Orthodoxy and Libertarianism

[Protoevangel]

I thought to add another concern: privatization.

...
Prison privatization has led to heavy lobbying from these organizations to affect laws, and the creation of another class of ultra low wage employment (prisoners) that US employees outside the prisons must compete with - degrading real income.
...

Behind abortion, privatized prisons, and the environment it is creating, is one of the greates evils in our society.

 

[Thekla]

No it's not. Privatization often allows for better quality because companies become interested in serving their customers better because it leads to higher profits. The biggest opposition to privatization comes from those who have monopolies over certain services.

This is a nice theory; in practice, it is plain false.
With globalization, deficient product survives by sheer numbers of purchasers.
Corporations can keep secrets, through proprietary rights, which render actual fact-finding on products impossible (see Monsanto's proprietary rights grip on their seed, thus allowing them to refuse selling or allowing seed to be used in research that they deem potentially damaging to their bottom line).
Look at big Tobacco, didn't you know cigarettes are harmless ? Now that the patent has expired on glyphosate, guess what - despite corporate research stating otherwise, it can cause illness, birth defects, etc. (see PubMed).
Alcoa Aluminum etc. destroyed the ability of the Mohawk to grow, hunt, and safely eat the food they hunted and grew . How's Alcoa doing now ?

Think about UPS Vs Federal Express Vs the US Post Office. Who do you think gives you better quality? If the Post Office could provide such better services, why doesn't it? Because it's a government bureaucracy, and as such, it is at an inherent disadvantage, and people look elsewhere.

Do you see FedEx offering to mail deliver any letter anywhere in the country for under 50 cents ?
The problem with the Post Office is the Govt., or those in the Govt who support the idea of complete privatization. Why else would the Bush Admin. have pushed through a law requiring the PO to annually fund through deposits pension and medical care for postal employees who haven't been born yet ?

Privatization hasn't led to lower wages - the abolishment of trade barriers with places like China and India have. We've allowed companies to simply relocate and have allowed ourselves to be in unfair competition with China. Proper trade tariffs would resolve the issue fairly quickly.

So you willing to compete for a job with the guy in your local private prison making 3.25 an hour ?

NAFTA isn't the last problem - now the push is for more trade barriers to be renegotiated with Panama, etc.

And who, may I ask, lobbied for eradicating trade barriers ? Business.

 

[Thekla]

An example: predatory lending laws.

Who fought against these proposed govt. laws (which would have meant fewer people without the ability to pay would have qualified for a mortgage) ?

What about loan transparency laws, that made mortgages easier to understand. (A. Greenspan was famously noted to have said that even if you had a PhD in mathematics, you still wouldn't understand if one of these complex mortgages was good for you).

Those who would profit from them, including Standard & Poors.

What about the fight against regulating complex financial instruments, like derivatives (part of the cause of the 2008 crash).

Part of our problem is not gov. or corp., but money and the revolving door between them.

 

[JesusIsTheWay33]

I suppose my problem with libertarianism is that, in practice, it is a form of ideologised selfishness. It denies one's responsibility to one's fellow man; it deprecates the idea of self-sacrifice; it supplants Mammon for God.

All of this is very evident in the thinking of Ayn Rand, and it is very evident that she thought this was a good thing. To me this is horrifying. It is worse than heresy; it is literally anti-Christ. Just read the so-called "Galt Code". That so many who are meant to be Christians are beguiled by this system is deeply worrying to me.

Ultimately, it is not mere freedom from oppression that libertarianism calls for, but freedom from any responsibility at all - even to the poor, the sick, the needy, the suffering. Even to the sinner. It is the salve for the conscience of the wealthy, and the focus of those who sleep with Newton and are not only desirous of but actively in love with the vain things of the world. I think, anyway.

But also, there is a simple problem here: no system is self-governing. The theory of self-correcting eco-systems has proven false (how it could co-exist as a theory with evolution I have no idea - you'd think they would contradict one another), and the idea that the markets self-correct is similarly evidently false.

