Rights, liberty and the Rule of Law.

[Toad]

Originally posted by miko2d
It becomes irrational to save few dollars on a worker's salary while he is entrusted with a few millions worth of equipment.
 
 miko

So how do you feel about airline pilots after writing THAT line?



Not going to jump into this debate though...... too busy. I think Hang will do OK anyway.

[miko2d]

Hangtime: Shall I put up the entire Bill of Rights, with ammendments and articles; that estabilsh my RIGHTS? ? Tell me.. who are the 'opressed' you refer to?
 Speak frankly now.. what 'rights' as granted by the Constitution does the Libertarian Party seek to have recinded?

 With all due respect, what are you talking about? It is exactly the return to the Constitution and the limitation it places on the government that libertarians are urging.
 The Constitution was supposed to "grant righs" by denying the government the right to impose arbitrary responcibilities on the citizens.
 Nowhere in the Constitution or the works of the founding Fathers does it say that the government may dictate how much one has to pay for anything and what one can buy, prevent products and technologies from the market in order to preserve someones' jobs, print paper money or that groups rather than individuals are equal before the law according to some quotas.


"How noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets..."

 So what? The honest wealth a rich person holds was accumulated by providing freely-accepted services to those who neded them and capital to those who could use it. Whatever wealth was dishonestly acquired, it was because and through the power of state and politics, not despite it.
 Robber barons could only performe their swindles and cause massacres because they had politicians to buy which could impose arbitrary laws and tinker with the economy.
 Humanity's poor have been outbreeding the available resources for millenia under despotic governments - untill capitalism and free(er) market made a dent in mercantilism in the 19th century.
 How does preventing a capitalist from hiring such a poor person for a wage that makes it cost-effective to have a worker helps the poor sod?


The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which you libertarians prefer we overlook, are our governments. National defense, police, courts, registries of deeds, public defenders, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, etc. all are government efforts that work towards defending freedoms and rights.

 That is my whole point - the libertatians stand for strong governments. Very strong. Are you confusing libertarians with anarchists? Of course one needs a strong government to provide security of persons and property and enforcement of contracts - exactly through "defense, police, courts, registries of deeds, public defenders", etc., etc.
 What libertarians are for is strong but limited government - concerned with the above primary things but separated from running religion, economy or social tinkering. Exactly as the drafters of constitution wanted. They did not create the federal reserve and equal opportunity commission and labor laws and state education system because they were stupid - or because there were no historical precedents of all those things in humanity's history. They were quite explicit why they did not want such things as a government perrogative.
 The current US government does not perform those duties satisfactory - our borders are porous, the cheating and swindling abounds as well as property and violent crimes which are not deemed too important for police to bother with.


What would you put in it's place?

 US government as it was in 1830? No labor laws, no trade protectionism, no social experiments. No central bank or federal reserve, no education department. If the people really want to screw themselves up, they can always do it on the state and municipal level...


So how do you feel about airline pilots after writing THAT line?

 None of my business. I would compare the safety record and fly the cheapest. Supply/demand takes care of those things. The companies that allow themselves be blackmailed would go bankrupt and those pilots will be out of job.
 I surely hope that the companies that applied for bancrupcy protection now would be liquidated rather than allowed to fly free of dabt and undercut the airlines that are more efficient but still have to pay their loans.

 miko

[Hangtime]

It is exactly the return to the Constitution and the limitation it places on the government that libertarians are urging.

nope. sorry. yer playing with smoke and mirrors agin, miko. and you don't answer the question.. the question is:

Tell me.. who are the 'opressed' you refer to? Speak frankly now.. what 'rights' as granted by the Constitution does the Libertarian Party seek to have recinded?"

We'll let you get back to that tomorrow.

The Constitution was supposed to "grant righs" by denying the government the right to impose arbitrary responcibilities on the citizens.

Wonder what Jefferson would think about interpeting the constitution in a modern light.. oh, wait, lets ask him!!

