04
Jun
2013
Michael Lind Admits Libertarianism Has Never Been Tried
Michael Lind blows up libertarians by pointing out that we’re apparently writing books, giving speeches, and basically devoting a majority of our waking lives to make the world different from how it currently is. (It would be pretty weird if Rothbard wrote books like, The Ethics of the Status Quo but I digress.)
Tom Woods takes Lind at face value and provides a response. But, I am happy to take Lind’s article as Exhibit A, and all the libertarian-haters’ endorsement of it. Now, the next time someone tries to tell me that the financial crisis is the result of Hayekian deregulation, I will send him Lind’s progressive-approved article.
No kidding
Last sentence of the Lind article:
“They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.”
Sure, it is a small point, but they “succeeded”?? Really? What would failure look like? A wall falling down?
They can “succeed” of course, as long as we keep the standard opaque and non-concrete.
I’m guessing that “success” would be whatever socialism generates.
“What would failure look like? A wall falling down?”
Uh, no, that’s apparently success. Success is a wall falling down. In Berlin.
GeePonder, you took that sentence out of context and misunderstood it. Here is the full context:
“Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.” [my emphasis]
You have a point there.
Actually, LK repeatedly employs a similar “it never existed but it failed” avoidance technique as one of his two or three Grand Scams.
And that’s because “there are different types of laissez faire”.
The long hunt for the missing pure period of laissez faire placebo continues.
No, roddis, as usual, misrepresentation of your opponent”s opinions is your operating tactic.
I do not say “it never existed but it failed”.
If you define “free market or laissez faire” solely as Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, that system has never existed in the real world.
You could of course say that some 19th century capitalist economies roughly *approximated* it in certain ways and use them as proxies for roughly what you would see, but you still have no direct empirical evidence for how Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism would work.
Therefore showing how an imaginary Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism might fail is a therefore a theoretical exercise.
“I do not say “it never existed but it failed”.”
You don’t have to explicitly say this for you to say the same thing using different words.
“If you define “free market or laissez faire” solely as Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, that system has never existed in the real world.”
Sure it has. You’re confusing the market for a location, or group of people.
The market is a process.
To whatever extent two individuals agree to respect each other’s property rights, or, perhaps more obviously, to the extent that two individuals agree to trade their private property and/or labor services, then that *is* “laissez-faire”, “Rothbardianism”, “anarcho-capitalism” in action.
You likely behave anarcho-capitalistically with your fellow human beings more often than you don’t. To the extent that you respect other people’s property rights, to the extent that you trade with others, that *is* “Rothbardia” in action.
Now, having said that, I myself often use these terms in the way you use them, in order to communicate it to those who think in holistic terms, but strictly speaking, laissez-faire exists to whatever extent individuals respect each other’s private property rights.
Most individuals of whom you might call “citizens” are actually (practising) anarchists. Most citizens don’t steal, or initiate aggression against others, at least not on any daily basis.
You yourself likely behave Anarchistically, not Post-Keynesian. You don’t tax people. You don’t run a forced backed monopoly money printing operation. You don’t point a gun at Wall Street execs and tell them what rules they have to follow. No, you likely behave the way myself and others on this blog accept as “the” right way to behave in a world of scarcity.
You are a walking contradiction, whereas I am not. Your ethical advocacy contradicts your own actions. Mine do not. I advocate for respect for private property rights, and my actions are consistent with that.
So it’s a little strange to hear you say that you are in a valid position to “theoretically refute” the very ethic that you yourself live by on a daily basis.
“You likely behave anarcho-capitalistically with your fellow human beings more often than you don’t. To the extent that you respect other people’s property rights, to the extent that you trade with others, that *is* “Rothbardia” in action.”
So suddenly whole swathes of the human behaviour in the modern world are “Rothbardia” in action?!
A surprising piece of incoherent gibberish even for MF.
Consider business transactions across the US. Most are exchanges are conducted in allegedly “evil” fiat money.
Goods are transported on public infrastructure facilities all built from (according to MF’s theory) state theft. When business party fails to fulfil its side of a contract, its likely the state based justice system will be used by the aggrieved party to sue for redress.
Yet no doubt this is all an example of “Rothbardia” in action! lol
The real problem is that when private thugs mug me for money MF *says* I owe him (rather than suing me in court and getting a court order) that is Rothbardia in action too.