With that said, no amount of regulation can be brought in that cannot, ultimately, be circumnavigated by the wily and the unscrupulous. This doesn't mean we should cut a swathe through the law to make it easier for them; it does mean that Western society will only become healthier if ideas of personal and corporate responsibility, and a healthy personal and corporate ambition, as well as ideas of prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, charity, hope, and industry are reincorporated into our societies. In short: selfishness/greed is killing the Western world. It is a greed which reduces everything - people included - to objects valuable only in the pleasure they bring me.

And I suspect it is greed born of pride. I don't know if the East shares with us Latins the story of Satan's fall, but according to our tradition, the Prince of Darkness told God, 'non serviam'...

 

[Thekla]

I suppose my problem with libertarianism is that, in practice, it is a form of ideologised selfishness. It denies one's responsibility to one's fellow man; it deprecates the idea of self-sacrifice; it supplants Mammon for God.

All of this is very evident in the thinking of Ayn Rand, and it is very evident that she thought this was a good thing. To me this is horrifying. It is worse than heresy; it is literally anti-Christ. Just read the so-called "Galt Code". That so many who are meant to be Christians are beguiled by this system is deeply worrying to me.

Ultimately, it is not mere freedom from oppression that libertarianism calls for, but freedom from any responsibility at all - even to the poor, the sick, the needy, the suffering. Even to the sinner. It is the salve for the conscience of the wealthy, and the focus of those who sleep with Newton and are not only desirous of but actively in love with the vain things of the world. I think, anyway.

But also, there is a simple problem here: no system is self-governing. The theory of self-correcting eco-systems has proven false (how it could co-exist as a theory with evolution I have no idea - you'd think they would contradict one another), and the idea that the markets self-correct is similarly evidently false.

With that said, no amount of regulation can be brought in that cannot, ultimately, be circumnavigated by the wily and the unscrupulous. This doesn't mean we should cut a swathe through the law to make it easier for them; it does mean that Western society will only become healthier if ideas of personal and corporate responsibility, and a healthy personal and corporate ambition, as well as ideas of prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, charity, hope, and industry are reincorporated into our societies. In short: selfishness/greed is killing the Western world. It is a greed which reduces everything - people included - to objects valuable only in the pleasure they bring me.

And I suspect it is greed born of pride. I don't know if the East shares with us Latins the story of Satan's fall, but according to our tradition, the Prince of Darkness told God, 'non serviam'...

 

[truthseeker32]

I thought this article was appropriate to our conversation. It discusses how private charity cannot replace government social programs.

Ron Paul's Charity: Libertarian Views Fail Reality Test

Just out of curiosity, how many people here think abortion is the greatest evil of today's society?

 

[E.C.]

As for what you said, E.C., I refuse to vote for any evil, lesser or otherwise. I will vote what my conscience and faith tells me is morally right. Also, while Ron Paul started the tea-party, he's not the star of the show any more. The tea-partiers are far more interested in Glenn Beck and Bachmann, who twisted principled positions of Ron Paul and marketed them very well. I'm not a fan of the tea-party, personally, and many tea-party 'libertarians' might not always agree with the non-aggression principle, which, as I said early is the core tenet of libertarianism. Most of them are simply very fiscally and socially conservative.

As for Ron Paul's electability, he actually is in the Republican party because he believes libertarianism is what Republicanism used to be, and he wants to return it to that. He also polled 49% to Obama's 51% in a Rasmussen poll that asked how voters would vote if a hypothetical election between the two happened today. That's not too bad. Ron Paul appeals to a great number of people on the left. I would know, as I left the "left" to become a Paul supporter. He is also picking up steam and random endorsements from rappers, actors, businessmen and the like.

Either way, he isn't stealing my vote from anyone. If it weren't for him, I probably wouldn't be voting anyway, since I wouldn't vote for someone that I don't morally agree with. Actually, I'm most likely going to register for the first time to vote for him in the primary, and I know other non-voters that he has motivated to vote.

