4 ms·

No one is disputing that people believe that. People dispute that its in any way true in many cases.

jpadkins 13y ago
Which did better for "communities and the under-privileged", Socialist North Korea or Capitalist South Korea? What about comparing under-privileged from 1917 to 1988 in USA vs. Russia? Do you have any counter-examples?
- eevilspock 13y ago
  First, North Korea is a pathetic straw man. You'll have to do better than that. Second, you assume that people who challenge Libertarians want central control and are opposed to the free market. Why does everyone have to think so black and white? Here's the thing, if Libertarians actually stayed true to the underlying principle of Libertarianism (the sovereignty of the individual over his own person, body and labor), and also stayed honest about what it means to have a free market (which follows from individual sovereignty over their person and labor), then I would become an ardent supporter. Unfortunately, as this article points out, most libertarians completely betray these principles when they argue for 100% sovereign rights over land and any other of the finite resources of this planet. If you understand the free-market, and you looked at it honestly, then you would realize that land ownership (defined as ownership in perpetuity) is completely antithetical to the free market, because you can essentially buy an infinite amount of something (perpetual ownership) for a finite cost. In my opinion, a true Libertarian would realize that some things are part of The Commons, and by necessity we need to figure out a communal way for managing The Commons. If we want the free market to manage the commons, then we have to first treat it like the commons (e.g. we are all owners, and are all owed a share of the ground rent).
- czr80 13y ago
  Sweden vs United states?
- benjbr 13y ago
  In both examples, the lives of the under-privileged were bettered by government intervention in the "capitalist" countries. Edit: And until the collapse of European communism, the answer to your first example is North Korea.
- arrrg 13y ago
  I don’t think you quite understand what this argument is about. People who are not libertarians and opposed to their views are frequently not opposed to free markets, for example. For example, I’m about as socialist as it gets, but I think free markets are an enormously powerful and efficient tools and that, in the grand scheme of things, they have been a huge net-win for the world. I just don’t think they are perfect and can solve every problem (better than alternative solutions could). That’s all. Similar arguments apply to other things that are near and dear to libertarians’ hearts. To me libertarianism is lazy extrapolating.
- jayd16 13y ago
  The New Deal.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Libertarianism hardly maintains the monopoly on Capitalism. Socialism itself was never in practice in North Korea especially (which could barely even be considered Communist), nor anywhere else in the world, really. Remember that Marx's "Socialism" was the utopian part that came after "Communism" where people would simply contribute what they could willingly, and take only what they needed gratefully. Like other utopian fantasies this has never been accomplished on any large scale in any society anywhere. While I certainly agree with you that free-market capitalism is much better macroeconomics, it's important to remember that just as the military is not the end-all/be-all of "winning wars" (just look at Iraq or Vietnam for proof), neither is capitalism the sole societal device needed for "the general welfare". If nothing else, government has a big role to play in ensuring that vigorous competition actually is present in a free market (witness the disaster of having a few large banks "too big to fail" due to previous deregulation). They also ensure that "externalities" in operating a given business are not charged to the public at large. Government has also typically proven much better at helping to provide things the public needs that don't have short-term profit potential, yet eventually prove necessary for a stronger economy. Free public education, extensive infrastructure, etc. in the Western democracies is a very large reason why the entrepreneurs can rely on there even being available a workforce with the needed knowledge, skills and abilities (to use an HR term). Just like anything else it's possible to have too much government, but that's essentially axiomatic.

Which did better for "communities and the under-privileged", Socialist North Korea or Capitalist South Korea? What about comparing under-privileged from 1917 to 1988 in USA vs. Russia? Do you have any counter-examples?

eevilspock 13y ago
First, North Korea is a pathetic straw man. You'll have to do better than that. Second, you assume that people who challenge Libertarians want central control and are opposed to the free market. Why does everyone have to think so black and white? Here's the thing, if Libertarians actually stayed true to the underlying principle of Libertarianism (the sovereignty of the individual over his own person, body and labor), and also stayed honest about what it means to have a free market (which follows from individual sovereignty over their person and labor), then I would become an ardent supporter. Unfortunately, as this article points out, most libertarians completely betray these principles when they argue for 100% sovereign rights over land and any other of the finite resources of this planet. If you understand the free-market, and you looked at it honestly, then you would realize that land ownership (defined as ownership in perpetuity) is completely antithetical to the free market, because you can essentially buy an infinite amount of something (perpetual ownership) for a finite cost. In my opinion, a true Libertarian would realize that some things are part of The Commons, and by necessity we need to figure out a communal way for managing The Commons. If we want the free market to manage the commons, then we have to first treat it like the commons (e.g. we are all owners, and are all owed a share of the ground rent).
czr80 13y ago
Sweden vs United states?
benjbr 13y ago
In both examples, the lives of the under-privileged were bettered by government intervention in the "capitalist" countries. Edit: And until the collapse of European communism, the answer to your first example is North Korea.
arrrg 13y ago
I don’t think you quite understand what this argument is about. People who are not libertarians and opposed to their views are frequently not opposed to free markets, for example. For example, I’m about as socialist as it gets, but I think free markets are an enormously powerful and efficient tools and that, in the grand scheme of things, they have been a huge net-win for the world. I just don’t think they are perfect and can solve every problem (better than alternative solutions could). That’s all. Similar arguments apply to other things that are near and dear to libertarians’ hearts. To me libertarianism is lazy extrapolating.
jayd16 13y ago
The New Deal.
mpyne 13y ago
Libertarianism hardly maintains the monopoly on Capitalism. Socialism itself was never in practice in North Korea especially (which could barely even be considered Communist), nor anywhere else in the world, really. Remember that Marx's "Socialism" was the utopian part that came after "Communism" where people would simply contribute what they could willingly, and take only what they needed gratefully. Like other utopian fantasies this has never been accomplished on any large scale in any society anywhere. While I certainly agree with you that free-market capitalism is much better macroeconomics, it's important to remember that just as the military is not the end-all/be-all of "winning wars" (just look at Iraq or Vietnam for proof), neither is capitalism the sole societal device needed for "the general welfare". If nothing else, government has a big role to play in ensuring that vigorous competition actually is present in a free market (witness the disaster of having a few large banks "too big to fail" due to previous deregulation). They also ensure that "externalities" in operating a given business are not charged to the public at large. Government has also typically proven much better at helping to provide things the public needs that don't have short-term profit potential, yet eventually prove necessary for a stronger economy. Free public education, extensive infrastructure, etc. in the Western democracies is a very large reason why the entrepreneurs can rely on there even being available a workforce with the needed knowledge, skills and abilities (to use an HR term). Just like anything else it's possible to have too much government, but that's essentially axiomatic.