Forum Post: Taking the Occupiers at their Word
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 24, 2011, 9:43 a.m. EST by darrenlobo
(204)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Thanks to The International Libertarian for the following series of interviews with Occupy Philadelphia protesters. The three stars of the clip–a member of the Philadelphia Socialists, a unionist nurse, and a Karl Marx impersonator–are representative of the nature of the Occupy movement.
http://notesandobservations.me/2011/11/20/taking-the-occupiers-at-their-word/
Their not Representative of anything but their own views. OWS is a big tent.
LOL! I was thinking while watching that as a unit its like talking to someone with mulitple-personality disorder. I like the nurse, I think he was right on in his assessment of health care.
yes... but I did find them "representative". I totally dug what they had to say. what did you think?
[Removed]
It's a big tent only in the sense that it incorporates different shades of left. What I've seen of it is that it is intolerant of the message of liberty & free markets.
There are no "free markets". The last one I can think of are the Great Lakes, which at one time were an actual "free market" for water and fish.
Lake Superior, used to be pure enough to drink from. Fish were plentiful.
Once commoditized, they are no longer free.
Now they're poisoned and fished out.
So much for "free markets".
Makes me wonder about your conception of liberty.
Does it have anything to do with RP?
No, I'm not an RP supporter. He advocates way too much govt.
BTW, last I checked the govt owned the great lakes. So much for the govt protecting the environment.
Funny how most of the remaining old-growth redwood and temperate rainforests are on public land.
Perhaps old-growth redwoods are valuable to you. Should your value system supplant that of others?
They are valuable to society as a whole. Take a poll and prove me wrong. They are only not valuable to ideological environmentalist-haters such as extreme libertarians, and to a small subset of consumers, and to commercial interests for which a redwood's only value is in death.
+1 for honesty. Damn I wish people understood this about libertarians.
So your answer to the question above is that if 'society as a whole' based on a poll, decides that it values redwood trees, the land harboring those trees should be expropriated from those who own it?
Fortunately, we all own what remains. Your solution is to privatize it for cash. Fortunately society usually has superior values to individuals like you.
Public ownership is a myth. No two people can have the right to the use and disposal of a thing at the same time. What if I want to study the microbial ecosystem of a particular area and you want to set up your tent over it? We both own it so we both have a right to decide what to do with it don't we? What's the solution?
Is a myth.
Government; arbitrating between conflicting uses with the principle that neither usage should be allowed to damage the property for future use by the other. I can set up my tent when your study is done.
Good piece on the tragedy of the commons (scroll a bit): http://www.spectacle.org/897/trust.html
The example with the coral reef does not provide a compelling argument for 'public ownership'. It asserts that one individual will break up the reef and sell it at gift shops while 50 people may decide on a more long-term approach. Also the 50 people would own the reef (as private owners). They do not require that others pay them to maintain the reef and yet deny those others the rights inherent to ownership (as our government does with our national parks [I'm taking a small leap here and assuming that they are funded through taxation]).
To return to my tent scenario, what if we have a disagreement? Sure, you could set your tent up later or elsewhere, but you have a right to set it up here and now since you, as a member of the public, own the land. If we are to seek arbitration, who has the authority to tell either of us that we cannot use what we own?
Grasping.
In a partnership of 50 people owning a plot of forest, what if one wants to setup a tent and another wants to do a soil assay?
I would imagine some sort of committee might be formed to resolve the dispute. Maybe such disputes would be common, and the committee would become a permanent fixture. It would probably need a name at that point. It could be called "government."
Not grasping, just short on time. Upon further consideration of the link you posted above, there are certain nonexclusive natural resources which should not be privately owned. However, they should not be 'publicly' owned either. No one should own the air, ocean, or any resource which cannot be subdivided.
And a more distilled version of what I was trying to illuminate above was that a national park is not publicly owned. It is owned by the government who allows the public to use it in specific ways which they (whoever forms the respective committee) control. To quote the first paragraph from http://www.wisegeek.com/how-are-national-parks-funded.htm :
"National parks in the United States (US) are funded in three main ways: direct funding by the government, user fees, and donations. Support from the government makes up the largest portion of funding for national parks. In times of reduced government spending or economic hardship where parks draw fewer paying visitors, philanthropic donations often make up an increasing portion of the parks’ budgets."
The idea that private ownership of these parks would see them destroyed is disproved by the last sentence. It is these philanthropists who would have the most incentive to purchase the parks. While you may argue that whoever owns the park may charge exorbitant rates for its use, there is nothing stopping government from doing the same thing. Furthermore, under government ownership, the parks are funded even by those who do not use them. It is this last aspect of 'public' ownership that I take the most issue with.