You know, if Ron Paul becomes the candidate than all the power to him
I merely used Huntsman as an example for two prime reasons 1) we do need a president that will help this country, not destroy it and at this present moment in time I believe that Huntsman is such a person and 2) everybody keeps bringing up Ron Paul. Ron Paul this. Ron Paul that. As much as I do like some of the guy's ideas I simply get sick of not hearing the names of the underdogs (must be the bleeding heart in me )

The worst thing that Ron Paul, or any other Republican candidate for that matter, could do is split away from the Republican party. 220 years of this countries history tells me that whenever there is a split right before a critical election voters get ticked off. It happened in 1860 with Lincoln winning, 1912 with Wilson winning, 1968 with Nixon, 1992 with Clinton and 2000 with Bush Jr. Personalities and circumstances in those respective years aside the reality is this: we can not afford to have Obama for another term. Period. Not voting at all in 2012 would be more dangerous than voting Obama and in my opinion equal to the complacency that allowed the Bolsheviks to rise in 1917.

 

[truthseeker32]

Huntsman is the man. One of the few politicians I actually respect.

 

[Protoevangel]

Just out of curiosity, how many people here think abortion is the greatest evil of today's society?

Millions of murders every year... Yea, it's pretty evil.

 

[truthseeker32]

Millions of murders every year... Yea, it's pretty evil.

I am a philosophy major specializing in theology and ethics so looking at issues like this is a hobby

Do you believe abortion is equally as evil regardless of when (term wise) it takes place?

Do you consider abortion as more, less or equally evil to standard (people living independent of the womb) murder?

Do you consider abortion more severe than letting someone die?

 

[MKJ]

Some parts of this discussion made me think of this article:

Jobs and the Minimum Wage

 

[MKJ]

You do know that Ron Paul is a doctor, right? Probably with much more knowledge about the medical system than you and I could ever imagine.

He can't be any more 'dangerous' than Obama. He's been rather prudent his entire career. And even though I feel he exaggerates in some of his political beliefs - such as on the legalization of heroin, among others - he is consistent and wise enough to admit that ideally such acts would be regulated by the states, not by the federal government.

Don't take this as an insult, but in Ireland you don't really understand the American frame of mind. Just because someone proposes a healthcare system that isn't publicly funded by the government, that doesn't make it "heartless". Many here do feel you can provide an efficient private healthcare system by reforming the existing regulations. Part of the element that is missing in Ireland is that of freedom. Many Americans have a fear of the federal government encroaching upon their personal lives. Healthcare by those who oppose Obamacare is seen as a further step in that direction, away from individual and states' rights.

I don't know, I kind of find the opposite - when Americans hear "universal health care" they assume it means that it is primarily run by the federal government. In reality there are many different ways of running such a system, and a lot depends on the size of the country and the structure of government.

Of course there are lots of ways a universal system could work, so there should be lots of good options for the USA to consider.

Here in Canada the federal government has a fairly minimal role mandating the provinces have a similar level of care and allocating some funding, user insurance is run by the provinces; delivery is by small health care regions or private business; practitioner insurance for doctors is through a national co-op; extended care and much drug coverage is through private insurance.

But when I look at the American system I don't see any real way to make it work without a serious over-haul, and I can't see the private insurers letting that happen. But for some reason the libertarians tend to support them, and it is never very clear to me why that should be. A corporate society is no more free than a true socialist society.

 

[Thekla]

But when I look at the American system I don't see any real way to make it work without a serious over-haul, and I can't see the private insurers letting that happen. But for some reason the libertarians tend to support them, and it is never very clear to me why that should be. A corporate society is no more free than a true socialist society.

(an FYI; insurance premiums up by 9% this year, over 15,000 for a family policy, which is about the income for a full time minimum wage job)

 

[Emmelia]

Just curious, but does everyone here understand the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism? Also, the different schools of economics? I'm seeing a lot of confusion.

I'd like to point out that no man made system is perfect, obviously. Just because a platform has a stance on something doesn't mean an individual must hold to that belief. For instance, I believe abortion is robbing the right to live from the child, therefore is not in line with the libertarian mindset.

I'm a terrible apologist, so I generally don't talk about my religion or politics with anyone that isn't seeking or of the same view. But I thought I'd bring it up since it seems some posters are going off of what they think about Libertarianism rather than fact.


LibertarianChristians(dot)com

 

[Thekla]

To the extent that Libertarianism embraces a "self-regulating free market", it does require a sort of "objectification" of the human person, and a distorted sort of democracy.

