Is Libertarianism Dead? - YouTube
Printable View
Ben, "Libertarian" is one of those political terms which is so broadly defined and probably misused and misunderstood that it is genuinely difficult to work out exactly what it means in fundamental terms and then to translate that meaning into practical political applications.
From this distance on the European side of the pond it tends to have idealistic associations as well as with the darker, no-government arsenal toting survivalists lol.
How would you describe it please? I'm curious to know.
And thanks in anticipation.
It depends, I guess. I mean, there's right-leaning libertarians like Ron Paul and left-leaning libertarians like Noam Chomsky.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
So, with respect to Ron Paul, well, I mean, if you remove government, well, who'll build roads, highways, bridges and schools?
And a country that has a free market wouldn't enforce any child labor laws or minimum wage laws.
Anyway, Robert, the point of right-leaning libertarians is to achieve a free market paradise.
The financial sector approximated free market conditions under Clinton and Bush II -- and THEN we saw what happened in 2008.
But the thing I like about Paul is he said: you don't bail the banks out. What does baling out banks have to do with so-called free market capitalism? (But Ron Paul is pretty much against any involvement by the Federal government. How would that work? Well, take your best guess -- ha ha ha! Okay, what about taxes? Would they disappear? I mean, there are too many undecideds.)
And, too, the notion of freedom and property rights doesn't apply to women with respect to abortion. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. I think a woman should have the right to choose with respect to abortion. That's where I disagree sharply with Paul.
But, again, no one really knows what this libertarian paradise would look like. I mean, it'd be a paradise for the likes of Bill Gates. But it could be a horror show for working men and women.... Who knows.
Thanks Ben, that accords pretty much with what I thought - some kind of post-apocalyptic world where the survival of the fittest is all that matters. And as you point out, any so-called libertarian programme which discriminates on the grounds of gender or any other such criterion doesn't deserve the name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
For the morons who insist that even rape victims should carry their babies to term, surely the logical conclusion should be the physical emasculation of all men, just in case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Ben.....I think you paint an unfair portrait of Ron Paul and his version of government . He's never suggested no government, and fully acknowledges the need for a effective, efficient, modest central government. Let's take the what you call the financial crisis of 2008. Folks like you conveniently omit a very vital part of that story in your attempt to say ......."see the free market doesn't work if left to it's own devices"
Ron Paul would probably answer that fallacy this way......
First of all, you have to acknowledge the primary cause of the 2007-2008 collapse was the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you can't, or won't acknowledge that as the primary cause, then you simply are not informed and probably shouldn't be engaging in these discussions. The fact of the matter is that banks are the heaviest regulated industry in the country. A crisis of that magnitude does not occur overnight...it's decades in the making. It's seeds were planted by people like Andrew Coumo, Jamie Gereleck, and enforced by the justice department. This was not a case of banks gone wild. This was a case of government trying to implement social policy through banking regulation. I urge you to go back and listen to the speeches of Andrew Coumo when he was secretary of HUD. He fully acknowledges many of these loans could never be repaid....but to him and others, it was well worth the risk. The mechanisms for enforcement were in place through the SCC and banking regulators, so it was never a case of lack of enforcement. Wall Street and the big banks are not clean in this by any means, but they seized on a faulty federal policy and figured out a way to make money off of this house of cards. Go back and listen to the congressional hearings on Fanny and Freddie, and the FHA. Eight years prior to the collapse Congressman Chris Shays warned of the looming catastrophe, but the House over site committees would have none of it. It's all a matter of public record if you spend some time and research it. This was about allowing home ownership and having everyone participate in The American Dream, even those that couldn't afford it. Again...the mechanisms were in place to prevent this, or at least change course but were ignored. To his eternal disgrace, SCC chairman Chris Cox allowed Rome to be pillaged, but he was not alone by a long shot. The die was cast well before.
Ron Paul would argue that had the Banks not been forced by HUD and Congress to grant millions of shaky loans, to people who could never repay them, the banking collapse would have never occurred. He would tell you that Banks, not Fanny and Freddie , a quasi government entity and an orgy of political patronage should determine who is and who is not qualified to be granted a mortgage. If you really want to understand how we got here, you have to understand government's role. I urge you to read The NY Times author Gretchen Morgenstern's book. Paul would tell you that government had a large part in this crisis and as our governments often do, delay the healing by misdiagnosing the problem, or being averse to explaining the pain necessary to realize a recovery. .