There is no evidence for this. It is perhaps these people that place the highest intrinsic value on nature, but there are commercial interests that would place a much higher material value on the resources to be extracted from nature - and they would win out, were these places not protected by law.
Ridiculous. They are a public service ot be enjoyed by all, not as some high-dollar luxury amusement park, but as a birthright of American citizens, regardless of socioeconomic status. And honestly, it doesn't matter if you use them, your patriotic identity should be inspired by their very existence.
"The establishment of the National Park Service is justified by considerations of good administration, of the value of natural beauty as a National asset, and of the effectiveness of outdoor life and recreation in the production of good citizenship." -Teddy Roosevelt
But the resolution of disputes among people who associate willingly is not the stated purpose of our government. It is the protection against violations of individual rights which is the only legitimate purpose of our government as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
I don't worship paper. I'll take the social contract as defined by Locke and Rousseau, the welfare clause, and 200 years of legal precedent. Moving on.
Loosely, Perhaps because the Feds own most of the land out west. Here in Pa we have an example of private conservation, Hawk Mountain http://www.hawkmountain.org/
Shooz, corporations are a creation & extension of the govt. The sooner we do away with that legal monster the better.
No. Because there were millions of acres of old-growth and now all that remains is in public hands. It's obvious. The tragedy of the commons favors public lands and regulation, despite libertarian dogma.
The tragedy of the commons is about the fact that ownerless land is exploited to the point of destruction because nobody benefits from protecting it. The owner of private property wants to preserve it's value in addition to profiting from its use.
Exploiting its monetary value is not the same as preservation. They are often mutually exclusive. Hence the near entirety of Indonesia's stunningly-diverse rainforest having been coercively purchased from its inhabitants and turned into monoculture palm plantations. Again, most of the primary rainforest that remains is in public national parks. We can argue about whether there's intrinsic value to nature (there is), but there's also the fact that short-term profit motive almost always overrides longer-term thinking - which underlies the Indonesian people's selling out of their long-term prosperity (the rainforest provided their livelihood sustainably) for short-term profit. The forest-dwellers are now homeless and dirt poor. The promised jobs in palm plantations materialized only for a few; the rest are now urban indigent.
Another, similar take (scroll down to "Libertarianism and the Tragedy of the Commons"): http://www.spectacle.org/897/trust.html
Well argued.
Corporations poisoned them in the name of profit.
Government now tries to in vain to stop them.
I agree on small government though.
We have entirely too many State governments.
Save money by reducing state government.
RP advocates too much govt... !? okay you got me...
now we have to go over the whole thing again I guess... explain once again why private corporations or going to voluntarily follow the Clean Air & Water legislation in the absence of an EPA watchdog? these are democratically legislated LAWS we are talking about, if that isn't being too redundant to point out. Are you an anarchist? What's the difference between a law passed to ensure the safety of our environment and a law passed to ensure our safety in other ways?
Yes, I'm an anarchist. Anarcho -capitalist to be precise.
The protection of private property is the key to protecting the environment. Just like you can't throw rocks at your neighbors you can't (or shouldn't be allowed to) "throw" pollution at them. The present system is about allowing what levels of pollution they can get away with while favoring special interests under the guise of protecting the environment. A system of private law would do a much better job:
The Idea of a Private Law Society
(snip)
In sum, protection and security contracts would come into existence. Insurers (unlike states) would offer their clients contracts with well-specified property descriptions and clearly defined duties and obligations. Likewise, the relationship between insurers and arbitrators would be governed by contract. Each party to a contract, for the duration or until fulfillment of the contract, would be bound by its terms and conditions; and every change in the terms or conditions of a contract would require the unanimous consent of all parties concerned. That is, in a private law society, unlike under statist conditions, no "legislation" would exist. No insurer could get away with promising its clients protection without letting them know how or at what price, and insisting that it could unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the protector-client relationship. Insurance-clients would demand something significantly better, and insurers would supply contracts and constant law, instead of promises and shifting and changing legislation.
Furthermore, as a result of the continual cooperation of various insurers and arbitrators, a tendency toward the unification of property and contract law and the harmonization of the rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict resolution would be set in motion. Through buying protection-insurance, everyone would share in the common goal of striving to reduce conflict and enhance security. Moreover, every single conflict and damage claim, regardless of where and by or against whom, would fall into the jurisdiction of one or more specific insurance agencies and would be handled either by an individual insurer's "domestic" law or by the "international" law provisions and procedures agreed upon in advance by a group of insurers.