The corporate model has as its (oft repeated) central raison d'etre profit (its "responsibility to its shareholders"). As the corporation has no moral center, its actions are wholly guided by its central motive (regardless of the effect on any individual who is not a shareholder). This establishes a clear hierarchy of human value or worth (ie some humans are more valuable than others). Those humans who are not shareholders have no intrinsic value. As its profit motive and some (very few) humans are central, it has no sense of patriotism, civic responsibility or moral behavior towards humans. It reduces the human person to an object.

Further, as the free market is self regulating, the market becomes the expression of democracy - and only those "in the market" (pun intended) have a "vote" (the dollar). The more dollars, the more votes. (And this is amplified by the Supreme Court decision that money=speech).

And also thus, those actors who interrupt the ability for untrammeled profit take on the evaluation of "negative value" (whether their blocking represents the adherence to a moral imperative, the accident of 'being in the way', etc.)


The idea of "personal liberty" eschews the understanding of human community. In point of fact, the central human community is only partially voluntary - children do not "ask" to be part of the family they are born into.
Libertarianism to the extent that it is based on voluntary relationships as tantamount to human life is actually counter-family. Thus also on the larger scale. Interestingly, G.S. Becker spoke of the family as a model of the corporation, and the corporation as a model for the family. In his article he associates the value of the child as "good" as not a moral category but wholly the degree of the investment in the child (quality of education, healthcare, etc.) Frankly, I find this stomach churning.

I would also like to add that it sees human as "free agents" (entering into voluntary contract, with no regard for those who are not party to the contract, the community for example) it indeed tacitly devalues persons who are not 'contract makers' nor have the ability (intellectual) to engage in contract making. To this latter category belong the mentally impaired, children and the unborn. Further, as these persons can be clearly said to have potential "negative value" (as above), the unborn, for example, where they represent the need for even a temporary work stoppage and/or an inhibitory effect on investment in another child (see Becker and good = investment in terms of capital) become not even a neutral but a negative value. China, anyone ?

 

[Protoevangel]

Sorry, when I read your post, I wasn't able to post. I was going to get back to it, but then I forgot.

I am a philosophy major specializing in theology and ethics so looking at issues like this is a hobby

Do you believe abortion is equally as evil regardless of when (term wise) it takes place?

The person is no less of a person the day she is conceived than she is the day before she is born, the day after she is born, or on her thirtieth birthday.

Do you consider abortion as more, less or equally evil to standard (people living independent of the womb) murder?

Murder is murder. Babies are completely helpless, but then again... when anyone is murdered, aren't they usually helpless to avoid it?

Do you consider abortion more severe than letting someone die?

There is probably a distinction there regarding action vs inaction and all, but effectively they are both are wrong.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ron Paul is heartless. If you give him enough time and really listen to all his body of work, he is such a strict constitutionalist that he thinks the government and society at large has no obligation whatsoever to help anyone. He is consistent, but "wise?" Just because he's a doctor doesn't mean he has common sense or is caring about his fellow man. Actually, the fact that he IS a doctor is what concerns me. He has no sympathy for people without health insurance or families that are down and out. He's a greedy businessman and feels no kinship with his fellow man. He is an individualist and listening to his speeches makes me feel like I'm reading Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" or "Atlas Shrugged" all over again....

Paul's answer to everything is deregulate, let the free market "work" and "self-adjust" and let states do whatever they want with no input from the feds. It's no wonder his son has the anti-Civil Rights Amendment mentality he has and that his boy Rand has said this nonsense about how the Civil Rights Act shouldn't be "forced" on Americans. Discrimination should be allowed in their book.

I love it when someone in 2011 tries to apply 18th Century mercantile unadulterated capitalism to a world that has auto, home, health insurance plus a global market and technology plus a host of new challenges and problems that didn't exist in a country that had just barely come out of the House of Burgesses into nationhood

You do know that Ron Paul is a doctor, right? Probably with much more knowledge about the medical system than you and I could ever imagine.

He can't be any more 'dangerous' than Obama. He's been rather prudent his entire career. And even though I feel he exaggerates in some of his political beliefs - such as on the legalization of heroin, among others - he is consistent and wise enough to admit that ideally such acts would be regulated by the states, not by the federal government.

