Posted on 07/06/2016 4:42:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
It took me years to figure out that markets work better than government.
I started out as a typical Ralph Nader-influenced consumer reporter, convinced that companies constantly rip us off. To me and most of my fellow left-leaning reporters, the answer was always: more regulation.
Gradually, I figured out that regulation causes many more problems than the occasional rip-off artist does. Companies that served customers well prospered, while market competition meant cheaters seldom got away with cheating for long.
Regulation, by contrast, lasted forever. It punished innovation, making it harder for good people to offer better alternatives.
How do I spare people the long learning process I went through?
A former producer of mine, Todd Seavey, has written a book called "Libertarianism for Beginners." It lays down a few basic principles that make it easier to understand what a free market is -- and how everything government does interferes with that market.
"Your body, like all your property, should be yours to do with as you please so long as you do not harm the body or property of others without their permission," writes Seavey. That means government can't tell people what to do unless those people threaten harm.
Seavey didn't come up with that idea himself, of course. In the book, he describes the history of philosophers and economists who've urged people to follow that rule for some 200 years.
That rule helped make America the most prosperous and productive country in the world.
Unfortunately, while those libertarian ideas allowed innovation to flourish, government and regulation grew even faster.
A century ago in the U.S., government at all levels took up about 8 percent of the economy. Now it takes up about 40 percent. It regulates everything from the size of beverage containers to what questions must not be asked in job interviews.
How can people be expected to keep up with it all?
Seavey points out that it's backwards to expect them to try. Instead of just looking at the complicated mess government makes, we need to review the basic rules that got us here.
Instead of the rule being "government knows best" or "vote for the best leader," says Seavey, what if the basic legal rules were just: no assault, no theft, no fraud? Then most waste and bureaucracy that we fight about year after year wouldn't exist in the first place.
To most people, it sounds easier to leave big policy decisions -- about complex things like wages, food production and roads -- to government. Having to make our own decisions about everything and trade for everything in the marketplace sounds complicated.
But Seavey argues that the "hands off other people's stuff" rule would feel like second-nature if we were more consistent about enforcing it. "Even chimpanzees are capable of being outraged if other chimpanzees take their food so the basic impulses to defend property and to resist assault," he writes, "no doubt predate human history."
It's when politicians convince people that those simple rules aren't enough that voters decide to let bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians make the decisions instead. Then the public loses track of the complicated rules. Even the full-time media can't keep up with all the trickery.
We can -- and should -- keep reporting on government's broken promises and endless scandals. But to teach people they shouldn't count on government to produce good things in the first place, they need some basic philosophy.
Seavey's book may help, which is why I wrote the foreword to it. I like that the book has cartoons, making it more fun than dull economics textbooks. I hope it provides a model for looking at the world to people confused by stupid things government does.
But Seavey is too much the open-minded intellectual. He writes, "It may turn out that the system of control and redistribution that we thought was working to solve our problems was the real problem all along."
No. There's no "may turn out" about it. Forty-five years of watching government "solutions" go bad has taught me that state control rarely works, and it usually makes problems worse. Government control and redistribution is definitely the real problem.
Governments (generally composed of looters) should not subsidize anyone (generally moochers) individually. Their job is protection and enforcement of contracts.
Individuals and charities (generally producers) may voluntarily help and will when not taxed excessively.
Many will starve or leave.
Actually, some libertarians prefer the term: "classic liberalism".
The modifier is used distinguish it from "social liberalism", which developed later:
In the US, "liberalism" is used to describe a mix of social liberalism and progressivism.
It's why I refuse to use "liberal" at all. The original meaning of the term has been corrupted to the point that there's nothing "liberal" about it at all. And it certainly isn't "progress", either.
I just use "the left" or "leftists".
that is used a lot as a soundbite but they really arent.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism
its a common misconception that there is no laws, there are but the goal is a set of laws that apply equally across the board. property rights would be a major requirement.
also a lot of people think government standards are required, they arent, for example the IEEE standards organisation and thats one among many.
the view that they are pro immigration is half the coin. the idea is that there should be no social welfare, thats on you and your family, neighbours and friends. the main driver for immigration is benefits, illegally taken from you as taxes. thats the other side of the coin. you cant allow immigration until the reasons for illegal immigration are removed, then the people who arrive are there for the betterment of themselves and society.