Such a system would assure more complete and perfect legal stability and certainty than any system of security to which we can currently appeal. http://mises.org/daily/2265
well it sure is a nice theory.
but every bit of land is going to be owned?? including oceans? and what about the air? it seems like a recipe for amazing law suits too.
but I can see how much you must despise governt to get to this level of trust in human beings to take care of their property.
I've lived under 2 govts (US & Venezuela). I've seen how much harm they can do. It's trust in govt that I learned was a mistake.
The "nice theory" & "level of trust in human beings" ideas are attempts at dismissing what you can't refute. Nice try. Private law is still law. Trust has nothing to do with it.
"...as a result of the continual cooperation of various insurers and arbitrators, a tendency toward the unification of property and contract law and the harmonization of the rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict resolution would be set in motion..."
you're right. I have a hard time refuting things like the above. It is very theoretical and abstract you must admit. What makes you sure it would work out like this? I would be happy to see some experiments on a state or local level. Again, at this point I would also be keen to see what RP would do if he did win the White House. I would consider voting for him, if no other viable 3rd choice emerges. One thing I am sure of... we can't go on like This!
I'm absolutely in favor of Capitalism (in its true meaning, not what OWSers portray it to be) but your argument for 'private law' was refuted quite succinctly by Ayn Rand ~70 years ago. I'm going to quote from an article entitled: "The Nature of Government":
"Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.
One cannot call this theory [competitive government] a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms "competition" and "government." Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of government B, has robbed him; a squad of police A proceeds to Mr. Jones's house and is met at the door by a squad of police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith's complaint and do no recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there."
Brackets mine.
Yes, I remember that article. Rand didn't get anarchist theory. The competing "govts" would have mechanisms for settling disputes between them such as the one she cites.
What mechanisms?
Arbitration for one, agreements between them to settle such things done up in advance.
So the 'competing governments' would have a set of agreements (laws) which determined their relationship to one another? What is the difference between that and a single government?
darrnlobo...Liberty and free markets are NOT synonymous.
oh... and why do you say it's intolerant. maybe that's what I am wondering too. I'm OWS. I love these views. And the Libertarian folks that are bringing them to us. Thanks! And now how can I help you??
But maybe some of my comrades are less tolerant...? Still am not getting a sense of what people think of this video. What did you think??
Beamer, I've had experience with the left's anti war movement & trying to work with the left on the drug war too. They treat libertarians like lepers sometimes. That's just the prologue.
In Philly someone broke into the tent Truth Freedom Prosperity had & stole all the literature & CDs then took a dump. Yes, a dump. Later a socialist was protesting them in front of the tent. Then there is the One People's Project clown that thinks everyone that advocates liberty is a racist constantly attacking them on Youtube.
also... so what was your experience with the anti-war movement or drug war sitch?
those are issues I assume we agree on and that "the Left" (?) and Libertarians agree about.
At a Drug Policy Alliance in conference East Rutherford, NJ in '03, if I remember the year correctly, I worked the Libertarian Party (no longer with them BTW) table there. Many times when mingling as soon as leftists found out I was a libertarian it was "excuse me" & walk away. Same has happened at anti war events. See below for other types of exclusion from the peace movement:
An Inclusive Antiwar Movement? http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/11/inclusive-antiwar-movement.html
Darren Wolfe of Focus on Peace Speaks at Agora I/O "Live from Valley Forge" (video) http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/09/focus-on-peaces-darren-wolfe-to-talk-at.html
Well I'll tell you why I sometimes "walk away" and I have this reaction to Socialists too. I don't like any group or even person who thinks they have "the answers". I don't like ideology. I don't even like the labels. Why label yourself? And why subscribe? It's the "don't drink the cool-aid" idea.
As you can tell, many OWS folks (and Left and Right) are sympathetic to a lot of what Libertarians are saying. But very few of "us" are sympathetic to the whole Program, or even its very "fundamentalist" principle, that private sector is an Angel and public sector is the Devil.
"I don't like ideology."
An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals.
I don't know how you even expect to survive until next week if you don't have a set of ideas defining your goals. Or maybe it's just that you don't like some ideological systems?
I don't think I like any. I don't think there are any. I think we just have to keep solving problems and we have to keep arguing things out. I would hold up the ideas of the Enlightenment and also the American Revolution. As well as some Greek philosophy and certainly the Socratic method as well as Marx's dialecticism.