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
.........Thomas Jefferson
 

So.. are you attacking the existence of the constitution or the process of ammendement, and the supreme court?

So what? The honest wealth a rich person holds was accumulated by providing freely-accepted services to those who neded them and capital to those who could use it. Whatever wealth was dishonestly acquired, it was because and through the power of state and politics, not despite it.

Yer Kiddin! Yah know, they really should take away yer mirrors. And use more smoke. Look.. miko... the robber barons were finally curbed by guess what.. government. What your advocating is capitalisiom unrestricted by government.

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.
.....Noam Chomsky  

That is my whole point - the libertatians stand for strong governments. Very strong. Are you confusing libertarians with anarchists?

Well.. yes. Because I'm not confused, doesn't mean you shouldn't be.

What libertarians are for is strong but limited government

see?

separated from running religion, economy or social tinkering. Exactly as the drafters of constitution wanted. They did not create the federal reserve and equal opportunity commission and labor laws and state education system because they were stupid - or because there were no historical precedents of all those things in humanity's history.

Are we back to the time machine thingy again?

US government as it was in 1830? No labor laws, no trade protectionism, no social experiments. No central bank or federal reserve, no education department. If the people really want to screw themselves up, they can always do it on the state and municipal level...  

Kinda figured. Hey, McFly... anybody home?

Yes, the Federal government had a much lighter hand then. However, state and local governments had a much greater influence. There is not one class of positive duty or obligation in the US today that did not exist 200 years ago at state or federal level.

All the biggies were there except income tax. The equivalent of income tax was property tax (on all possessions) or head tax by many states. There was involuntary conscription, eminent domain, etc. As a matter of fact, things got much better when powers of states were interpreted to be restricted by the US constitution (much later.) Powers such as state religious authority.

Also, society was organized quite differently before the industrial revolution spread to the US. Our "nation of shopkeepers" was actually a nation of farmers. The means of production were controlled primarily by the workers (who were the owners of the farms and shops.) Government of that era would be as out-of-place today as the tarriffs and scientific knowledge of that era.

Try again.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by miko2d
In fact, it errs on the safe side and treats people as basically bad and selfish. So we want to restrict political power of the state because those "no-good" people are the most likely ones to get attracted to it.

This is incorrect.  People driven to power will get that power however it is easiest for them, be it through government or through accumulation of capital.  Limiting the power of government in one fell swoop instead of on a case by case basis only frees the other side of the tyranny coin (the extremely wealthy) to run rampant.  We must maintain vigilance towards both sides.  Libertarians assume that people are basically good when they suggest releasing all of the tools needed for a new generation of robber barons to rise.  They assume that nobody would actually take advantage of the absence of government to abuse their wealth.

Originally posted by miko2d
If you want something from me, the only way to get it legally is to persuade me or to offer me an acceptable exchange. No way for anyone to enact a law to make me do what I do not want - majority or not.

This depends entirely on the skills you posess and their desirabilty to the market.  If your skills are not immediately replacable and are valuable, you can use that as a bargaining chip to get a fair settlement for your services.  In this case you are a member of the middle class.  If, on the otherhand, your skills are easily replaced or undesired, your basic needs (food, shelter) become the overwelming bargaining chip of the owners, and if you object they simply replace you with another poor sod who lacks skills that carry bargaining weight.  In this case you are a member of the lower/under class.  You are compensated for your hard toil with resources only suffient to your base survival.  You cannot save and you cannot enable your children to do better.  The Company supplies all you need, including schooling for your children that merely prepares them to be the next generation of base labor.  Hangtime's Noam Chomsky quote containes this very susinct line that sums it up "The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke".

Originally posted by miko2d
Your point B) is irrelevant to the current discussion.

You are correct.  I was assuming that you were being somewhat realistic.  It is clear that you are talking about a pure libertarian position.  Such a thing is laughably flawed and the failing should be incredibly easy to see.

