people's hands." Isn't is simpler and more effective to not pay any federal taxes but instead choose yourself who would get your hard-earned money in the form of charity? Do you really think politicians and bureaucrats do a better job of spending your money than independent charities and decent, hardworking folks?

Recent events like 9/11, tsunami and katrina are evidence that people do give wholeheartedly when they see their fellow men in needy situations. Other evidence includes the fact that various charitable organizations have been thriving for a long time. If people weren't willing help their fellow men, no charities would survive for even a day!

The crux of your argument seems to be that people won't help their fellow men, but the people in the magical organization called "Government" will. Why? Do they have a different genetic makeup?

Lastly, hate to rent, has walmart ever force you at gunpoint to (a) shop there or (b) work there? If not, I fail to see how that corporation hurts you. If you don't like it, great. Don't shop there and don't work there. You will be free from it. When was the last time you had that flexibility and freedom with the government? If you don't like a war or a social program, are you able to adjust your taxes so that you only pay for what you like? That, my friend, is force and force is immoral.

Peace.

Hey Gopalan,
I'll say that I outright HATE that 30% of my income goes to taxes, especially to a state that's so expensive I can't afford a basic house, or much else. I also don't like it because as far as I see, the money isn't being utilized. The schools are in bad shape, and so are the roads and infrastructure: basic stuff that taxes are supposed to take care of.
The Wal-Mart question? I totally agree with you. Nobody forces anyone to shop there. Do they hurt other businesses? Good question. Good personal example: I bought a brand new Chinese made beach cruiser bicycle there. It has fenders, a nice storage rack, chrome plated trim and the works.. all for $49.95. On the other hand, my local bicyle shop in Alameda sells beach cruisers( also made in China) for $275.00. That's a big delta. As consumers, we have the freedom to choose, and if I have to pay an assload of money to live in this state on my middle income wages, then I don't want someone else telling me I have to be forced to spend MORE money to support the local businesses, yadda yadda yadda just because. Otherwise, we might as well start making tractors for the "people".

I do not like Walmart. I do not like junk.

Buy something a little better quality and take care of it!

Absolutely. What is the point of low quality stuff anyway?

But again, the Walmart question comes down to choice. It may sell crap, but no one puts a gun to anyone’s head and forces them to shop there.

But it forces higher-quality stores to go out of business. I have no sympathy for any business, but I hate the downward spiral of quality.

SFwoman,
I don't think you represent the typical Wal-mart shopper in the first place. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but I know for a fact that Wal-mart doesn't market their stores to those who are somewhat well off, which I am guessing you are by the number of items and shopping habits you've mentioned. Correct me if I am wrong. I've never seen wealthy types looking at a pair of pants in the ladie's dept. Wal-mart appeals to the largest cross section of America. As far as what they sell, it' the same "made in china" crap that's everywhere, whether you go to banana republic, Kalven Klein, or ( enter the blank) upscale, mom n pop, or smaller retail store.If you think that spending more is better for the same pair of jeans, flip the label and look where the thing is made. Almost all in the same places.I worked in retail for years, and we had a lot of people buy German power tools from us. They didn't mind spending $50 extra bucks for them either.It's german and expensive, thus it must be good, right? The irony, something we rarely pointed out, was that some of our routers were Bosch routers based off a Dewalt Design.. BOTH made in China, and with a signifigant diffrence in the price.
Sure, the quality at Wal-Mart might be somewhat lower( it is getting better and better all the time), but they also sell things like Eggs, bacon, milk, soy sauce, and japanese food. You would be amazed at what Wal-Mart sells in the food sections. I've bought quite a bit of international foods there-the same as they sell in a "real" international store, or Berkeley Bowl for that matter, for 50% of what it costs anywhere else. I work 60 hours a week, and If I have the choice to save 50% off an item, then I have that choice.
California and other states have tried to keep Wal-Mart out of their cities, so that local retailers can have less competition with them. I am a big fan of creative problem solving, and if the only way a store can survive against a big chain is by getting local government to surpress another company from entering the market, then this is pretty stupid in my book. It only means that YOU will pay MORE for the same crap, for the sake of shopping somewhere that lacks the efficiency of another business. Wal-Mart exlcuded, that's faulty logic and one of the main reasons that CA besides housing is so god-damned expensive. It's been tailored for the yuppie class.

Just a tiny shade of optimism among the gloom that these kind of discussions tend to provoke:

* The US and global economies are not static, nor are they "zero-sum". Growth in one region really is good for everyone in the long-run. It's the period of adjustment that causes concern.

* The US is very very very far from slipping into lack of self-sufficiency. US agriculture, for example, is many times more productive than most of the world, even modern Europe. The US produces much more agricultural stock than is required for sufficiency. In fact, much of the consternation over global agricultural subsidies centers around other countries wanting the US to open to their imports but be able to protect against our much more efficient and thus cheaper exports.