No it isn’t. Rothbardian ethics prohibits theft.
Were you and LK dropped on your heads as babies?
This shouldn’t be difficult.
“So suddenly whole swathes of the human behaviour in the modern world are “Rothbardia” in action?!”
Not “suddenly”. There have always been individuals acting in this manner.
Of course, there was a significant increase in the number of interactions that were market process which we now label as the industrial revolution.
“A surprising piece of incoherent gibberish even for MF.”
How is it “incoherent” when you responded to it in a way that presupposes it has definite meaning?
“Consider business transactions across the US. Most are exchanges are conducted in allegedly “evil” fiat money.”
But these exchanges are voluntary. What isn’t voluntary are the interactions between those individuals in the state, who are not utilizing the market process of behavior, which has influenced others to use fiat paper.
“Goods are transported on public infrastructure facilities all built from (according to MF’s theory) state theft.”
You mean roads? Roads have been, and to a large extent still are, private.
But even if all roads were monopolized by the state, it wouldn’t change the fact that the interactions between market participants is in accordance with anarcho-capitalist principles.
“When business party fails to fulfil its side of a contract, its likely the state based justice system will be used by the aggrieved party to sue for redress.”
LK, you can list a million different instances of non-anarcho-capitalist interactions, but they will not erase or eliminate the many instances of interactions that are anarcho-capitalist.
“Yet no doubt this is all an example of “Rothbardia” in action! lol”
No, those are examples of voluntarism not in action.
Are you so incredibly blind that you cannot even observe instances of individuals respecting each other’s property rights, and engaging in trades?
You’re completely missing the point.
The point is that to the extent that individuals respect each other’s property rights, and to the extent they engage in free trade, then it doesn’t matter what other individuals are doing, when it comes to the factual nature of the (anarchist) interactions in question.
Every day you act in an anarcho-capitalist manner.
Every day neither you nor I act in a Keynesian manner.
Again, LK, you’re confused because you refuse to treat other people as individuals. You only think holistically.
If you and I engage in a free trade of private property, and we both respect each other’s property rights, that is anarcho-capitalism in action.
Most people in this country behave anarcho-capitalistically. It is why civilization is even being sustained at all.
Even if some people do not behave in this way, it does not refute the fact that most people do.
You advocate for an ethic that you yourself refuse to abide by. You advocate for taxation, and yet you do not tax anyone. You advocate for inflation, and yet you do not inflate. You advocate for “regulation”, and yet you do not regulate.
Can you not see any problem with that? That you yourself won’t even abide by the ethic you claim is justified for all of us?
“If you and I engage in a free trade of private property, and we both respect each other’s property rights, that is anarcho-capitalism in action.”
No, abiding by the law, following certain ethical principles, and engaging in an exchange elements of which might be voluntary is not necessarily “anarcho-capitalism in action”, for it assumes that no other economic systems or moral theories also defend such behaviour.
Keynesian theory also assumes private ownership of capital goods and voluntary trades on markets.
Using your absurd logic, I might as well say that instances in which people own private capital and engage in voluntary trades — even in an imaginary an-cap system — are just “Keynesianism” in action”
“No, abiding by the law, following certain ethical principles, and engaging in an exchange elements of which might be voluntary is not necessarily “anarcho-capitalism in action”, for it assumes that no other economic systems or moral theories also defend such behaviour.”
Terrible logic, LK.
Anarcho-capitalism does not pretend to be an ethic whereby all of its ethical norms are 100% unique to anarcho-capitalism.
If there is a particular behavior that is consistent with two different ethical systems, it doesn’t mean that we can’t “label” such behavior, when it occurs, as one or the other or both.
“Keynesian theory also assumes private ownership of capital goods and voluntary trades on markets.”
No it doesn’t. Keynesianism calls for violations of voluntary trades. Keynesianism is an ethic for state activity, not market agent activity. Keynes’ doctrine was not for market actors. It was for statesmen only.
To the extent that individuals respect each other’s property rights, to the extent that individuals engage in free trade, Keynesianism cannot possibly be a part of such behavior. There is no taxation, or any other initiation of force, in voluntary interactions.
“Using your absurd logic, I might as well say that instances in which people own private capital and engage in voluntary trades — even in an imaginary an-cap system — are just “Keynesianism” in action”.”
