Philosophy Now Forum

This is mainly just a review on Libertarianism, specifically the Austrian/American school of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a vast political philosophy, and actually is adhered to those within both the Right and the Left spectrum of politics. There's Libertarian Socialism, Libertarian Communism, Anarcho-Libertarianism, Libertarianism that adheres to a purely Free Market economy while being anti-Corporate and anti-Monopoly, and of course, there's the Austrian economic school, which is what I am mainly focusing on.

Ideas of Austrian Libertarianism: small government (limited social programs and/or little intervention of any kind) and free market. This kind of Libertarianism has been promoted by Ron Paul, the Koch Brothers, the Mises Institute, etc.

What is this "small government" and "big government" that many people in the Libertarian/Conservative spectrum of Politics spout about? Personally, I find these two terms to be very vague, yet Libertarians and Conservatives always use those words. Now, of course, they will define the programmed meaning that they've been indoctrinated into saying: that "small government" equals freedom with little government intervention, while "big government" is tyranny with lots of government intervention.

Here's why Libertarianism (the Austrian brand) is completely unscientific and devoid of foundation of reality. Little government intervention does not equal a democracy, because democracy involves the masses to participate in government, which is supposed to government made by the masses (the people). It does not equal a "republic" either, as a republic requires everybody to be based under "the rule of Law", which requires intervention such as a police or militia; anything to keep order. In order to have a functioning system and/or a system that champions freedom, a government must be made by the people, and so it would not make since for government to not intervene in any such crises.

Now onto "big government". "Big government" is often equated to "socialism and communism/marxism" by Libertarians, and so thus Socialism equals tyranny in the mind of Libertarians. The example that Libertarians use is the Obama administration in the United States, and the reasons they say this is because of Obamacare. They also criticize Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (programs implemented before Barack Obama) along with Obamacare. I do agree that it is "government intervention", and that this kind is bad, but it's not really Socialism. Socialism also does not equate to Communism/Marxism, because Socialism was also espoused by people like Muammar Qaddafi, Adolf Hitler, many American Progressives, Mahatma Ghandi, Christian Socialists, Islamic Socialists, Jewish Socialists (ie. Labor Zionists), etc. I don't know about Communism/Marxism, or if Obama and his administration are rooted in Marxism, so I cannot judge that.

Let's get to Free Market economy. "Free Market" and "Capitalism" have been given a bad name by many of the adherents of the Left because of the "robber barrons" (Carnegie, Rockefeller), and because of free trade and globalization that has been more of a detriment than a beneficiary to the world. I agree that there should be a Free Market, but how can we have a Free Market with a Federalist nation such as the United States? This is especially true since the United States has a unified fiat currency, industry has been monopolized by companies and corporations, we have taxes that citizens have to pay to the Federal and State government, and so on. I believe that in order to have a truly Free Market economy, we probably would need to find a way to give the states more power and reduce the various markets into that of bazaars.

Lend in your ideas, people!!!!

WanderingLands wrote:...free trade and globalization that has been more of a detriment than a beneficiary to the world.

An absolutely ridiculous statement not based on a single scintilla of fact.

bobevenson wrote: An absolutely ridiculous statement not based on a single scintilla of fact.

First of all, this discussion is solely and strictly based on Libertarianism, and so Globalization should not be discussed here, as it has nothing to do with this particular thread.

However, if you'd like to show me some evidence that Globalization is bad, I'm more than happy to give you some.

Project Censored - Monsanto and India's "Suicide Economy": http://www.projectcensored.org/21-monsa ... e-economy/
Dailymail - Inside Apple's Chinese 'sweatshop' factory where workers are paid just £1.12 per hour to produce iPhones and iPads for the West
: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -hour.html
Global Research - Trans Pacific Partnership Is A “Corporatist Power Grab”, Shrouded In “Big Brother-Like Secrecy”: http://www.globalresearch.ca/trans-paci ... cy/5362585

Also, look at the wars in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan), and the coup in Iran; all these and more, in which are connected to the oil companies.

There you go.

Bob no offence but lessaiz faire economics was brought in under Reagan, controls on lending and banks were relaxed, and the world followed soon after so a form of more libertarian economics was indeed tried which is I think what the OP is trying to say (although I would not try to express his views I am only going by what he said); Ayn Rand herself said it was a start but lost confidence in Reagan because he did not go far enough and of course he was an anathema to her own ideology. I think you are going to have to go further than no it isn't.

Not that I am anti libertarianism per se, some of the sub groups have a few good ideas, but the op needs I think more than, no, no, how soon we forget, whatever it is we forgot.

Whatever your past contestations with the OP are it behooves you to answer his question not plumb old grudges for the sake of it IMHO. I leave it to you to do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4196WvmEcYM

Ayn Rand on Reagan.