Originally posted by miko2d
That is just not true. That statement is contrary to the economic science and historical evidence.
 Whenever poverty conditions persisted for a long time, it was specifically because the governmet restricted free market, did not protect the property rights or caught people in the welfare net.

 As society develops, the fraction of labor in the production falls while teh fraction of the capital - money, equipment increases. It becomes irrational to save few dollars on a worker's salary while he is entrusted with a few millions worth of equipment.
 Productivity increases not because the people became more biologically capable but because production becomes better-equpped. That allows the price of goods to drop so the real wages of workers increas even while the nominal ones stay unchanged.
 The capitalist does not care who buys his product - middle class or poor people. As long as he can make it cheaper and sell it to more people, he is going to make more money.
 The USA in 1800 and beginning of 1900 saw stable increase in wages and living conditions - even despite huge inflow of desperate immigrants willing to take low wage. If those immigrants were not coming, teh labor market would have been tighter, the salaries would have grown even faster and the technological progress would have been even faster. USA had no responcibility for the recent immigrants being poor and unskilled and they all achieved great inclreas in wealth in their lifetime and their children mostly became the middle class.

Now this is just tit-for-tat, but you are gravely wrong in regards to the historical reality.  Practically none of this movement from the lower class to the middle class was occuring until the government stepped in and limited the power of the owners.  Theodore Roosevelt didn't become a trust breaker for any love of the lower class.  He did it to save the USA from the encroaching Marxist revolution that the robber baron's excesses were going to bring on themselves and the USA, exesses enabled by the libertarian business laws the government had at the time.  When Roosevelt said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here) "Do these fools think they can keep this up forever?" he was refering to the inhuman treament of the lower class by these robber barons and the fact that at some time the breaking point of the lower class would be reached and they would act against their oppressors and tormentors.

[StSanta]

It's pretty hard to disagree with Miko2D on such issues.

Well thought out, well reasoned. Methinks I'd enjoy a beer or two and a good discussion with ya, Miko.







Btw Miko, I believe it is in the states interest to have an educated citizenship. I therefore support the idea of state supported education through taxes. HOWEVER, I believe schools should be run by private companies, so that the state cannot brainwash the population (which is what is happening here).

[Karnak]

StSanta,

Education doesn't fix the flaws in a purely libertarian society.  What happens is that the skills that used to be rare and could be used as bargaining chips become common and the possesors of those skills become easily replacable.  Because of how easy they are to find, their net value drops sharply and the owners will compensate them far less for their work.  In other words they get moved from the middle class to the lower class.

A major side effect of this is the reduction in the size of the market that purchases the products made in the factories.  As fewer sales occur and tax income declines the level of education cannot be sustained.  In that way, or through bloody revolution, the system fully breaks.


Remember, not everyone can have a high paying job.  Even if we lived in a world where everybody was driven to succeed and had equal brilliance, where everybody had a Phd, there would still need to be waiters, garbagemen, maids, burger flippers, ect, ect.  In this theoretical world these people would not be paid anymore than they are here, they would simply be doing these menial jobs that are far below their education level so that they didn't starve.

[StSanta]

Karnak,what I dislike about that is that it is akin to the cast system we used to have here - shoemaker, stay with your lot.

The most important thing a human posseses is hope. Remove it and you remove productivity - as witnessed in socialist states.

There needs to be a way that ensures that capable beings can climb the ladder. And given that we're all given different  capabilities to work with, there won't be a shortage of burger flippers.

[Naso]

On this issue I am with Hangtime, Toad (hell is frozing!! ) and Karnak.

The quote from chumski is spot on.

Anyway, we can try a little imagination experiment (and looking around, with open eyes in the actual world you can find pieces of what I am gonna say) of you society.

Mister A is the owner of a factory, producing something that is not strictly necessary, a luxury thing.
The production require 3 types of workers:
level 1 (5 of them), high skilled, for product improvement and high level conduction, pay is 200 (5x200=1000)
level 2, (20 of them) medium skills, technicians, and white collars, pay is 100 (2000u)
level 3, (100 of them) low skills, commoners, pay is 50. (5000u)
Personnel cost is 8.000 monetary units

Mister B, C and D have a similar factory.