the drug issue is also a 2 sided coin. there wont be taxes for drug help or support or government agencies. you want to take drugs, knock yourself out just remember you are on your own when you become a down and out. same goes for the fatties, the smokers, the drinkers. so long as you are interfering with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...go for it...but when you fail..i aint paying.
its at this point the ‘what happens the poor’ arrives. look if you are worried about the poor, take your wages and do something. meet others and make a charity for what you care about, others can do likewise. the dirty secret here is charities do better and get more when government isnt there. Go look at the state of Haiti to see how governments work.
on guns and war? well on guns, its part of your life and liberty. there will be police but the onus is on you to protect yourself. on war, if you want a war — everyone (AND I DO MEAN EVERYONE) will pay extra in taxes to support the war. that means the war will be short, sharp and to the point. there wont be a lot of ‘lets build schools’ afterwards. your goal in a war is to win to solve the issue that could not be solved. you are not there for the betterment of your enemy. also there will be taxes but it would be a flat rate for EVERYONE. EVERYONE pays one rate on your earning. you will hear the amount of 6% used in a lot of liberty circles. thats pays for a minimal government, an army and a police force (altho some feel the latter should also be private). there would be no dept of education, health, social services, welfare etc etc etc. if you want a school for your kids, you pay for the best you can afford. if you want cancer care you pay for the best you can afford, AND YES the multi millionaire will get better treatment so stop whining. the drive for things like competition, real money (aka gold etc) will drive healthcare costs lower and lower. even your fire brigade would be paid when you use it. At one point in America multiple fire brigades would arrive at a fire and you haggle for the best price. you had a contract, you put out the fire, i pay.
as with all political views, there is the normal and the insane and all levels in between. what the press normally delivers is the image of the moron dancing in his underwear. the idea is people will naturally formulate a set of rule and regulations that suit society. the US Constitution is a near perfect example of what Liberty can achieve. the idea that Liberia or Cambodia represents it == not so much.
just my opinion obviously.
A libertarian society wouldn't require or even ask you to do so.
That's we should only accept drug legalization if welfare and medical care would be denied to habitual drug users. And that would include alcohol and prescription drug abusers, which are currently subsidized.
I'd relent for medical treatment ONCE for addiction, to get someone back to being a productive member of society. But, after that they are on their own.
sorry typo
‘so long as you are interfering with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...’
should say
‘so long as you are NOT interfering with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...
I forgot one important one: tobacco (of all kinds). That's another huge drain on our medical resources, and it's subsidized through free or subsidized health care.
Taxes on tobacco somewhat mitigate that cost, but we all pay higher health care insurance premiums and other taxes for the rest.
Agreed, but courts have consistently overruled statutes attempting to deny benefits.
So the only was to accomplish that is to stop handing out the bennys period.
Which is why I have the same thought process as with amnesty:
Not even interested in discussing amnesty until immigration controlled.
Not even interested in discussing drug legalization until gov is out of the charity business.
I prefer a society that doesn’t rely on the behavior of other people in the society. At least five miles between neighbors, with no roads. And all Northern Pagans, to keep the riffraff out. Internet access would be nice.
Yes, in a free society, you take the chance and lose, it’s on you to deal with it.
Currently tobacco is legal. As it turns out, by dying early, they are actually cheaper overall due to reduce SS benefits and not spending the last 30 yrs of life dealing w/all the other medical conditions of age.
It’s more expensive to live than to die.
And I smoke!
Yes, there's going to be a problem with federal statutes -- those have to be changed first.
Then, each individual state would have to clean up their own statutes, changing any laws used by the courts to wiggle around it. So the only was to accomplish that is to stop handing out the bennys period.
That wouldn't be bad, in the long run.
Not even interested in discussing amnesty until immigration controlled.
I don't want to discuss amnesty at all. If someone is in the country illegally, they should leave.
One thing that would put an end to a lot of illegal immigration: If you are caught in the country illegally, you will NEVER, EVER, get a green card. You'll give up any chance to stay in the US legally.
No asylum for anyone that enters the US illegally, either. I don't care how bad it is back at home -- if you don't do it legally, you go home.
Finally, end "catch and release", and send them back to their country of origin.
That doesn't mean that I oppose immigration, though. I would implement something like Australia's "point system". It takes into account:
Each of these factors adds to your "score". By adjusting the points for each factor and setting the score threshold, the number of people admitted each year can be managed.