The Austrian school does indeed leave a lot to be wanting in my personal opinion, it seems to have very insular goals, very few means to attain them, and very few examples of where it would work given where the human system is here. We should I think address that not whatever slights and arguments you had with the OP before, he has asked a question you can choose to answer or not. But I would choose to answer personally, it's your life though.

incidentally Obama is no where near a liberal let alone a communist, I think maybe in the US system he is closer than most but compared to actual left wing politics or indeed actual middle of the road liberalism he is nothing like it. America has only two wings right wing and further than that right wing.

Since you don't know anything about economics, let me give you a very simple lesson on why your views on globalization don't hold any water. If China can supply the U.S. with a product at an extremely low price that we can't competitively manufacture in the U.S., Chinese workers are better off, and Americans who buy the product are better off. Refute that logic, my friend!

WanderingLands wrote:...
First of all, this discussion is solely and strictly based on Libertarianism, and so Globalization should not be discussed here, as it has nothing to do with this particular thread. ...

I'd give bob credit here as you did raise an issue with globalisation which he responded to. If you did not wish it discussed you should not have mentioned it.

Arising_uk wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:...
First of all, this discussion is solely and strictly based on Libertarianism, and so Globalization should not be discussed here, as it has nothing to do with this particular thread. ...

I'd give bob credit here as you did raise an issue with globalisation which he responded to. If you did not wish it discussed you should not have mentioned it.

Bob's just disrupting the thread and making it all about previous disagreements, I'd give him a credit for trolling but little else. If he can't address the OP then he should just say so. And if
I may ask it's patently clear he can not address the OP. He should of course either address the topic at hand or just not bother posting because he can not.

Sorry to be picky but Wanderinglands OP makes a clear damming claim about globalisation and his response to bobs logic about how both workers are relatively better off were not really answered. As it's well and good to raise the issue of low wages but low relative to what? As in the producing country those workers may well be better-off than their peers and in the consuming country the workers are able to save money by buying goods cheaper, which is bob's point about why globalisation is not necessarily a bad thing.

bobevenson wrote:Since you don't know anything about economics, let me give you a very simple lesson on why your views on globalization don't hold any water. If China can supply the U.S. with a product at an extremely low price that we can't competitively manufacture in the U.S., Chinese workers are better off, and Americans who buy the product are better off. Refute that logic, my friend!

Already refuted. Just look at the links at my other response to you.

Arising_uk wrote:Sorry to be picky but Wanderinglands OP makes a clear damming claim about globalisation and his response to bobs logic about how both workers are relatively better off were not really answered. As it's well and good to raise the issue of low wages but low relative to what? As in the producing country those workers may well be better-off than their peers and in the consuming country the workers are able to save money by buying goods cheaper, which is bob's point about why globalisation is not necessarily a bad thing.

I did, actually. I gave Bob some links about Globalization just so he can look at it. Maybe you should read the post. One of the links talks of how the workers in China are actually being overworked and paid low wages and are suffering in the factories, which refutes bobevenson's troll logic.

You don't think a foreign worker's low pay or poor working conditions are OK? Let me throw another piece of logic at you. Unless those workers are slaves and being forced to work in those factories, I guess their alternative is even worse. Put that in your left-wing, liberal pipe and smoke it.

bobevenson wrote:You don't think a foreign worker's low pay or poor working conditions are OK? Let me throw another piece of logic at you. Unless those workers are slaves and being forced to work in those factories, I guess their alternative is even worse. Put that in your left-wing, liberal pipe and smoke it.

You think slavery and enforced social injustice are ok? Put that in your ayn rand hat wearing, I am a Tea Party loony pipe and smoke it.

What I am saying is that when we buy products from China, we are helping Chinese workers improve their standard of living while improving the standard of living of Americans with cheaper prices. That is unassailable logic that you and all of your liberal friends couldn't get through your brain if somebody beat it into your head with a sledgehammer!

Blaggard wrote: You think slavery and enforced social injustice are ok? Put that in your ayn rand hat wearing, I am a Tea Party loony pipe and smoke it.

Let's not get in a fight with that joker. He's obviously a troll who wants a rise out of people, as no one would spout a bunch of ridiculous nonsense as he is spouting.

WanderingLands wrote:

Blaggard wrote: You think slavery and enforced social injustice are ok? Put that in your ayn rand hat wearing, I am a Tea Party loony pipe and smoke it.

Let's not get in a fight with that joker. He's obviously a troll who wants a rise out of people, as no one would spout a bunch of ridiculous nonsense as he is spouting.

I think you are right, and I think what you say is the wiser course.