4 ms·

More like Elon Musk points out by example why libertarianism is an oxymoron. As soon as all restrictions are lifted on businesses and a totally "free" market i

More like Elon Musk points out by example why libertarianism is an oxymoron. As soon as all restrictions are lifted on businesses and a totally "free" market is created, business interests move to enact new regulations that entrench their positions.

ancap 10y ago
How was this an example of how restrictions were lifted and a free market created?
- fncndhdhc 10y ago
  You're missing the point. If we magically enacted perfectly libertarian business policies overnight, business would immediately get to work creating new regulations because they're still self-interested like they were before. This is what they do now, this is what they would do then, and this is also why anarcho capitalism is a contradiction.
  - ancap 10y ago
    Anarcho capitalism, which is not necessarily the view of every libertarian (some being "minarchists"), would be the absence of any government authority. Without a government the regulation you speak of is non-existent. There is no contradiction.
    - fncndhdhc 10y ago
      ...until the interested business parties band together to form a government of sorts for their own benefit.
      - eropple 10y ago
        Precisely. Cartels don't require a government to exist, and the absence of government letting them beat you and kill you and take your stuff makes them easier to entrench. Some of these cartels may even claim land as theirs and exact payments from those under their "protection". We might call them "barons", say, and their henchmen "knights". And these strongmen might, due to relative imbalance of force, have to swear fealty to "counts" and "dukes" and "kings", and whoa I think I just had the weirdest dream, that ancap is an undisguised pathway to corporatist feudalism. Weird.
      - ancap 10y ago
        Any ruling order, whether it be a government or something else, requires at least the tacit consent of the majority. I believe it would be much more difficult to take over an area lacking a strong centralized government as opposed to an area with one. Militaristic efforts in Afghanistan being a prime modern example.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      David Friedman style Anarcho-Cap has never denied the necessity of a government; it's more interested in constructing analyses of various costs associated with policies. More foam-at-the-mouth anarchists tend to be empty vessels - louder, so they attract the disenchanted.
  - vinaybn 10y ago
    Quite the mental gymnastics. "If we magically enacted perfectly libertarian business policies overnight" <- this assumes we have SOME way to get there. "business would immediately get to work creating new regulations because they're still self-interested like they were before." We would then use that same MAGICAL way to get back to ancapistan. No contradiction at all.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
It's hardly an oxymoron. It just competes with established ideology. Ideally, there is no Conservative ideology either ( it advertises itself as pragmatic and empirical ) but this arguably requires too much work in political spheres to hold up. "Free" markets vary by degree - nobody says there must be no rules, no rule of law. Taking it back to Adam Smith, he's simply arguing against Mercantilism. So any rules that entrench an incumbent could ( possibly ) be considered a degree of Mercantilism. But the context matters because of specialization and inertia/momentum.
throwaway2016a 10y ago
And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a Libertarian government. It works both ways. Also, Libertarians are in favor of regulating business if the business is depriving others of their rights. For example, their right to breath clean air. Well, many are. I believe enough are that pro-environmental policies would still get voted up in a Libertarian system.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a Libertarian government. It works both ways. Wait, what? Vetoed by whom? > Also, Libertarians are in favor of regulating business if the business is depriving others of their rights. Who would be doing the regulating exactly? Wouldn't the regulations be seen as oppression by other businesses? Wouldn't they be challenged in a court of law, which is a part of the government? I'm honestly amazed at the required amount of self-delusion required to believe that some form of libertopia is possible by simply removing some regulations and cutting down government agencies left and right. It then turns out that to arbitrate selfish interests of business and handle other edge cases in conflicts of interest you need certain agencies to act as arbitrators and in order to have a functioning society you start adding those agencies back 1 by 1 until you end up at the current form of government with all of its "overhead"
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    I think you are confusing Libertarian with Anarchist. Libertarian does not preclude a president (who has a veto pen) and courts. In fact, courts are insanely critical to a Libertarian government in order to rule on cases where rights are violated and an executive branch is critical to make sure the court decisions are carried out. Furthermore, contract law is also hugely important to Libertarians and the Government needs to be able to enforce those contracts when the individual cannot. What a Libertarian would do is strike down all laws and government agencies that infringe on individual liberties. Especially laws that legislate morality and laws that legislate how individuals can spend their money and use their property. That means you can marry who you want, smoke what you want, and buy, sell, and contract with who you want as long as it does not infringe on other rights. Other misconceptions: - Libertarians as a whole do not want to eliminate tax. They want to replace income tax with flat tax and/or consumption tax and leave property tax up to the states. They only want to abolish the IRS because it is an inefficient organization, uses threat of force to collect taxes, and taxes do not need to be that complicated. - Libertarians are not anti union. People should have a right to assemble. They are generally against people being forced to join a union against their will. - Libertarians are not anti-government. They just feel the only valid role of government is to protect individual rights and defend our country from foreign invaders. - Libertarians are not anti-environment. In fact Libertarians often see polluting the environment as infringing on other people rights and therefor something the government can intervene in. A true Libertarian president would ask the following of every law: - Does this protect people from having their rights infringed on by either other people, government, or companies: YES, pass this law - If it does not meet the first test, does this infringe on other's right including their rights to do what they want with their own property/body: VETO

ancap 10y ago

How was this an example of how restrictions were lifted and a free market created?