That isn’t my logic, that is your own twisted and warped logic that purports to show that Keynesian activity is compatible with free market activity. It is not.
If you and I engage in a voluntary trade, if you and I respect each other’s property rights, there is zero room for Keynesian activity in those interactions.
The only way to introduce Keynesianism would be external to our activity, and connected to your activity with others, or my activity with others, where some other individuals practised Keynesianism against either myself or you, or either myself or you practised Keynesianism against others.
But as far as you and I are concerned, we are acting anarcho-capitalistically, because neither of us is imposing ourselves as a state on the other, so it’s anarchist, and neither of us are violating each other’s property rights, so it’s capitalist. Hence, it’s anarcho-capitalist.
You are acting anarcho-capitalistically on a pretty much daily basis. The only way you can act Keynesian with me is if you did not respect my property rights, i.e. you threatened me with violence, or initiated violence against me, if I did not hand over my property to you.
Without such coercion, you and I are going to necessarily act anarcho-capitalistically vis a vis each other. For I could produce a means of production if I want, using my own property, and you would respect my property rights.
And on cue, the double standard:
“No it doesn’t. Keynesianism calls for violations of voluntary trades. Keynesianism is an ethic for state activity, not market agent activity. Keynes’ doctrine was not for market actors. It was for statesmen only.”
If Austrianism is positive not normative, ie we should judege it positively, then Keynesianism is positive not normative, ie we should judge it positively.
Ken B
“If Austrianism is positive not normative, ie we should judege it positively, then Keynesianism is positive not normative, ie we should judge it positively.”
Try to keep up Ken B. LK is using “Keynesianism” in the ethical sense, not the economic principles only sense.
It’s not a double standard.
To act Keynesian, and to act anarcho-capitalistically, presupposes two radically different ethical norms. I am addressing those norms.
We can save the economic claims for another day.
“If you and I engage in a voluntary trade, if you and I respect each other’s property rights, there is zero room for Keynesian activity in those interactions. “
Yes, no doubt Keynesians think all capital goods should be owned by the state or voluntary trades on markets should never happen!
Tell us another fable.
“Yes, no doubt Keynesians think all capital goods should be owned by the state or voluntary trades on markets should never happen!”
I notice you are reatreating, LK, into the sewer of making sure that we all don’t all go assuming that Keynesianism *is* Marxism.
I will repeat this, because you’re dodging the issue:
If you and I engage in voluntary trade, if we respect each other’s property rights, then there is zero room for you or I to act Keynesian towards the other as far as you and I are concerned. Keynesianism cannot arise.
If you respect other people’s property rights on a daily basis, if you are acting anarcho-capitalistically on a daily basis.
LK, YOU ARE A PRACTISING ANARCHO-CAPITALIST.
I am a practising one too.
Neither of us are practising Keynesians.
Can you explain that?
If you and I engage in voluntary trade, if we respect each other’s property rights, then there is zero room for you or I to act Keynesian
You are simply inventing an expression “acting Keynesian” to mean the opposite of your assertions, when Keynesian theory is compatible with private ownership of capital , private production of goods, and voluntary trades on markets.
Also, many ethical theories justify the behaviours you mention.
You have already conceded that by saying:
“Anarcho-capitalism does not pretend to be an ethic whereby all of its ethical norms are 100% unique to anarcho-capitalism.
Right. The general idea of an exchange between two consenting adults of sound mind is supported by every ethical theory I can think of.
The notion that it is “acting in an anarcho-capitalist manner” is an absurd attempt to claim that the behaviour is only prescribed by anarcho-capitalism.
As I said above, I can use your same logic, and say:
YOU are acting in a Kantian ethical manner every day.
YOU are acting in a pluralistic deontological, non-absolutist ethical manner every day.
YOU are acting in a Rawlsian human rights objectivist manner every day.
YOU are acting in a utililtarian manner every day.
MF, YOU ARE A PRACTISING KANTIAN, RAWLSIAN, UTILIATRAN, etc., etc.
“You are simply inventing an expression “acting Keynesian” to mean the opposite of your assertions, when Keynesian theory is compatible with private ownership of capital , private production of goods, and voluntary trades on markets.
Also, many ethical theories justify the behaviours you mention.”
I’m not “inventing” anything, LK, and you’re not even responding to the argument I am raising.