Don't take this as an insult, but in Ireland you don't really understand the American frame of mind. Just because someone proposes a healthcare system that isn't publicly funded by the government, that doesn't make it "heartless". Many here do feel you can provide an efficient private healthcare system by reforming the existing regulations. Part of the element that is missing in Ireland is that of freedom. Many Americans have a fear of the federal government encroaching upon their personal lives. Healthcare by those who oppose Obamacare is seen as a further step in that direction, away from individual and states' rights.

I don't know, I kind of find the opposite - when Americans hear "universal health care" they assume it means that it is primarily run by the federal government. In reality there are many different ways of running such a system, and a lot depends on the size of the country and the structure of government.

Of course there are lots of ways a universal system could work, so there should be lots of good options for the USA to consider.

Here in Canada the federal government has a fairly minimal role mandating the provinces have a similar level of care and allocating some funding, user insurance is run by the provinces; delivery is by small health care regions or private business; practitioner insurance for doctors is through a national co-op; extended care and much drug coverage is through private insurance.

But when I look at the American system I don't see any real way to make it work without a serious over-haul, and I can't see the private insurers letting that happen. But for some reason the libertarians tend to support them, and it is never very clear to me why that should be. A corporate society is no more free than a true socialist society.

 

[Thekla]

Knuckman arrived here 27 years ago, and quickly advanced from his first job as a runner in the trading room to a trader. He worked for brokerage firms, soon established his own firm and is now an analyst with Agora Financials, a consulting firm specializing in commodities investments. He also writes a newsletter that offers investment tips. "I trade in anything you can get in and out of quickly," he says candidly. "I'm here to make money."

How he makes money doesn't make any difference to Knuckman. He draws no distinctions among commodities like petroleum, silver or food products. "I don't believe in politics," he says. "I believe in the market, and the market is always right."

"The age of cheap food is over," predicts Knuckman, noting that this can't be such a bad thing for US citizens. "Most Americans eat too much, anyway."

For his fellow Americans, who spend 13 percent of their disposable income on food, the price hike may be an annoyance. But for the world's poor, who are forced to spend 70 percent of their meager budgets on food, it's life-threatening.
Since last June alone, higher food prices have driven another 44 million people below the poverty line, reports the World Bank. These are people who must survive on less than $1.25 (€0.87) a day. More than a billion people are starving worldwide. The current famine in the Horn of Africa is not only the result of drought, civil war and corrupt officials, but is also caused by prohibitively high food prices.


above excerpts from:

Speculating with Lives: How Global Investors Make Money Out of Hunger - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


The food crisis of a few years ago (07/08 ?) was also in large part the effect of commodity speculation.

 

[MKJ]

Knuckman arrived here 27 years ago, and quickly advanced from his first job as a runner in the trading room to a trader. He worked for brokerage firms, soon established his own firm and is now an analyst with Agora Financials, a consulting firm specializing in commodities investments. He also writes a newsletter that offers investment tips. "I trade in anything you can get in and out of quickly," he says candidly. "I'm here to make money."

How he makes money doesn't make any difference to Knuckman. He draws no distinctions among commodities like petroleum, silver or food products. "I don't believe in politics," he says. "I believe in the market, and the market is always right."

"The age of cheap food is over," predicts Knuckman, noting that this can't be such a bad thing for US citizens. "Most Americans eat too much, anyway."

For his fellow Americans, who spend 13 percent of their disposable income on food, the price hike may be an annoyance. But for the world's poor, who are forced to spend 70 percent of their meager budgets on food, it's life-threatening.
Since last June alone, higher food prices have driven another 44 million people below the poverty line, reports the World Bank. These are people who must survive on less than $1.25 (€0.87) a day. More than a billion people are starving worldwide. The current famine in the Horn of Africa is not only the result of drought, civil war and corrupt officials, but is also caused by prohibitively high food prices.


above excerpts from:

Speculating with Lives: How Global Investors Make Money Out of Hunger - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


The food crisis of a few years ago (07/08 ?) was also in large part the effect of commodity speculation.

No no! The market has a moral compass!

 

[Thekla]

No no! The market has a moral compass!

profit = good

And I thought Jesus said that none is good save God Luke 18:19

EDIT
come to think of it, interesting context to that verse ...