3 ms·

>In fact, I was surprised that all phones in Hong Kong are sold unlocked because government regulations require freedom of phone service. Which is where I bough

>In fact, I was surprised that all phones in Hong Kong are sold unlocked because government regulations require freedom of phone service. Which is where I bought my iPhone. (and it should come as no surprise that Singapore sells them locked.) I would venture to say that [Hong Kong] is poster child of libertarianism To clear up a common misconception I see (and I have no understanding of where this misunderstanding comes from), 'net neutrality' and everything of that ilk (including regulated phone unlocking) is NOT libertarian. It is the exact opposite.

jasonjei 16y ago
I agree, and I see the misnomer. I'm not a libertarian, so duly apologized if I did use the term incorrectly. But what I meant to say is Hong Kong's economy is very free. http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonomy-rankings-2010 http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonom...
loewenskind 16y ago
>I would venture to say that [Hong Kong] is poster child of libertarianism This is the problem with the post. Libertarianism does not lead to market freedom. It does for a very short time until someone becomes dominant and uses that dominance to buy or force out everyone else. The US is closer to libertarian ideas, which is why it has a less free market than other places that understand that capitalism can't work without regulations (the right regulations).
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  I think you may be confusing libertarianism and anarchy.
  - gloob 16y ago
    In fairness, many self-identified libertarians seem to have the same issue.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    No, I actually view anarchy as potentially workable [1]. American libertarianism is closest to Ancap. I find them both unworkable for the same reason. [1] Probably to complex too explain here but the key is that Government and money depend on each other. You can't have one without the other.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    I think you may be confusing "anarcho-capitlism" and "anarchy." (and "anarchism," for that matter, though I guess this isn't the time and place to argue over "is an-cap anarchism?")
    - chbarts 16y ago
      Anarcho-capitalism is the only anarchy that is possible. All other forms require a state, regardless of whether it calls itself one, to enforce the "no property" dictate.
_delirium 16y ago
I wouldn't say it's the exact opposite, though it's not libertarian. It does fit into a Hayekian view that government intervention is justified to promote free markets and competition. That's not quite libertarianism, but Hayek fans are often found near libertarian circles. It seems to be somewhat an ends/means disagreement. Many branches of libertarianism argue that government interference with private contracts is inherently wrong. Other pro-capitalist views (Hayek among them), though, focus more on the outcomes, arguing that capitalism is good because competitive markets with decentralized decision-making mediated by price signals produce the best outcomes for humanity. Those holding the latter view don't have as blanket an opposition to all kinds of regulation, but would allow some kinds of regulation that are narrowly tailored towards promoting competitive markets. Adam Smith is probably the earliest precursor of that view; for example, he opposed most regulation, but supported requiring employers to pay wages in silver, because he thought on balance, prohibiting employers from paying their employees in IOUs promoted a functioning market economy, so the interference with the employer's absolute freedom to negotiate payment methods with their employees was justified. Hayek outlined a number of kinds of intervention he felt justified as well.
- rottencupcakes 16y ago
  I mean, the disagreement certainly isn't over if certain government interventions can improve market efficiency, since they certainly can. But I disagree that the disagreement is really as principled as you say, over if the ends justify the means. The disagreement is most likely over if you can somehow give a government body a few powers (like those Hayek outlines) without ending up with something like we have now. Great post.

jasonjei 16y ago

I agree, and I see the misnomer. I'm not a libertarian, so duly apologized if I did use the term incorrectly. But what I meant to say is Hong Kong's economy is very free. http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonomy-rankings-2010 http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonom...

loewenskind 16y ago

>I would venture to say that [Hong Kong] is poster child of libertarianism This is the problem with the post. Libertarianism does not lead to market freedom. It does for a very short time until someone becomes dominant and uses that dominance to buy or force out everyone else. The US is closer to libertarian ideas, which is why it has a less free market than other places that understand that capitalism can't work without regulations (the right regulations).

InclinedPlane 16y ago
I think you may be confusing libertarianism and anarchy.
- gloob 16y ago
  In fairness, many self-identified libertarians seem to have the same issue.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  No, I actually view anarchy as potentially workable [1]. American libertarianism is closest to Ancap. I find them both unworkable for the same reason. [1] Probably to complex too explain here but the key is that Government and money depend on each other. You can't have one without the other.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  I think you may be confusing "anarcho-capitlism" and "anarchy." (and "anarchism," for that matter, though I guess this isn't the time and place to argue over "is an-cap anarchism?")
  - chbarts 16y ago
    Anarcho-capitalism is the only anarchy that is possible. All other forms require a state, regardless of whether it calls itself one, to enforce the "no property" dictate.

_delirium 16y ago

I wouldn't say it's the exact opposite, though it's not libertarian. It does fit into a Hayekian view that government intervention is justified to promote free markets and competition. That's not quite libertarianism, but Hayek fans are often found near libertarian circles. It seems to be somewhat an ends/means disagreement. Many branches of libertarianism argue that government interference with private contracts is inherently wrong. Other pro-capitalist views (Hayek among them), though, focus more on the outcomes, arguing that capitalism is good because competitive markets with decentralized decision-making mediated by price signals produce the best outcomes for humanity. Those holding the latter view don't have as blanket an opposition to all kinds of regulation, but would allow some kinds of regulation that are narrowly tailored towards promoting competitive markets. Adam Smith is probably the earliest precursor of that view; for example, he opposed most regulation, but supported requiring employers to pay wages in silver, because he thought on balance, prohibiting employers from paying their employees in IOUs promoted a functioning market economy, so the interference with the employer's absolute freedom to negotiate payment methods with their employees was justified. Hayek outlined a number of kinds of intervention he felt justified as well.

rottencupcakes 16y ago
I mean, the disagreement certainly isn't over if certain government interventions can improve market efficiency, since they certainly can. But I disagree that the disagreement is really as principled as you say, over if the ends justify the means. The disagreement is most likely over if you can somehow give a government body a few powers (like those Hayek outlines) without ending up with something like we have now. Great post.