Keynesianism is not compatible with voluntary trade, and I challenge you to show how either of us can act Keynesian if it is stipulated that we are respecting each other’s property rights and engaging in free trade.
If Keynesianism is compatible, then you should be able to show how either of us could act Keynesian in this context.
“You have already conceded that by saying:”
“Anarcho-capitalism does not pretend to be an ethic whereby all of its ethical norms are 100% unique to anarcho-capitalism.”
I conceded no such thing. I didn’t say this was possible for ANY two ethics. I just said IF there are two ethics whereby both are compatible, THEN it is not wrong to say that the individuals are acting in that manner.
“Right. The general idea of an exchange between two consenting adults of sound mind is supported by every ethical theory I can think of.”
Not Keynesianism, among other ethics.
“The notion that it is “acting in an anarcho-capitalist manner” is an absurd attempt to claim that the behaviour is only prescribed by anarcho-capitalism.”
I already said that I didn’t claim it was prescribed by ONLY anarcho-capitalism, only that it IS prescribed by anarcho-capitalism.
You’re still dodging the issue.
Again, I ask: GIVEN that you and I are respecting each other’s property rights, if we are engaging in free trade, how can either of us make room for Keynesian ethics vis a vis the other person?
“As I said above, I can use your same logic, and say:”
“YOU are acting in a Kantian ethical manner every day.”
But I don’t abide by anarcho-capitalist ethics because I have no personal interest in it. Kant held that the only valid ethic is one where you feel no personal benefit.
You’re not using the logic I am presenting to you, LK. You’re dodging the issue, misusing the logic I am presenting, and making factual errors concerning what are basic premises of Kant’s ethics.
“YOU are acting in a pluralistic deontological, non-absolutist ethical manner every day.”
That’s false as well. I am acting in a very much “absolutist” ethic. I act using the ethic that murder and theft are absolutely wrong.
“YOU are acting in a Rawlsian human rights objectivist manner every day.”
Also false. Rawlsian ethics has no room in my actual behavior
“YOU are acting in a utililtarian manner every day.”
Also false. My behavior is incompatible with the dictum of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, should the greatest number just so happen to feel happier in a way that contradicts the ethics presupposed by my actual behavior.
“MF, YOU ARE A PRACTISING KANTIAN, RAWLSIAN, UTILIATRAN, etc., etc.”
No, I’m not. I am not a practising Kantian, nor a Rawlsian, nor a utilitarian.
——————-
I ask a third time, given that you and I are respecting each other’s property rights, how can either you or myself use Keynesian ethics?
I really like how a voucher program is apparently something libertarians like and the heritage foundation is supposedly a libertarian approved think tank. As if mildly less awful is close enough.
No wonder Michael Lind can’t find any libertarians that can answer his question. He keeps asking republicans.
By LK’s reasoning, if Stalin killed less people and threw less in prison camps from one year to another, then he was practicing laissez faire, or at the very least he was moving toward laissez faire. Khrushchev must have been an outright Ancap by comparison if we use LK’s logic.
(1) “But, I am happy to take Lind’s article as Exhibit A, and all the libertarian-haters’ endorsement of it. Now, the next time someone tries to tell me that the financial crisis is the result of Hayekian deregulation,”
It wasn’t “Hayekian deregulation,” but deregulatory bills inspired by the revived mainstream neoclassical economics.
It takes colossal arrogance to suggest — as some of your commentators do here — that the only true form of “laissez faire” is Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism.
Not even Rothbard was that extreme, e.g.,
“Laissez-faire was, roughly, the traditional policy in American depressions before 1929. The laissez-faire precedent was set in America’s first great depression, 1819, when the federal government’s only act was to ease terms of payment for its own land debtors. President Van Buren also set a staunch laissez-faire course, in the Panic of 1837. Subsequent federal governments followed a similar path, the chief sinners being state governments, which periodically permitted insolvent banks to continue in operation without paying their obligations. In the 1920–1921 depression, government intervened to a greater extent, but wage rates were permitted to fall, and government expenditures and taxes were reduced. And this depression was over in one year — in what Dr. Benjamin M. Anderson has called “our last natural recovery to full employment.”
Laissez-faire, then, was the policy dictated both by sound theory and by historical precedent. But in 1929, the sound course was rudely brushed aside.
http://mises.org/daily/2902
I.e., Rothbard thinks that laissez faire policy did exist in 19th century America.