As far as next week goes... "Take no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things unto itself. Sufficient unto the day, is the evil thereof." (Jesus).
well 1st--- all of that totally sucks and people suck and what a bunch of assholes and what on earth makes you want to remove government so that there is nothing standing in the way of the nastiest human beings taking Giant-sized shits all over the planet?!
and 2nd-- you guys are lepers : P
I'm just kidding you. I really am sorry that your tent got stolen and all that and I am not at all intolerant or even deaf to the Libertarian message. It has lots of value. (but dudes, you guys bank hard Right way too easily).
Actually, I see the govt as the enabler of "the nastiest human beings taking Giant-sized shits all over the planet". It is almost always under cover of law that the corporations do their evil deeds. Then the govt often protects them from punishment.
BTW, libertarians are neither left nor right. There are some conservatives that claim to be libertarians (Glenn Beck) but they're full of it.
Okay I just grant you that government (especially a corrupt one) enables corporations to do nasty stuff. What would stop them from doing even more. Think of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle". Look what the meat packing industry was doing when there were zero regulations.
The libertarian solution: A return to the Gilded Age but we'll be better people somehow, so it will turn out differently. Just NO regulations, whatever you do! And taxation is theft, and inequality is natural therefore virtuous.
I'm going to assume you are being ironic. I really appreciate some regulations. Like the one that says you can't sell ground chuch wieht e.coli in it.
And honestly I don't mind paying my dues. Especially if my kids get a decent education, there are roads and bridges (or better yet, trains!), there is a post office that will deliver a letter in 3-5 days anywhere in the country, there are police just to keep things from getting out of hand, if my house catches fire, there are Nation Parks to visit, etc etc etc. Healthcare would be nice too. And yes, I'm glad old people don't have to live in utter poverty.
Yes, that was my parody of the libertarian position.
Actually, there were meat inspectors at the time Sinclair wrote The Jungle. This example proves my point. The regulations were favored by the big meat providers to destroy their smaller competition:
Most Americans would be surprised to know that government meat inspection did not begin in 1906. The inspectors Holbrook refers to as being mentioned in Sinclair’s book were among hundreds employed by federal, state, and local governments for more than a decade. Indeed, Congressman E. D. Crumpacker of Indiana noted in testimony before the House Agriculture Committee in June 1906 that not even one of those officials “ever registered any complaint or [gave] any public information with respect to the manner of the slaughtering or preparation of meat or food products”5
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/ideas-and-consequences-of-meat-and-myth/
okay, I'll concede that private food industries could have an inherent self-interest and therefore could regulate themselves as well as, and perhaps better than a public watchdog. what about the environment? unless every speck of ocean is owned and ever river and lake then who prevents pollution? and who owns the air?? and don't you only find out about the pollution (in order to sue) when it's too late?
I don't want all land privately owned. I want public land-- like our National Parks-- for everyone to enjoy. I don't want everyplace to look like Disneyland or the local mall. Or big box stores everywhere across the globe. how boring and inhuman. When McDonalds and Wal-Mart "crush" all the competitors, and we are left with 2-3 mega-corporations, then what?
In my free market McDs, Disney, the malls, & Walmart won't have any govt buddies helping them crush competition so there will be plenty of it. You seem to forget that it isn't the free market that will lead to being "left with 2-3 mega-corporations". We're moving in that direction with the regulated markets we have, the mixed economy is the problem. You'll have parks open to the public without the govt too.
Pollution - You own property not air. No one can put out pollution that goes onto someone else's property. There will be deterrents to pollution in a system that upholds property rights & stronger ones than today's bought off govt can provide. What we don't need is this guilty until proved innocent approach with inspectors running around violating the 4th Amendment everyday.
I don't see what would prevent consolidation and concentration of power in your pure market world. That's why we had anti-trust laws. Also SOME consolidation is necessary or efficient... especially anything that is a public service open to the public (roads & utilities).
It's super unclear how these property rights will be enforced. It's not easy or cheap to sue people. I don't own any property. I had one apartment where the hot water stopped working (it was like luke warm). I complained. They said "tough luck". I suppose I could have moved, but what a hassle! and then the next poor slob would have the same problem. Luckily I looked up the Landlord-Tenant laws and then called the city inspector. He arrived in 3 days, checked the temperature and then told the landlord it had to be fixed. They grudgingly fixed it. Win.
I know Libertarians don't trust government. Americans don't either! That is the genius of our government, because the Founders didn't trust it either. 3 branches that divide and separate power. More separation of power in the federal system and then also through municipal jurisdictions. More safeguards in the Bill of Rights and the judicial independence (why are judges elected?!? we should change that!).