The market support an amount of 400 pieces of that product.

There are 2 choises the four can do.

1) They fight for the market, let's see what can happen:

the starting price for a single piece of the product is 100, so the market offer a total of 40.000 units(u), each factory can produce 100 pieces (10.000u total), the cost of the single piece is 80, so there's a 20u margin each piece, (we will ignore the components, materials to simplify).

Mister A decide to lower the price to 90, he have a lower margin, of 10, but he can sell more pieces, how he can mantain the gain?
By improving production (automation, optimization) in this way he dont need to raise the number of workers.
But there's another way: the other factories will be in the condition to cut their workers, for the lower demand they are experimenting.
At this point he will have a group of workers of level 1 and 2 free hands, and with little market to sell their skills, he will have a bigger amount of workers of level 3, too.
He will then offer to the unemployed people a lower pay, granted that something it's better than nothing, they will accept (or die), the already working people will accept too, to not lose their work.

so we will have:

Level 1, 7 people, at 120 = 840u
level 2, 30 people at 50 = 1500u
level 3, 150 people at 20 = 3000u

total 5340.

cost of single piece= 53.4.

gain for single piece is now 90-53.4 = 36.6.. WOW lower price, more gain!!

let's low the price more!!

OBjection: but the others producers will do the same!

Answer: Yes! but the final result does'nt change.

At the end two possible scenarios arise:

B,C and D are eliminated, from market, A it's in monopoly, and can decide the prices, and (evil, real evil! ) the pay.

or,

A,B,C,D will reach the lower level mantaining a minimum gain.

Who is the loser in the above example?

The worker.

Look around you, and you will see plenty of examples of the above situation, enlarged worldwide with globalization.

Society have developed specific anticorps for this kind of evolution, the trade unions, almost pacific, and the revolutions (read commies ).

The force of the first, and the fear of the second mantain the capitalist pig tendency.

Now let's see the second possible situation (the new solution to avoid the above ghosths: trade unions and revolution, in act now).

2) Mister A,B,C and D meet, and reach an agreement:

"we will share the market at 25%, we can even lower the pay of our workers without reducing our gain, au contraire, improving our gain.

More, we can contact mister E, a mass media owner, so he cut start a "information campaign" to convince the market that our product is a must!! nobody can survive without it!!
Pubblicity is the base of the commerce, no?

Then, we can start with mister F a school, a private school, that will teach the childs of the various level workers, just what is needed to do OUR work, so they cannot do anything else than accept to work for us... and we will offer the school for free, too... muhahaha!!!"

The 2nd situation is what is happening here in Italy, the Berlusconi's hidden way, scary, is'nt it?

The main difference is that all the above misters, are mister B.

@Santa: where is the hope? did you see hope in the above examples? (unless you are one of the lords).

@Toad, Hangtime, and the "US above anything, and you are all ungratefull SOBs" types:

What is happening now, globally, is almost the same of my examples, extended worldwide, with the USA as "level 1", the western countries as "level 2" and the third world as "level 3", the misters are the multinational companies, above and out from any government control, even your government.

The people is in some way percieving.. feeling... where the things are going and, with different excuses, is pointing at you and your servants (western countries) as the root of evils.

The sad part of this vision is that the better subject that can do good and improve the situation, maybe, is the same that take advantage from it, so there's little hope for a good and safe solution for everyone.

The said subject, it's clear, is the people of USA.

Dark times coming.

Signed:
Cassandra


Disclaimer:
There's no guilt given or judgement, in my position, theese are forces above the people, it's not in accusing stance that I am saying that, dont read it as a bashing attack, I believe to be a world citizen, so you are my brothers, everyone.
And i am no religious type, go figure

[miko2d]

Hangtime: Tell me.. who are the 'opressed' you refer to?