* The above also applies to manufacturing, despite popular conception. What has occurred in mfg is that we've shed old industrial-area labor intensive mfg, replacing it with small, capital intensive fabrication. Most people don't realize that there has been a net increase in US mfg output in the past 30 years, not the opposite. Just a lot less people are employed to do it (same as ag).

* Even given dramatic growth in engineering and R&D in India and China (although China has far far fewer than 750K *equivalent* engineers graduating every year, they still have a lot), there is a hidden economic pressure that is being masked by the current global system. Inflation.

China, and less so India, are masking enormous inflationary pressures through a complex system of currency manipulation, capital controls and trade barriers. This game creates huge disequilibriums, and cannot go on indefinitely. If China were to loose the RMB, their engineers and R&D would close in to within 15% of the *median* rates in the US in PPP terms, well within the logistical overhead. This doesn't help those losing out today, but it will eventually correct itself; there is *no* alternative. China cannot build national wealth on stacks of USD paper. In fact, we are building more proportionate wealth on their taking our paper. We are restructuring inefficient industries on their dime.

* And don't forget, the US is *by far* the most self-sufficient, large industrialized nation. We produce nearly 80% of our GDP internally. We do not rely upon an export economy, nor currency manipulation. We are militarily strong, and have by far the lowest percentage of GDP debt when compared to Europe or Asia. We can survive entirely without the rest of the world if need be, only at about a 15% reduced consumption level. (Don't get me wrong, this would hurt bad, but not kill us; like it would Europe or Japan)

The sun will surely set on America, but it will be quite a while until that day comes. Those shorting the "end of our empire" would be well advised to be able to hold those positions for more than a few generations. Of course we can do a lot of damage, and hasten the end; something I am inclined to believe the current leadership is unintentionally encouraging. But, things have been much much worse before, and yet those trials have not succeeded in sinking us. I don't think these will either.

Here are questions to ask yourself: what will Korea do when they eventually lose the hyperscale steel mfg base? How hard will the adjustment be for them? Can they survive such restructuring on their own without aid? How about China, with over 1bn in population who's GDP is built upon over 60% export mfg and 25%-50% inflation in a genie bottle? Or "old" Europe with GDP debt approaching 100% and generational entitlements that will push this over 200%, but little immigration to fill the worker gap?

Market captialist democracy is absolutely a terrible socio-political-economic system; it's just better than all the others that have been tried.

nor are they “zero-sum”.

I hear you...

I could present the economic-benefit-of-Wal-mart argument, but it's dry, boring and doesn't appeal to emotions.

Suffices to say that even though Wal-mart uses labor arbitrage and local market power (local monopoly power) to create barriers to entry, they were only able to do so by first creating consumer benefit in the areas they penetrated. You cannot become a local monopoly without first offerring something of value.

Wal-mart faces very serious challenges to future growth today; something well studied in B-Schools. They have had a series of dismal failures in expansion attempts the past years. They're in the "winners-curse" zone now. I look for them to diversify, then later sell off loss-leading divisions over time. Not that different from the lifecycle supermarkets went through 30+ years ago.

[The "Futurist"]

The only people who would oppose it fit into one of the two categories above. There is no other possible reason [...]

Only one type of person subscribes to and produces such rhetoric. A pseudo-intellectual demagauge. (Decrying "there is no debate" does not pass as debate.)

Don't get me wrong, I love Walmart's business model and tactics. I just hate the culture of cheapness.

I move we retitle "The Futurist" to a more appropre "The Reactionary Demagogue". In the spirit of Fox-News style "intellectual" bullying. I can hear echos of Roy Cohn: "Answer the question! Yes or no! Are you still a communist supporter? Yes or no?"

But I’m willing to bet a lot of people don’t bother to do research when they are looking to buy stuff. We’ve all commented on how people jump into RE without any real knowledge, so why should consumer products be a different story. I bet if we asked the average Walmart customer they would say they were getting a good “deal” on what they buy.

Always look at the total cost of ownership. It is the true cost to you.

LOL, Randy is not a liberal. Don't worry.

I do not understand why Fox News is considered right-wing. Perhaps I have not been watching TV for too long.

It is fun to expose ideologues like Randy H.

Randy is not an "ideologue", trust me on this one.

Juku,

I am about as "left" as your logic is sound. You'll have to try harder if you're looking to expose me. The "Futurist" has made a number of categorically false statements which I and others have provided objective, empirical references about.

If actually thinking through issues violates your sensibilities, then by all means continue to consume knee-jerk pablum, whatever the left/right slant.

For the record, I regard all the major television "news" media equally as lowly. Fox gets singled out because of it's "new kid" status, but they're in good company with all the other infotainment circuses.

Anyone who thinks any news service is not biased is not paying attention.

Yes, if I run a news station I will be so biased that vegetarians or animal right activists may bomb me.

There is no value in san Francisco real estate at today’s prices.

But there is more value in SF real estate than SJ real estate.