Basically I believe in limited-government. And I Really believe in the American system. I think it has simply been corrupted because of the concentration of wealth and the access that wealth has had to our government. Government isn't "helping business" (I mean it is) but only because business came pounding at the door with handfuls of money demanding that government get out of their Way! That's why you have Fox news and Koch brothers constant propaganda about the evils of regulations. It wasn't regulations that caused the meltdown... it was lobbyists that demanded that all the old banking REGULATIONS be lifted and dissolved.
In the end my landlord kept my security deposit claiming I had not cleaned. Of course I had cleaned. But I lost because I didn't have the time or energy to go file a claim in civil court. But at least I could have. And at least I had hot water. Those private property bastards! (JK-- most of my landlords have been cool, though not all!)
"Private property" has a motive for profit. Nothing with stop that. Government is at least (theoretically!) accountable and has no profit motive (or should have none! we need better regulations on them!!).
In the end it's all human beings and we are all corrupt (-able) and flawed. I do believe in institutions. I'm a bit of an anarchist when it comes to daily life... but really my anarchist tendencies are to the effect that I always want Power to be challenged and shared. You think private property can empower everyone. I think it will only empower the very powerful.
You're seeing things in the context of the present system not completely understanding that I advocate something different. For example, the "consolidation and concentration of power" is happening now in our regulated world. This is because the 1% use regulations & things like the anti trust laws to destroy competition. In a free market there are no licensing or regulatory barriers to entry into whatever field. This prevents monopolies from lasting. Yes, it is possible for someone to temporarily dominate a free market, but such a condition is only sustainable if the govt helps them do so. You correctly point out the public monopolies, though I don't agree that we need them provided by the govt.
I know the Koch bros make noise about free markets, but they're full of it. We, libertarians, know them & their Cato boys as beltway libertarians. In other words, co-opted by the system. Anyway you have it wrong, the meltdown was caused by regulation & central banking, which means the govt. The financial industry remains heavily regulated left wing mythology about deregulation not withstanding. A great in depth report on this:
Anatomy of a Train Wreck Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf
I like your example of the landlord (sorry to hear you had a problem though). It just goes to show how the govt court system doesn't work. That's why arbitration is making a comeback. More & more people are seeking an alternative to the corrupt, slow, & expensive courts.
The bottom line is that the govt causes many of the problems blamed on the market. Once you get that libertarianism makes more sense.
we are starting to go in circles...
I don't agree that there is too much regulation. I want the EPA to do way more enforcing and I imagine if they did BP would not have been able to be so careless (or even better, they might not have been permitted to drill in the first place! why are they drilling "our" publicly owned?? oil? did they purchase this "property"? from who?)
anyway... 2nd.. my understanding of the "Securities Modernization Act" was that it removed regulations, most notably the separation of consumer banking from investment banking, allowing banks to essentially gamble with "our" money.
I don't mind the slowness of the courts and I certainly expect it. I could have fought (and won) but it wasn't worth my time. my point is that I appreciate the protections government agencies & institutions are Tasked with providing. the fact that they fail, or provide these protections inefficiently is something I accept because... again... they are not meant to be super-powerful! their power is indeed limited. I don't see any limits on power in your "privatized" world.
there wouldn't be national parks, Disney would buy the land and make a theme park. or just keep everyone out because they don't want people getting the idea the Nature (which is free) is more enjoyable than their fake kingdom of "amusements".
I don't "get" your bottom line. Obviously if I did I would be libertarian. And if I blamed the market entirely I would be a communist. I don't do that either. I want checks & balances on power. I want a "free market" and I want a democratic (3-branch) government to exercise a limited, legislated, adjudicated authority over it.
and finally I want a citizenry that knows how to Check both these things when they collude against OUR interests. So let's bring on our little Revolution (American style) and then you Libertarians can have a fair shot of running for office and people like RP could have a fair shot at actually winning (well, he has won!, but you know what i mean) and then I will be happy to have you enact-- legislatively, Constitutionally-- your agenda. Of course I also might vote against it. : )
There is no real-world evidence that monopolies don't form naturally.
More: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmon.htm
In a libertarian world of no regulations and only courts of law, it is incrediblly difficult to prove harm or property damage from pollution, and in any case, those cases are post facto, after the damage/harm is done. 20 kids get cancer, a court case brought by the parents against megacorp takes years, during which time the kids die, and in the end, harm and/or the source of pollution can't be proven. Further, the property in question is forever polluted. Whether this serves as a deterrent depends on cost/benefit analysis on behalf of megacorp.
Better: specific pollutants are categorized and regulated, air and water quality are monitored, and the government prosecutes polluters on our behalf.
& a police state erected to enforce the regs. That's what's happening today. Regulation is a "solution" that has been tried & failed. The regulators allow pollution & unsafe drugs to this day. To make matters worse they trample our rights too.