 OK, the citizens of US are opressed to a certain degree by the government. No secret here.
 
Speak frankly now.. what 'rights' as granted by the Constitution does the Libertarian Party seek to have recinded?"

 Now you are blowing smoke. Libertarian party wants the "rights"/obligations imposed contrary to Constitution to be rescinded. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a cotisen must participate in a socialised insurance scheme - which is what Social Security became from a safety net itw as supposed to be.
 Nowhere in the constitution does it say that children must be mandatorily sent to a state-approved school or that you cannot buy a medicine untill the state gets to approve it, etc.
 It is explicitly stated in the Constitution that the federal government cannot have property in the states other than military installation and if it does own any land, it does so as a private person under jurisdiction of the state. So a federal park ranger arresting people on a state park is violating teh constitution.


So.. are you attacking the existence of the constitution or the process of ammendement, and the supreme court?

 Nops. I don't mind if a Constitution is amended. I mind when whatever is written in it - amendmants and everything - is violated. There is a big difference between amending a law and disregarding it.


Look.. miko... the robber barons were finally curbed by guess what.. government.

 True. In a way destructive to freedoms and after government was used by them to swindle their schemes in the first place.


The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke... -- Noam Chomsky

  I have to give you that - you have some guts quoting Chomsky on this board...
 Anyway, if there is a "subject" and a "potentate", how could the system in question be "anarcho-capitalism"? Under free-market capitalism a person is not responcible for a well-being of anyone in who's birth he did not have any say.
 If a family is willing to have a child, automatically subjecting him/her to teh adversities of the world, it may be charitable of others to help but where would obligation come from other than coersion?


Are we back to the time machine thingy again?

 So everything we have right now in our state arrangement is exactly right but everything that was before is evil and suggesting any change is also evil? Wow. I have never though I would meet a personage from Orwell's 1984 for real...
 What would happen when Congress adopts some new laws withing a year? Would you claim that what we have now was evil? Or woule you claim what we would become would be evil? You either have to admit change or select your favority point and stick to it.

Federal government had a much lighter hand then. However, state and local governments had a much greater influence

 Would love nothing better. Of course if we got back to that state of affairs, I would pressure for reduced government in New York and in my locality, but that would have been none of your business if you are from another state.

All the biggies were there except income tax. The equivalent of income tax was property tax (on all possessions) or head tax by many states. There was involuntary conscription, eminent domain, etc.

 Never said they did not have any room for improvement. But was the government spending around half of the GNP, whatever it means? Also, libertarians do not object to taxes. The government has clear responcibilities and it must raise revenues to fulfill those. As much as needed. The form of the tax is a technicality.


Karnak: They assume that nobody would actually take advantage of the absence of government to abuse their wealth.

 How can one legally abuse their wealth without violating the principles I listed earlier - no violation of private domain of others, no breaking contracts, fraud and no violence?

If, on the otherhand, your skills are easily replaced or undesired, your basic needs (food, shelter) become the overwelming bargaining chip of the owners, and if you object they simply replace you with another poor sod who lacks skills...

 That would be a fault of my parents producing me this way, rather than of an enterpreneur who can find no better use for my abilities...
 For millenia agrarian population was kept stable because farmer's children were dying out in famines or denied ability to create family and reproduce for the lack of land that could only be split so finely. When an enterpreneur appeared in the city who risked his capital to start production, he is giving such people a better choice than they otherwise have, rather than being responcible for their destitute prior state. And with plenty of desperate landless peasants seeking employment and competing on price, why would he pay anyone more unless the person has skills?
 Capitalism physically created the working class - by allowing "excess" rural people to live and procreate rather than spend live helping on a brother's farm for food with no wife or children or trying luck as a mercenary soldier.

Roosevelt didn't become a trust breaker for any love of the lower class.

 Weren't those trusts created with cooperation of the government?