Does Murphy think that there are various types of laissez faire economics? Does he think that, for example, New Classical economics is a form of laissez faire economics?
(2) It quite obvious that people advocating Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are like people advocating Marx’s perfect communist society, in the sense that both are appealing to high utopian systems we have never seen in the real world.
“(2) It quite obvious that people advocating Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are like people advocating Marx’s perfect communist society, in the sense that both are appealing to high utopian systems we have never seen in the real world.”
What people get out of debating this guy is beyond me. I’d rather bang my head against a wall than spend time walking back this nonsense.
Marx believed that division of labour is a stupid idea, Rothbard understood that it is a damn good idea.
Also Marx believed that leadership is worthless.
I’m not particularly happy with Rothbard’s use of the term “laissez faire” in this context either. We know that the 19th century “gold standard” was a myth. We know that “free banking” in Australia in the 19th century had a 40% reserve requirement. We know that the robber barons found they could not form monopolies on the free market and so they created government backed crony capitalist cartels which cannot be blamed (as it always is) on laissez faire. We know that the1920 depression was caused by the government’s and the Fed’s distortions in subsidizing US entry into WWI. We know that the Great Depression was initially caused by central bank credit expansion, not laissez faire. We know that Herbert Hoover did not practice laissez faire which allegedly prolonged the Great Depression. We know that the latest housing bust was caused by the highly regulated government backed and entwined funny money banking cartel and not “deregulation” or anything like a free market or laissez faire.
Further, the differences between Rothbardian “ancap” and a minimal night-watchman state are irrelevant for purposes of Austrian economic analysis. The concepts of private property, the non-aggression principle, freedom of contract and the prohibition on fraud are not ambiguous nor are the concepts of autistic, binary and triangular intervention. Nor are the concepts of economic calculation and the pricing process ambiguous, but that doesn’t stop LK and his permanent jihad of obfuscation and distortion.
In fact, 99.99% of “debates” with statists are nothing but attempts by the statists to obfuscate and blur the clear and easily understood meanings of words, concepts and categories of analysis so that simple matters appear obscure and unintelligible and that libertarians are allegedly advocating something that is the opposite of what they are actually advocating.
“I’m not particularly happy with Rothbard’s use of the term “laissez faire” in this context either.”
So you’re saying that laissez faire has never existed anywhere in the real world at any period in history!?
How fascinating!
Almost like it’s unworkable!
“So you’re saying that laissez faire has never existed anywhere in the real world at any period in history!?”
Do you really want to make the argument that because something has never existed it can’t?
I suggest a college Logic course.
Mike,
Don’t recommend college knowledge to this troll. That’s where he got all his zany ideas in the first place. He took everything they dished out and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. He’s been suffering massive mental indigestion ever since but has never thought to go back into the kitchen and look at how what he ate was made. He doesn’t realize it was all laced with poison from the get go.
Then he wants to blame the poor farmer peddling unadulterated crops fresh from his field for his next meal!
BobRoddis,
“We know that “free banking” in Australia in the 19th century had a 40% reserve requirement.”
May I ask where you found this info? A link would be greatly appreciated.
I originally found it here in what purports to be a comment by Austrialian anti-Austrian John Quiggin:
http://critiquesofcollectivism.blogspot.com/2011/02/john-quiggin-on-abct.html?showComment=1298001476947#c6188943951814638041
The failure of 1890s Austrialian “free banking” was a long time go-to for LK until I cited that.
“We know that “free banking” in Australia in the 19th century had a 40% reserve requirement. “
The comment Roddis cites does not even refer to a “40% reserve requirement.”
It says:
“One writer on the subject commented that in Australia “the legal framework with which banks operated was perhaps the least restrictive of any on record” (Dowd 1992).Butlin (1953),commented that “there was no tender law, no central bank, no legal control over the total volume of bank loans, and only a very primitive control by the banks themselves through a loosely applied rule of thumb (cash reserves should be to one-third the sum of deposits and notes) concerning reserves against all liabilities”.
http://critiquesofcollectivism.blogspot.com/2011/02/john-quiggin-on-abct.html?showComment=1298001476947#c6188943951814638041
———
So what it says is that private banks themselves had a “loosely applied rule of thumb” where cash reserves were about 33.33%
In other words, it wasn’t some “evil” government regulation at all, but private banking practice.