It doesn't follow that the need for better and more efficient regulations means a zero-regulation state is ideal. You know better.
They do trample our rights, but you can pretty much zero in on three main areas - homeland security, the drug war, limits on free speech/assembly - civil liberties - that are of interest to occupiers. The rest of your agenda is not.
it seemed the like interviewer attempted to seize on that too... "OWS is a Left wing thing..." but the friendly Socialist didn't bite. He didn't affirm or deny it. Okay, well... it ain't Republican, it ain't Democrat, it ain't Right Wing, so... just what exactly does that leave?
but whilst we're on that subject... where the hell is the Tea Party?? They should be engaged too. I'm glad the Libertarians are.
God damn right this is a big tent! and Amen for that.
Do YOU care is OWS is "Left wing"?? Why?
Sure he did. Brandon from Philly Socialists says clearly in the interview that it is a left wing movement. "The kick that the left really needed" were his words.
yes. i heard him. and so your (or Brandon's?) point is...??
in other words... so what if it is? what exactly is the criticism or challenge?
First you deny that he said OWS is left wing then you say he did. Which is it?
The criticism is that all who are other than on the left are excluded from OWS. I see the little libertarian participation that there is as out reach rather than joining. One can't join a movement that stands for things one opposes.
This is not to say we support the present regime. I'm sating we don't agree with the proposed so called reforms.
I didn't deny it, I merely pointed to the other part of the exchange in which he was pointing out that OWS didn't fit any of the other labels, so in that sense, yeah it's fair to characterize it as "Left".
As for the problem of not reaching out... yeah, I know. OWS is making a big mistake. "We" also need to reach out to Tea Party folks. And to police!
Darrenlobo.....Liberty and Free markets are not one in the same. You are totally wrong.
Liberty is a moral and political principle, or Right, that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions.
A free market is a competitive market where prices are determined by supply and demand. However, the term is also commonly used for markets in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts. Free markets differs from situations encountered in controlled markets or a monopoly, which can introduce price deviations without any changes to supply and demand. Advocates of a free market traditionally consider the term to imply that the means of production is under private, and not state control or co-operative ownership. This is the contemporary use of the term "free market" by economists and in popular culture
"Liberty and Free markets are not one in the same. You are totally wrong. "
Of course they are the same. You can't have one without the other. It comes down to the non initiation of force. If the govt can use force on peaceful people it is destroying their liberties, economic & otherwise.
darrenlobo......You didn't address the points I made!.............only your opinion of the government enslaving the people or some such nonsense, completely off subject..............Free markets and liberty are not one in the same, they may have a symbiotic relationship is all.
Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan, Yeltsin, wage slavery, the Gilded Age, neoliberal world domination, corporatocracy. That's my experience of "free" markets.
I've heard all your arguments for why these don't represent the real free market, but I don't care. History shows what happens when free-market ideologues are in power.
Like you said these morons you mention didn't represent free markets, therefore you have no experience with free markets.
So you're not a fan of Hayek, then? I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.
Why would a new system based on the ideals of Hayek be better than Pinochet's Chile or Thatcher's England, considering both of these regimes were strongly endorsed by him and strived to follow his principles? What does your ideal libertarian president do once the people riot when he/she starts implementing your utopian reforms?
Hayek was far from perfect. He fell into the lesser of evils trap.
One can look at places like Ireland http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/sigfrid0404.pdf Poland http://www.europac.net/commentaries/poland%E2%80%99s_economy_no_joke Germany http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/origins-of-the-german-economic-miracle/ & Estonia http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/origins-of-the-german-economic-miracle/ for examples of market (if not entirely free) reforms working.
As to the rioting, as in Greece, this is the result of socialists getting people to believe they're entitled to loot. That morality needs to be "reformed" too.
| That morality needs to be "reformed" too.
Or what?
You get looting.
And what does your ideal libertarian president do about it, if not follow Pinochet, Thatcher, and Yeltsin?
My ideal libertarian president wouldn't come to power until such morality is long gone.
You'll wait forever. Fine by me.
Any educated individual knows that this protest is anarchic asking for a Socialist government from the gecko. You have to be a bloody idiot not to realize this from the start.
Precisely. OWS has no hidden agenda. As a movement it is not pretending to be anything but what it is.
Uh no they don't represent me so no they are not representative of the group. They represent themselves. There are myriad messages when you gather the ideas of 99% of people. But from my experience at protests most folks are moderate independents who are disappointed with how much influence corporate money plays in politics, making for a failed democracy where the voices of the 99% are drowned out by those with the most money. All we want is to get corporate influence out of politics. And regulate those hedge fund managers so they can't gamble away our teachers pensions. So get out to a protest near you and actually talk to some folks if you are interested in finding out what the overall message is. I have yet to meet any socialists communists anarchists or any other ists.