fncndhdhc 10y ago
You're missing the point. If we magically enacted perfectly libertarian business policies overnight, business would immediately get to work creating new regulations because they're still self-interested like they were before. This is what they do now, this is what they would do then, and this is also why anarcho capitalism is a contradiction.
- ancap 10y ago
  Anarcho capitalism, which is not necessarily the view of every libertarian (some being "minarchists"), would be the absence of any government authority. Without a government the regulation you speak of is non-existent. There is no contradiction.
  - fncndhdhc 10y ago
    ...until the interested business parties band together to form a government of sorts for their own benefit.
    - eropple 10y ago
      Precisely. Cartels don't require a government to exist, and the absence of government letting them beat you and kill you and take your stuff makes them easier to entrench. Some of these cartels may even claim land as theirs and exact payments from those under their "protection". We might call them "barons", say, and their henchmen "knights". And these strongmen might, due to relative imbalance of force, have to swear fealty to "counts" and "dukes" and "kings", and whoa I think I just had the weirdest dream, that ancap is an undisguised pathway to corporatist feudalism. Weird.
    - ancap 10y ago
      Any ruling order, whether it be a government or something else, requires at least the tacit consent of the majority. I believe it would be much more difficult to take over an area lacking a strong centralized government as opposed to an area with one. Militaristic efforts in Afghanistan being a prime modern example.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    David Friedman style Anarcho-Cap has never denied the necessity of a government; it's more interested in constructing analyses of various costs associated with policies. More foam-at-the-mouth anarchists tend to be empty vessels - louder, so they attract the disenchanted.
- vinaybn 10y ago
  Quite the mental gymnastics. "If we magically enacted perfectly libertarian business policies overnight" <- this assumes we have SOME way to get there. "business would immediately get to work creating new regulations because they're still self-interested like they were before." We would then use that same MAGICAL way to get back to ancapistan. No contradiction at all.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

It's hardly an oxymoron. It just competes with established ideology. Ideally, there is no Conservative ideology either ( it advertises itself as pragmatic and empirical ) but this arguably requires too much work in political spheres to hold up. "Free" markets vary by degree - nobody says there must be no rules, no rule of law. Taking it back to Adam Smith, he's simply arguing against Mercantilism. So any rules that entrench an incumbent could ( possibly ) be considered a degree of Mercantilism. But the context matters because of specialization and inertia/momentum.

throwaway2016a 10y ago

And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a Libertarian government. It works both ways. Also, Libertarians are in favor of regulating business if the business is depriving others of their rights. For example, their right to breath clean air. Well, many are. I believe enough are that pro-environmental policies would still get voted up in a Libertarian system.

antisthenes 10y ago
> And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a Libertarian government. It works both ways. Wait, what? Vetoed by whom? > Also, Libertarians are in favor of regulating business if the business is depriving others of their rights. Who would be doing the regulating exactly? Wouldn't the regulations be seen as oppression by other businesses? Wouldn't they be challenged in a court of law, which is a part of the government? I'm honestly amazed at the required amount of self-delusion required to believe that some form of libertopia is possible by simply removing some regulations and cutting down government agencies left and right. It then turns out that to arbitrate selfish interests of business and handle other edge cases in conflicts of interest you need certain agencies to act as arbitrators and in order to have a functioning society you start adding those agencies back 1 by 1 until you end up at the current form of government with all of its "overhead"
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  I think you are confusing Libertarian with Anarchist. Libertarian does not preclude a president (who has a veto pen) and courts. In fact, courts are insanely critical to a Libertarian government in order to rule on cases where rights are violated and an executive branch is critical to make sure the court decisions are carried out. Furthermore, contract law is also hugely important to Libertarians and the Government needs to be able to enforce those contracts when the individual cannot. What a Libertarian would do is strike down all laws and government agencies that infringe on individual liberties. Especially laws that legislate morality and laws that legislate how individuals can spend their money and use their property. That means you can marry who you want, smoke what you want, and buy, sell, and contract with who you want as long as it does not infringe on other rights. Other misconceptions: - Libertarians as a whole do not want to eliminate tax. They want to replace income tax with flat tax and/or consumption tax and leave property tax up to the states. They only want to abolish the IRS because it is an inefficient organization, uses threat of force to collect taxes, and taxes do not need to be that complicated. - Libertarians are not anti union. People should have a right to assemble. They are generally against people being forced to join a union against their will. - Libertarians are not anti-government. They just feel the only valid role of government is to protect individual rights and defend our country from foreign invaders. - Libertarians are not anti-environment. In fact Libertarians often see polluting the environment as infringing on other people rights and therefor something the government can intervene in. A true Libertarian president would ask the following of every law: - Does this protect people from having their rights infringed on by either other people, government, or companies: YES, pass this law - If it does not meet the first test, does this infringe on other's right including their rights to do what they want with their own property/body: VETO