Are the Republicans Good on the Free Market?
We already know the Democrats aren’t really the party of peace…turns out the Republicans aren’t laissez-faire champions either. I feel so disillusioned. The intro:
In my last post, I challenged the conventional view that the Democratic Party was the dovish one, in contrast to those hawkish Nixon Wage PriceRepublicans. I pointed out that Democrats had been in the White House during both World Wars and the major escalation in Vietnam, and that Barack Obama has utterly repudiated the hope that he would represent a new direction for America after George W. Bush. In the present post, I want to do something similar for the equally popular–but also erroneous–view that the Republicans support the free market.
As I did with the Democrats on war, here let me list some major violations of free-market principles that occurred during Republican administrations:
The free market is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
A free market exists where private property and the NAP are respected. The definition is not ambiguous. Violations of person and property are not ambiguous or difficult to identify. Opponents pretending that these ideas are ambiguous or arbitrary do this because they have no other basis with which to attack them. It’s their admission of defeat.
The NAP is about useful as Google’s motto. Also, what counts as property is important to this. Should animals be owned? Animal rights advocates don’t think so, so their complaint doesn’t have to do with markets. There are more issues out there than markets. Space law, aviation law, animal rights, privacy, personality rights, blackmail, shouting fire in a crowded theater, noise pollution, maritime law, internet governance, etc.
Assuming facts not in evidence. What about the case of Byron Smith who shot an incapcitated home intruder? Some people see it as justified. Others, like me, see it as cold blooded murder.
I fail to see how a widespread adoption of the NAP would adversely impact the ability of people to come to agreements about the proper treatment of animals, space, noise, internet “governmance” or medical privacy.
People who are safe and affluent as the result of the NAP will have more time to devote to those matters and will have efficient competitive non-fraudulent institutions to enforce their agreements.
Aaaand the point sails right over your head. I shouldn’t have to get my health insurance company to agree to keep my records private. They simply shouldn’t be allowed to share it.
That’s ridiculous.
I shouldn’t have to earn money to eat. Someone should just give me food for free.
I shouldn’t have to walk to the shower and bring a towel and soap. A beautiful naked woman should carry me and then hand me the soap and towel.
I don’t see this “debate” going in a fruitful direction.
You’re being an absolute idiot.
You can’t be serious. You can’t see the obvious differences between your examples and mine? Privacy rights are NOTHING like being handed food for free.
You’re both claiming a “right” it’s a difference of degree only.
“Both” meaning who? Me and Roddis?
Yes.
S.C.:
Are you saying that I would be under a non-explicit contractual obligation to not…initiate harm…against you, which you say includes “do not share this information even if there is no expressed agreement NOT to share.”?
Yes.
I’ve got a good one for you: the privacy of a child’s medical records. Because the child is an incompetent third party, the confidentiality of their medical records is not negotiable. Another is publishing private sex tapes without the consent of the participants. To combat revenge porn, states are beginning to make such disclosure illegal.
I don’t think you can apply what I would call “real world” examples to certain types of Utopian libertarian ideas like the NAP. Some day everyone may simply recognize the validity of the NAP the way most of the world generally agrees it’s valid to protect children from sacrifice in order to placate the gods. When that day comes, the NAP may very well protect against most issues including the aggressive act of releasing private information. As of now, the idea that one could practically use the NAP as a substitute for legal enforcement mechanisms seems impossible to defend for very long.
I feel like you’re being led astray somewhere John.
The NAP is NOT a substitute for legal enforcement mechanisms, it is (to be) the foundation of the law being enforced.
It’s an empty foundation.
Meh, as long as you understand. Take it to your thread if you really want to challenge the foundation itself.
If all you consider is the phrase “NAP”, then yes, it is empty, as would every other phrase as phrase only.
Can you figure out though how phrases referring to something concrete can result in no necessary conclusion that the phrase is “empty”?
Ah, okay. But then there has to be some kind of enforcement mechanism, unless mankind has gotten to the point where everyone (or most everyone) agrees to voluntarily abide by it. Until that day, I think we’re going to need some kind of enforcement, I.e., “initiation of violence,” to keep agressive, dangerous people in line, or for that matter, to enforce private agreements where people or businesses decide they don’t want to abide by them.
Ah, okay. But then there has to be some kind of enforcement mechanism, unless mankind has gotten to the point where everyone (or most everyone) agrees to voluntarily abide by it. Until that day, I think we’re going to need some kind of enforcement, I.e., “initiation of violence,” to keep agressive, dangerous people or businesses in line, or for that matter, to enforce private agreements where people or businesses decide they don’t want to abide by them.
No one is disagreeing with you. And there are many, many books written on various mechanisms to enforce the law as consistently as possible with the NAP.
Whether enforcing the law is the same as “initiation of violence” is disputed though as they’d say “no, no, that’s a *reaction to* the initiation violence (i.e. crime)”. That’s a minor quibble in my opinion though.
This is what makes Murphy great. No care at all about worrying over signalling any party specific devotion. Democrats anri-war? Ha. Republicans free market? Haha.
I think a better cliche, with a more defensible expectation, is that when a politician gets into office he votes in a manner that maximizes his chance of remaining there…he already has established a base in his own party, supporting positions that expand his base in the other party can make him more electable.
A second point (I think it was in your book) is not that a party is in office but a pro-government politician will seek to expand government regardless of the party. Compassionate conservatives are perfect examples of this.
Excellent article.