He did it to save the USA from the encroaching Marxist revolution that the robber baron's excesses...

 Take the most obvious place - Chicago. The meat packers were paying the workers very low and they were still losing money because of the competition to give customers cheap product. And there were a lot of Marxist and anarxist feelings - but mostly among the desperate first-generation immigrants who came to this country poor and unskilled and competed against each other for wages.
 Without constant inflow of immigrants driving the labor market prices down the real wages would have risen even faster than they did in USA. They were still coming despite all hardship because what they left behind was worse. How could you hold that against US I cannot figure, unless you believe it is responcible for wellbeing of people outside.

 Limiting minimum wage for the same work does not produce extra wealth - it reduces total demand for labor according to the law of suppy and demand and just means that some even more desperate fellow would not be able to find a job.


Well thought out, well reasoned. Methinks I'd enjoy a beer or two and a good discussion with ya, Miko.

 Notify me if you decide to visit New York.

What happens is that the skills that used to be rare and could be used as bargaining chips become common and the possesors of those skills become easily replacable.

 Those people suffer undeservedly and have to switch jobs which results in their labor used more productively. Parts of economy always readjust. At least the process is spontaneous, impersonal and leads to more total efficiency unlike arbitrary command-style managemend who should be earning what according to someone's ideas.

A major side effect of this is the reduction in the size of the market that purchases the products made in the factories.

 Major flaw here. Those people lost jobs because some product WOOD became available for cheaper - due to technology or new source of import. So the real wages of all people who are working in areas still competitive (product STEEL) would grow - their salaries buy more stuff. Since the real wages can only grow sustainably in line with productivity growth - which did not occur in those industries, the raise is "unearned" and gets corrected eventually. And it gets corrected exactly through the displaced workers compete for the jobs and drive the nominal wages down - so the real wages would return to normal or close to the previous level!
 More than that - since the price of product WOOD dropped, it became more feasable to use it in more applications - building more homes than otherwise.
 Even more - since capitalist can hire labor cheaper for product STEEL - since he pays in nominal dollars, not real ones - STEEL becomes cheaper and demand for it increases and it is used in new applications where itw as not cost-effective before!

 So you have a loss of uncompetitive WOOD production but an increase in competitive STEEL production plus increase in production of WOOD and STEEL using industries -  which are by definition more high-tech, being the next step in production - and cheaper products there - which would need more workers, more qualified workers thus driving nominal wages back up, unless there is an inflow of immigrantsm driving the demand for education, etc.

 This virtuois circle can be easily broken by trage protection and wage control. So people in other industries engoy increased unearned wages through cheap products at the expence of the workers completely out of job and no expansion of derivative industries.

 If your view was correct, the human development would never take off since eby progress would have been self-limiting. That was clearly not the case ever in history. Cheaper stuff always caused improvement in general level of wealth and real wages unless market was restricted - most of the time - or immigrant inflow was considerable.


Naso - see my previous example about. What you forget is that the customers are beneficiaries of a cheaper product that is not luxuty anymore through higher real wages which allows the displaced workers find employment because all capitalists can now cut nominal wages and expand the workforce.



 Good discussion, guys.


 miko

[Hangtime]

Miko.. rather than play word games.. which I enjoy.. please point out what system you would replace the existing one with.

Now, for the sake of brevity, allow me to uplug your previous discourse hose from the hooka of logic..

You count only the benefits of libertarianism, count only the costs of government.
 
All your historical examples are tainted by statism, except when they favor libertarian claims.
 
You Spiritually baptize the deceased as libertarians because they cannot protest the anachronism: Paine, Jefferson, Founding Fathers etc.
 
The best multi-party democratic republics should be equated to the worst dictatorships for the purposes of denouncing statism.
 
If I'm reading you right, inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. Those without property have the freedom to try to acquire it. If they can't, let them find somebody else's property to complain on.

Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.
 
You require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.
 
Any exceptional case of private production proves that government ought not to be involved.

Did I miss any?