True we don't know what Ron Paul's version of libertarianism would look like if enacted, and probably never will unfortunately. But we now what democratic socialism looks like first hand..............California, Greece, Spain, Portugal and it's not sustainable. I relish the fact that the US is not like Europe, or the UK, but as they wrestle with seemingly insurmountable financial issues, all created by government and social policy, we seem to be blind to the examples they've laid out for us and are careening out of control to become like them. It's madness. You all reach for the easy answers...the blame game, but the fact of the matter is 7 1/2 out of the 8 years of the Bush years found low unemployment, a robust stock market returing healthy dividens, and private enterprise prospering. Did we rack up too much debt with the wars and the added prescription drug programs for the elderly? Yes...but wait....that was a democratic Congress who voted for that....and aren't you all constantly telling us about compassion and the need for more social assistance programs? ? Are you telling me you would have voted against the program ??? LOL Yes....Bush should have paid for the wars...no question, but the debt he left behind as troublesome as it was..... has been doubled in 3 1/2 years, sorry folks...those are facts ....and if it's so easy for you all to blame Bush...why is it so difficult to blame Obama for any of this?
I never really hear liberals answer the question of how we're going to get out of this malaise other than more federal spending as Krugman chronically preaches. But what if.............what if Krugman and Obama are wrong and the pump is not primed.......and after putting us trillions more in the red, to where interest and principle on the debt consumes more of the budget than all the social programs combined...where are we then ? Krugman and Obama will still have their Nobel prizes, and prospering in academia peddling thier Keynesian theories, and social justice, and ignoring the lessions leading up to the 2008 crisis, and the rest of us will be mired in a generation of no growth, crippling taxation, stagnant wages, high unemployment and little prospects of better times. We'll resemble Northern Ireland in the 70's.
As someone who worked in finance I have to say that the lessons leading up to the 2008 crisis are not too tough to learn. There simply was not enough regulation of loans that were made, packaged, and re-sold. Those who underwrote insurance for these loans such as AIG were not well-capitalized enough to sell the insurance. And those who purchased the insurance often did not have an insurable interest but were merely making bets on the likelihood of the loans not being paid off. This is a formula for moral hazard.
Anyhow, if anything I think the fault lies with those who have pushed for de-regulation of the banking industry. I don't see how Ron Paul solves the problem except in the sense that sinking the entire economy will mean that there are fewer projects to finance and fewer people who will try to purchase homes. I can't for the life of me understand how people who claim to care about matters of civic interest want to elect someone who would cut all programs, who thinks the civil rights act is an unconstitutional usurpation, and who wants to get rid of most if not all of our federal agencies.
I think Ron Paul is one of the craziest men to enter the mainstream of American politics in a long time.
onmyknees,
I don't find your claim as to the origin of the sub-prime mortgage crisis convincing. Loans were not packaged and resold only because the government was encouraging banks to make loans to those with bad credit. Such loans were originated because banks could earn a commission by re-selling them without ever having to worry about whether they would be re-paid or not.
When you can securitize loans and re-sell them at a premium and when banks can hold such securities and claim to be well-capitalized, you are going to tend to have bank failures. It is no coincidence that the entire crisis came to a head at exactly the time when the housing industry was expanding and the collateral for these loans was most inflated. Had the homes been adequate collateral for the bad loans, you would not have so many bank failures because the banks would be able to hold these homes and re-sell them at only a slight loss. The major problem is that home prices rose precipitously because banks were not limited in the type and amount of the loans they could make and when many people could not afford their mortgages there was far too much housing inventory and not enough demand for houses to sustain the current price.
Looking at the federal government's policy of trying to get poorer people into homes as the cause of the financial crisis is like identifying coughing as the cause of cancer. Actually I wouldn't say that you've reversed cause and effect but such a policy cannot really be blamed for the decision of many large banks to extend enormous amounts of credit. I know dozens of people who were not creditworthy who got loans and the loans were not made pursuant to any sort of federal mandate. The loans were made because they could be sold by the loan originator for a commission with little to no risk of loss.
broncofan, you write: "I think Ron Paul is one of the craziest men to enter the mainstream of American politics in a long time."Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Noam Chomsky poses the question: What makes them Ron Paul libertarians???? Well, as Chomsky says, the feeling that government is the enemy.
(But) in a meaningful and profound democratic society the government and the people are one, are identical.
But do people feel that? No, of course not.
People see government agents, as it were, as selfish and greedy and looking out for themselves.
Chomsky interview with Michael Dranove: On the Ron Paul Libertarians (6/6) - YouTube