No-—Libertarianism is usually the most irrational of all because they claim there is no Objective, Universal Truth (a God). Or if they do, they say that “religions” are irrational-—all “faith” is irrational, yet, the idea that faith and reason is separated in ANY “human” being is a Joke—total irrationality of Marxism-—that Marxism isn’t just an irrational faith (a religion) in masters over a bunch of slaves.
So Libertarians ban Christianity from the public square and our “Justice” system when it MADE the Justice System and Western Civilization and eliminated the pagan and socialist concepts that democracy (tyranny of majorities) is “Good” and acceptable over Individual NATURAL Rights from God.
Justice is the Queen of Virtue in Western Civilization. Virtue is Excellence and to “Progress” there has to be an IDEAL—(God/Universal Truth), so that you go toward Excellence (the High Renaissance was ONLY possible with a Christian worldview).
Why? Because the Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity and the idea of Free Will (choice) and Individualism/Natural Rights from God only and never the State, are purely Christian concepts—as is the US Constitution and the “Justice” (virtue) System.
All Just Laws promote “public virtue” (Montesquieu) and the Libertarians actually believe that Just Laws can promote vice (and evil and sodomy and baby-killing). Using any human being as a Means (object) to an End is evil-—but only in a Christian “Justice” system and the US Constitution.
True “Justice” systems can never promote evil, theft (Marxism/Socialism) and ideologies like islam where some groups are treated as objects/Means to an End which is ALWAYS EVIL.
Read my tagline-—that is a Catholic concept which became Universal in the Western Worldview during the Scholastic period which ended up creating the Renaissance and worldview of John Locke, Adam Smith, etc., which created the Minds of our Founders (the US Constitution).
Ideas matter. The most just, free, perfect “Justice” System has always been the ones based on a Christian Worldview—the Christian concepts of “Good and Evil” which created the idea of Free Will and Individualism which is the basis of true Freedom. Remove Christianity (the faith/belief system)-—and you remove Freedom, period.
That is the WHOLE object of Marxists—to destroy the Christian Worldview in children so they become ‘happy slaves”-—have no concept of Justice/Freedom and the ideas which created the US Constitution.
Without Knowledge and Wisdom, the concepts of the Founders are impossible. That is why Common Core removes the Great Books or warps them so that critical thinking is impossible in children.....there is “nothing” in their minds worth contemplating-—just mush and incoherent worthless (lies) information which promotes vice and using others in evil, vile ways (Marxism/islam/satanism).
Libertarians are just guys that want a tax cut with no morals.
Yes, and so is alcohol. It took a constitutional amendment to prohibit it, and that worked out really well.
That's one of the things I think so many forget: a very large portion of the violent crime in the US is drug-related: dealers competing for market share.
This is essentially a rerun of what happened during Prohibition. The murder rate dropped precipitously after Prohibition was repealed. So, one has to wonder if the "cure" (drug prohibition) is worse than the "disease" (drug abuse).
And on top of that, our southern neighbor is turning into a failed narco-state. Countries in Central and South America have funded oppressive regimes with the US drug trade, and their refugees are fleeing to the US and entering illegally.
As it turns out, by dying early, they are actually cheaper overall due to reduce SS benefits and not spending the last 30 yrs of life dealing w/all the other medical conditions of age.
Substance abuse of all kinds tends to shorten life (and I include "food abuse" in that). That doesn't seem to be a good rationale for subsidizing it.
Why did the Prohibitionists need a Constitutional amendment to prohibit intoxicants?
I don’t know, you’d have to ask them.
This is a good article, contrary perhaps to the comments below. Thanks for posting.
Why no libertarian societies:
1. Libertarianism as a distinct political philosophy named as such has only been around since about the 1950s. It’s also a very American philosophy so its reach is limited.
2. There is more money and power to be had in expanding the scope and reach of government than limiting it.
The Free State Project is alive and well. The move was triggered last year I think?
Pot is already legal in several states and soon to be in others. For good or bad. FWIW, I’m not a fan, but accept that the 10th Amendment cuts both ways.
One problem I have with the pure Libertarian model is how to deal with the crack-addicted newborn baby.
Conservatives are not a majority in this country. Sorry to bring that to your attention, but that’s what it is. If we as conservatives want to see our ideas turned into political reality, then we’re going to have to work with folks we don’t agree with 100% of the time. I think I can come to terms with a typical libertarian a helluva lot faster than with the typical progressive.
I personally don’t agree with a lot of what libertarians have to say. But they do have some good points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.