I don't know what occupy you've been to but the one in Philly is pretty left leaning:
Occupy Philadelphia: The Kick That the Left Really Needed http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-philadelphia-kick-that-left.html
I've been down to Occupy Philly several times now. The only ones not on the left are Truth, Freedom, Prosperity.
There is no representatives in the OWS movement. At this point in time every person is merely voicing their opinion of the many things that are wrong in this country.
At the point in the future when everyone is done complaining about the problems and we are actually moving towards a real viable solution then their will be representatives acting in our behalf.
This takes an enormous amount of time so it is unrealistic to expect anything out of them right now.
The day's name originated in Philadelphia, where it originally was used to describe the heavy and disruptive pedestrian and vehicle traffic which would occur on the day after Thanksgiving. Use of the term started before 1966 and began to see broader use outside Philadelphia around 1975. Later an alternative explanation began to be offered: that "Black Friday" indicates the point at which retailers begin to turn a profit, or are "in the black".[url]www.golfsales365.com[/url]
I liked it. what i got out of it is that way too many people focus on the names of organizations and not enough time on what political ideologies, from the perspective of the voters, not the votees, are espousing. take for instance the conversation the nurse and the camera man had. they both diagnosed a problem in healthcare but because of their ideological perspectives, they probably will always vote against one another. how sad. no?
I'm the cameraman & I would say the problem of ideologies is also a problem of seeing different causes of the problem &, therefore, different solutions. Way too many people, left & right, don't get that the health care crisis is caused by the govt's regulation of that market. The solution isn't more govt but less (in a perfect world no govt).
but to play off of the nurse's words, which i believe would be the expert of the two, the regulations are written by those that profit from them. let's say that CEOs of a hospital feel that their way of doing business is the best. they then lobby their government officials and regulate perceived inefficiencies. now when an entire industry talks with one voice, it is kinda hard for political votees to blow them off. i'd say that what needs to happen is that patients need to form unions and argue against arguments of the CEOs. in my opinion a big government is a product of a big country and big institutions. i don't want to live in a country where my government is so small that it has to go to corporate officials on its knees. like the marx impersonator said the trinity of a country is the people, the corporations and the government, each equal in respect to the next. but once the government gets shrunk the ball game changes. besides, if the government is the reason for high medical costs, why are private companies making all the money?
Actually, I thought the nurse made my point. The regulatees will always control the regulators. We agree that that is what's happening now. What I don't get is why anyone thinks it can be any different? That's why we need a free market in health care so the corporations can't manipulate the market in their favor. We need competition not more competition stifling regs. This answers your question too. The private companies make money because they control the regulators.
see,"The regulatees will always control the regulators" is just so much cognitive dissonance. that would be like saying the criminals, regulatees, control the cops, regulators. i do see why the current condition of our nation makes us believe that. but if the tail is wagging the dog that should not mean we should euthanize the dog, but instead train the dog to wag its own tail. conversing with you has been a pleasure and who knows maybe i am the naive one.
Perhaps if the criminals were able to become cops then after a while go back to being criminals (did i just repeat myself?) the analogy would hold up. It seems obvious that due to lobbying, campaign contributions, speaking fees, consultant gigs, & straight hiring of govt people it is the industries involved that control the regulators. More on this:
Regulatory Capture
The phenomenon of using the regulatory process to one’s advantage is nothing new. Economists years ago labeled it “the capture hypothesis.” Says one textbook,
The capture hypothesis assumes that regulatory agencies are set up in the interest of the firms to be regulated and that regulators serve the interest of regulated firms (who have “captured” them through the political process), not consumers. The capture hypothesis turns on its head the idea that economic regulation is designed to protect the public interest from monopoly. It is easy to point to examples of industries that like being regulated [such as airlines, telephones, and trucking].[21]
Companies that “like” being regulated are entrenched neck-deep in the political process, opening up room for abuses more blatant than just legal subsidies and protections. Becker wrote:
Corruption is common whenever big government infiltrates all facets of economic life. In modern economies, profits often are determined more by government subsidies, taxes, and regulations than by traditional management or entrepreneurial skills. Huge profits ride on whether companies win government contracts, get higher tariffs and quotas, receive subsidies, have competition suppressed, or . . . have costly regulations suppressed.
