Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism as ideology ( Message-ID: <2048@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-Mar-85 01:17:09 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.2048 Posted: Sun Mar 17 01:17:09 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 18-Mar-85 08:15:42 EST Lines: 175 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-51700:inmet:28200007:000:8680 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Mar 15 08:51:00 1985 >***** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 5:41 am Mar 13, 1985 >Barry Fagin posted a very long article defending libertarians from >the following charge: >> In article <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >> > >> >... the motivation [of libertarians] is to justify the existing order >> >of society, >> > >Barry's article went on to cite various reforms to the existing society >which libertarians generally support. >I think that Barry is right in saying that libertarians are not primarily >motivated by a desire to justify the existing order. I think the motivation >for libertarians is primarily ideological. But the question is, what is >the source of their ideology? Libertarian ideology is simply taking to >the extreme the arguments that have been couched in favor of the status >quo by business interests. SOME fat-cat business types use our rhetoric to support their positions, but they ask for tariffs and special treatment from government often in the same sentences. That rhetoric is abused by power-seeking people is no indication of the underlying philosophy's worth is a thing that I think every socialist who does not like the Soviet Government's practices should agree with, no? >Libertarians have heard so often since their >childhood in our society about the wonders and magic of the "free market" >that they have taken these pronouncements as articles of faith. Ah, we simple, child-like libertarians. Steeped in unquestioned catechism since childhood, we cling blindly to the notions that only children would accept uncritically. Is that the picture you wish to paint? Yet, those same children are told that it's good for government to support the public schools, that it's just for people to tax themselves (even if some don't agree) and that the President of the United States is a Good and Important man. >It seems to me that many libertarians do not really understand the economic >theory that was used by Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Marshall to justify >Capitalism. That's OK, Tim. You'd be surprised at how many socialists are unaware of the virtual absence of non-state-supported, long-lived monopolies, and yet they blithely argue onward as if this were a serious flaw in the free market. >But they do know that the "invisible hand" which solves all >problems at a stroke sounds very appealing. It certainly does! Where may I find this "hand"? Surely, you aren't referring to the one Adam Smith talked about? I don't recall hearing any person present the idea that it "solves all problems at a stroke" from anyone except you. Could this be Tim Sevener up in the barn playing with the straw? If not, please post a reference. >And of course it is a viewpoint >which easily finds favor and $$$$ from the businessmen who do benefit >disproportionately from the current distribution of wealth and income. Now this is really a remarkable assertion. Here I am in Massachusetts with a letter on my desk from the LP pointing out that, without more money, they can't afford such services as sending membership renewal notices out. We're really going to have to stop dropping all the favor and $$$$ on the floor around here..... In case you didn't notice, the republican and democratic parties, which favor taxation and welfare, seem to be much better off financially than the libertarians. >Since the libertarians on the net have been pressed to justify inequalities >in wealth and income which have nothing to do with a person's own labor >they have hedged by trying to find some criteria to legitimize wealth. Interesting connotations in those words. People have certainly "pressed" us in the sense of "asking", but I don't recall any serious objection to our answers, which, as I recall, read something like: "the outcome of fair games freely entered into is fair". I don't think that this is "hedging" so much as answering from a different philosophical position than the socialists. >By doing so they have sacrificed their original principles that property >is sacred. Remarkable. References please.... >The reason some of the libertarians have been willing to do this >is that in all likelihood they had never really considered the problem. >It has forced them to think about issues that they had never previously >considered. Again, references, PLEASE -- with quotes in context, if possible. >Yet there are still many problems with assuming that the free market >will solve all problems that they have generally refused to consider. I wouldn't worry about it too much -- nobody (besides you) has ever (to my knowledge) advanced the position that the free market will solve all problems. >They refuse to admit to any problem with monopoly or oligopoly power. After being ROUNDLY slammed on the matter of monopolies by Daniel McK., and to a lesser degree by my "find the monopoly challenge", the fashion is to talk about "monopolies or oligopolies". The nice thing, from the point of view of those who wish to View oligopolies With Alarm, is that they're not all that well defined. The definition in my dictionary does not give any way of testing whether a given market situation is an oligopoly or not -- it merely refers to a "small" number of firms. To those who wish to challenge the free market's desirability with respect to oligopolies, I ask, "how small is small"? It is a little like asserting the undesirability of free access to books because people might study up on "evil" without defining "evil". So, Tim: How small is "small"? >They refuse to admit that the cobweb effect could actually occur or wish >it away by contradicting the very fundamental assumptions of the free market. Daniel McK., who appears (from my humble viewpoint) to know considerably more about the subject of economics than you pointed out the unlikelyhood of the "cobweb effect" given farmers who can be made aware of what's going on. No doubt you dislike thinking that farmers can be made aware of what's going on, because without their ignorance, the effect is lost, but that seems small reason to insult the farmers.... >They refuse to see the free rider problem- that there *are* certain >public goods which can only be sustained by the public or else no >individual will be willing to pay the resources that should optimally >be allocated to such goods. Au Contraire! Take a look at "The Machinery of Freedom", and then consider one other interesting aspect of this question: Our government, and governments in general (socialist ones in particular) seem ALSO unable to provide the "optimal" amount of public goods -- they depend upon political methods and charity to do so. The charitable methods are quite valid -- charities have a difficult time raising money for obviously bad purposes ("This is 'Muffy', a terminally preppie child. Save her. Send your money today" wouldn't exactly garner lots of funds), but government, well, government does pretty much as it pleases, particularly in socialist nations. >These are not *Marxist* problems with free markets under certain conditions: >they are problems pointed out by Capitalist economists themselves. >While I support democratic socialism that does not mean I am blind >to its potential problems or paradoxes. >I only wish that libertarians could be as critical of their own blind >ideology. Shame on you! Calling our ideology "blind". Boy, now I'm mad :-). How many times have I written "we aren't promising Utopia", "naturally apparent property rights are not absolute -- they might conflict", "the way to get off of property surrounded by property owned by someone else with 'no trespassing' signs on it is to disobey the signs and take the consequences"? We're WELL aware of problems with a libertarian society. This is, of course, always a sore point with socialists because of the problems experienced by societies claiming to be based on socialist ideas. Let's set fire to a few of the recurring straw men. Speaking for myself, as a libertarian: K 1. I don't think the "free market solves all problems". 2. I do take a PROFOUND interest in the economic/social problems faced by a hypothetical libertarian society due to externalities. 3. I do not ignore or gloss over the possibility of monopolies or oligopolies. I find little historical evidence to support the notion that monopolies would be a problem, and see a problem with definition with the oligopoly complaint. I'm certainly willing to believe that oligopolies would exist, but I challenge you to come up with one that isn't subject to the same pressures that doom monopolies.