Later it refers to some very minimal 1840 Colonial Bank Regulations, but these were “largely ignored”!
John S, this is roddis in all his prize stupidity, and Roddis refutes nothing.
Australia did not have 100% reserve banking. It’s not an example of Rothbardian banking failing. Which is the subject for today (so let’s change it, says LK).
BTW, there are examples from history which demonstrate that PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENTAL people commit horrible crimes. There, I’ve refuted you silly libertarians.
“Australia did not have 100% reserve banking. It’s not an example of Rothbardian banking failing. “
Yet you said:
” We know that “free banking” in Australia in the 19th century had a 40% reserve requirement.”
(1) Free banking isn’t 100% reserve banking, so the context here is NOT Rothbardian banking.
(2) your assertion that “Australia in the 19th century had a 40% reserve requirement” is false.
In fact, that system was a close approximation of free banking.
(3) You imply that some evil government intervention — a “40% reserve requirement” — was responsible for causing the depression of the 1890s. You are wrong.
All in all, failure on every front.
I did not imply that some evil government intervention — a “40% reserve requirement” — was responsible for causing the depression of the 1890s.
I hadn’t looked up the link for a year. I typed “huben quiggin” into Google and got this:
http://tinyurl.com/la6jl8b
I went to the “critiques of collectivism” blog and found the link which I did not re-read. Get a life, LK.
“You imply that some evil government intervention — a “40% reserve requirement” — was responsible for causing the depression of the 1890s.”
No, he didn’t. In fact, he implied very strongly that the failure of the government to prevent fraud caused it – whether the reserve requirement was set by government or “loose banking practices” is irrelevant.
His bringing up of this reserve requirement was clearly in the context that “free banking” under a fractionally reserve system IS NOT LAISSEZ FAIRE, according to Rothbardian property rights strictures, any more than theft is.
Yes, having read Dowd’s chapter, I also thought the 40% figure was wrong and wanted to make sure.
In context, Rothbard’s use of the term Laissez-Faire in the quote is in terms of the government’s response to depressions. He was not arguing that USA was ever a completely laissez-faire system, but ONLY that government’s response to a depression prior to 1929 was to let it unwind itself.
” He was not arguing that USA was ever a completely laissez-faire system,”
And I never said he did. What I said is that even Rothbard can accept the laissez faire systems can come in different degrees or types.
“I.e., Rothbard thinks that laissez faire policy did exist in 19th century America.”
If you had added “… in response to depressions.” you would not have mischaracterized the quote.
Ever notice the LK’s first line of attack is to ignore the actual issue at hand and instead rely upon a poorly expressed old quote from Hayek, Mises or Rothbard?
That quote doesn’t “ignore the actual issue at hand “: it is directly relevant.
Now roddis is implying that what Hayek, Mises or Rothbard said is apparently irrelevant to discussions of Austrian economics.
Just as roddis tells us that market clearing prices are not important in Austrian economics (or some such gibberish), even though Rothbard and Mises say they are, but then what Rothbard and Mises say is presumably irrelevant!
Your dishonesty takes my breath away.
“t takes colossal arrogance to suggest — as some of your commentators do here — that the only true form of “laissez faire” is Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism.”
What else you got?
‘[LF]is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights’
Rothbard recognized the only way to accomplish this is to eliminate government. If you know another way to achieve a truly LF system, I’d like to hear it.
“I.e., Rothbard thinks that laissez faire policy did exist in 19th century America.”
“Roughly”, yes. The reasons why it was not “true” LF he explains here:
https://mises.org/document/1022
“It quite obvious that people advocating Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are like people advocating Marx’s perfect communist society, ”
I don’t think I really know anyone that advocates Marx’s ideas. Except maybe, insomuch as they are used in this “Progressive” economic system I keep hearing about which is little more than an unholy alliance of Marxism and Keynesianism, or “neo-Keynesianism”. The true communists I have encountered embrace Baukunin and Kropotkin.
” in the sense that both are appealing to high utopian systems we have never seen in the real world.”
Well, if they’ve never existed, then they can’t possibly ever exist. Is that the argument you are making?
FTA: “If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?”
Libertarians do not claim to be social engineers or central planners. That is a job for the people with guns who claim to be acting in the best interests of “society”, and who have obtained this power from the “consent of the people”, even if they have to threaten and employ deadly force to get normally peaceful people to comply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsijhLCzEZ8
“t takes colossal arrogance to suggest — as some of your commentators do here — that the only true form of “laissez faire” is Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism.”