Companies respond to the importance of government’s role by striving to influence political decisions. It is often effective just to lobby politicians, and . . . bribe officials and politicians in return for government favors and profits.[22]
Yet protections and subsidies, even bribes, can ultimately destroy the targeted industry. As I wrote on S&Ls and banks, “Many bankers still want the privilege of [deposit-insurance] coverage but also want fewer regulations. [They] cannot have it both ways. They must choose, and soon, either to stagnate as wards of the state in an unpredictable political process, facing eventual demise, or to be free and responsible institutions.”
Paul Weaver of the Hoover Institution, in a book review, summarized: “Many corporations . . . lobbied hard to make sure government’s interventions in the economy yielded limits on competition, subsidies, and other business advantages. [It is] a hard-to-accept truth: business is a major source of the anti-market thinking and policies that make a lot of big companies unable or unwilling to cope in a competitive world.”[23] http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/businessndashgovernment-collusion/
your points were good ones. and I'm a little less against libertarian solutions. it was nice conversing with you.
Thanks, Jesse, same here. It's comments like yours above that make it all worthwhile.
thanks for the link and yes i have heard of regulatory capturing. and it is a shame that those that become wealthy use their influence to lock out everyone else. it kinda puts to shame Adam Smith's referee analogy. but to beat the dead horse once more, how do you envision a world without any referees.say we neuter the government so it can no longer pick winners and losers. it still would leave a world where the winners of the past still have the resources to consolidate their winnings even more. take the death of the electric car which to my understanding was all done without government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
They (government supported businesses) may have the 'resources' (money) but they don't have what was required to legitimately earn that money. Just like one who inherits wealth but does not know how to earn it, they will quickly see their resources depleted in a free market system if they cannot provide what others are seeking at the price they expect to pay for it.
From the wiki article you linked to, "The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, the Californian government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology." It clearly says the govt was involved.
I never said there should be no referees, I said the govt shouldn't try to be the referee. Private institutions a la Consumer Reports, Underwriters Labs, Angie's List, & the zillion websites & forums where things are rated & discussed would be a big part of the refereeing. Lodges & mutual aid societies, as an historical example, would protect people too.
The does not represent the OWS.
Reading the thread, I'm not getting a picture of what y'all think of the video. I see darrenlobo arguing the Libertarian position (always a cool thinking [freudian slip!] to do in polite company and bravo) and voila...
but how are people feeling about the video? I completely dig & Love it!
1) thanks Libertarian film guy for engaging OWS and making this film!
2) I LOVE the people you chose and found them intelligent and articulate. I don't say they represent the "people" of OWS, but they certainly represent the Spirit of it, and I really appreciate their thoughts and perspectives and experiences and theatricts : )
3) yeah... total 99% thumb's up!
When I think of the current state of socialism vs. the current state of libertarianism, I think of two sides of the same worthless coin.
you don't have to be a douche bag to promote your blog.
Yes it's good to see real interviews with the people involved instead of the contrived segmented interviews. This gives people the ability to see what these people are about in thier own words and why they have been marginalized for so long in a free republic.
Sir, I do not thank you for sharing your blog, though I thank you for sharing the video and only the video matters. You're blog shows you are only part of those which listen to people that have insight on why the system fails, and then dismiss them since they do not share libertarian views. You are part of those that just dismisses people as simply being communists, socialists, anarchists, etc, and do not let their ideas contribute to your views. Have you ever thought that maybe the best kind of government is not one that is specific to any political system. For example, maybe there can be a free market with the exception the local community oversees that no corporation decides to do business that serves itself. Sure there would still be some regulation, but only stuff hits the fan. I think something like this might also benefit anarchist views, since the community is setting the rules. Honestly if RonPaul would state that he is giving community the power to say when the a company is not benefiting the people so that a higher power can step up for investigation, then maybe that would work. If you can only say that those with different views are wrong, then you are not worth listening to.
Edit: actually, I just watched a video and apparently that is what RonPaul wants ...
Alexman, it occurs to me that there may be some confusion here. Notes and Observations is not my blog. I made the video though.
Actually, I'm an anarchist so I don't think there is such a thing a "best kind of government".
"If you can only say that those with different views are wrong, then you are not worth listening to." This is a silly statement. Of course everyone thinks people with different views are wrong. If one comes to the conclusion that the different views are right one adopts them. Nice try at the sophistry though you need more practice.
darrenlobo....How do you in-vision your government-less country operating....I may convert who knows....
It would have voluntary institutions ordering society. There are historical precedents. See: The Voluntary City Choice, Community, and Civil Society
http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=17
What if no one volunteered?
What if you actually read the examples I linked to?
What if no one volunteered?
[Removed]
[Removed]