What else you got?
‘[LF]is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights’
Rothbard recognized the only way to accomplish this is to eliminate government. If you know another way to achieve a truly LF system, I’d like to hear it.
“I.e., Rothbard thinks that laissez faire policy did exist in 19th century America.”
“Roughly”, yes. The reasons why it was not “true” LF he explains here:
https://mises.org/document/1022
“It quite obvious that people advocating Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are like people advocating Marx’s perfect communist society, ”
I don’t think I really know anyone that advocates Marx’s ideas. Except maybe, insomuch as they are used in this “Progressive” economic system I keep hearing about which is little more than an unholy alliance of Marxism and Keynesianism, or “neo-Keynesianism”. The true communists I have encountered embrace Baukunin and Kropotkin.
” in the sense that both are appealing to high utopian systems we have never seen in the real world.”
Well, if they’ve never existed, then they can’t possibly ever exist. Is that the argument you are making?
FTA: “If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?”
Libertarians do not claim to be social engineers or central planners. That is a job for the people with guns who claim to be acting in the best interests of “society”, and who have obtained this power from the “consent of the people”, even if they have to threaten and employ deadly force to get normally peaceful people to comply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsijhLCzEZ8
1) Laissez-faire and libertarianism are two different things. Laissez-faire refers to a tendency for government to stay out of the market. Libertarianism refers to a distinct set of policies, up to and including anarcho-capitalism as its most strict case, selected based on a philosophical stance – it requires a consistent adherence to both laissez-faire policies AND various civil rights strictures.
2) Utopian =/= has not existed before. FAIL.
“Laissez-faire was, roughly, the traditional policy in American depressions before 1929.”
That is consistent with my position that you thought contradicts Rothbard’s.
“It wasn’t “Hayekian deregulation,” but deregulatory bills inspired by the revived mainstream neoclassical economics.”
You mean the state ceded control of the money supply to the market? The production of money turned laissez-faire in the years leading up to the crisis?
HAHAHA
The cause is not “deregulation”. It was our socialist monetary system.
“It quite obvious that people advocating Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are like people advocating Marx’s perfect communist society, in the sense that both are appealing to high utopian systems we have never seen in the real world.”
We’ve never seen “perfect Keynesianism” either, LK, and yet you keep advocating for that!
Even the “golden age” you keep referring to, 1945-1973, ,a href=”http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=jcl”>had something like 5-6 recessions. According to Keynesian theory, if Keynesianism was perfectly imposed, this should not have happened.
If anarcho-capitalists can’t advocate for anarcho-capitalism on the basis that it has never existed in “perfect” form, why can you advocate for Keynesianism?
Sorry bad link.
had something like 5-6 recessions.
One more time.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=jcl
To be fair, Libertarianism (in pure form) requires a society where everyone is non-violent. There have never been such people, and unlikely that there ever will be. Unless Libertarianism can extend itself to embrace the concept of violence as a commodity it never will be tried.
Currently the State uses fiat currency as a way of demanding protection tribute from citizens … you pay your tax, you don’t get hurt. Mosler basically spelled this out with his classy “threaten the audience with a 9mm” tactic, but distasteful though it was, Mosler was accurately describing the fiat money paradigm.
It works while ever the State doesn’t get greedy enough that alternative options seem like good value. In other words, the State becomes the monopoly broker for a violence-based commodity money. Libertarians believe all that violence will just go away with enough nice and civilized people… there’s no chance of that happening, and there’s your problem.
“To be fair, Libertarianism (in pure form) requires a society where everyone is non-violent.”
I guess it depends on your definition of “pure form” but I wouldn’t say that. Murphy himself once gave a very interesting talk on how violence would be dealt with in a hypothetical libertarian/an-cap world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw
I don’t know that I’ve ever heard any serious libertarian thinker make the claim that somehow violence either would, or would have to, disappear completely.
“Currently the State uses fiat currency as a way of demanding protection tribute from citizens … you pay your tax, you don’t get hurt.”
Here’s the thing though – the state doesn’t actually prevent everyone from getting hurt. Large-scale war and small-scale petty crime still happen quite a bit under the “protection” of the state. So no, a libertarian society would not “eliminate” crime or war, but it just might reduce them.
And that is all that is ever really promised. That’s where LK is massively wrong. Libertarians don’t promise a utopia in the way that socialists do. We don’t promise to change human nature. We just promise a society that’s a bit better than the one we currently have.
“Currently the State uses fiat currency as a way of demanding protection tribute from citizens”
Except democratic institutions have long since created a strong degree of popular control over what governments do with the resources they obtain from taxes. Tel apparently forgets over 100 years of modern history.
Modern governments rely plenty on inflation (of the currency over which they have a monopoly) to obtain resources, not just taxes.
If they relied on taxes only, I think they would be a lot smaller (and, as you seem to suggest, a lot more controlled).
Inflation is just needed to trick people into the wealth effect so that they increase effective demand and keep the circular flow going. What you describe is an unfortunate side effect worth the benefits.
What are the benefits you ask? Tricking people about how wealthy they actually are will make them create that wealth inflation made them think they have but don’t have yet; else we would have a terrible recession later on, wouldn’t we? However just don’t ask how that works, output is output isn’t it?.
“else we would have a terrible recession later on, wouldn’t we?”
And when we do, THIS IS NOT WHY! It has NOTHING to do with the inflation. Nothing whatsoever. Look over here at this fancy jobs bill!
I haven’t forgotten how difficult it is to get any government to deliver transparent accounts.
It took an FOI request to get the Australian government to provide documentation to the public of their “Building Education Revolution” scheme and that documentation is insufficient to evaluate what was provided against any sort of market rates (they don’t provide the size of any buildings, they don’t provide sufficient information to even physically visit the buildings).
Then there’s the referendum they have queued up for the next few months and haven’t even bothered telling anyone about yet, let alone having a healthy public debate. Don’t worry though, they are in the process of changing the rules so that sort of thing is legal. Don’t talk to me about Democracy. If only we had Democracy.
Let us not forget that a democracy depends on informed voters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia
Kind of difficult to have your Democratic right to free speech when someone just arbitrarily deletes your website, hmmm? Oh yeah, and with no due process, no opportunity for complaints, and no way to know why it was done to you. A Kafka classic, right here after 100 years of modern history.
“Except democratic institutions have long since created a strong degree of popular control over what governments do with the resources they obtain from taxes.”
Not everything a democratically elected government does is by consent of the majority.
Epecially when roughly 40% of the population votes, where 51%, or 21% of the total population, determines the people elected.
Even if the majority voted, it can’t stop the violence of the majority against the minority.
Lind’s argument is beyond mockery. Or that was my first thought. But I did a little research and found that it’s not new.
“No George, if colonies could win their independence they’d have done so by now.”
So maybe I’m wrong.
Bob has nailed it again. Great point.
So according to Lind if we haven’t implemented an idea it must not be that great. Apparently we have the best world there can be. Sounds real progressive, eh? The irony…
“In fact, 99.99% of “debates” with statists are nothing but attempts by the statists to obfuscate and blur the clear and easily understood meanings of words….”
Amen. Sophistry is really their only tool, and they wield it aggressively and relentlessly.
I thought libertarians claimed Medieval Iceland as an example of Real Existing Laissez faire.
“Kapauku [Papuans of West New Guinea] society provides only one example among many of “primitive” polycentric legal systems that protect rights to person and property through sophisticated procedures. Researchers have found similar features in the legal systems of the Yurok of Northern California,[53] the Comanche,[54] the Ifuago of Northern Luzon,[55] and the people of medieval Iceland.[56] Examples of polycentric legal systems have also appeared in less exotic locales, such as Anglo Saxon England,[57] Celtic Ireland,[58] and early medieval Europe.[59] [p. 19/p. 20]”
http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/JurisPoly.html
The Xeer legal system is another.
My understanding is that medieval Iceland is, like Celtic Ireland, more an example of polycentric law, not laissez-faire capitalism.
Really, we’re progressives. All aboard the irony train!
Dr. Murphy, do you ever feel like you’re living the movie Groundhog’s Day while reading through these posts?
And to be clear, I’m talking about the comments, not the actual posts.
I would suggest getting familiar with the work at http://www.libertarianinternational.org as a start for people like Lind… I will say none of these people quoted seem to be knowledgeable on Lib goals or pledged Libertarians.
LIO has some goals that more than answer Lind’s question people seem to be forgetting.