Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
The entire problem with libertarianism is that it thinks freedom is a good in and of itself. It really isn't. Freedom, within limitations, tends to lead to public goods than public bads, which is why the liberal-democratic ideal has been so successful.
|
Can this be substantiated deductively or inductively? Most of the later classical liberals used utilitarian arguments, and even today you have consequentualist libertarians (Milton/David Friedman) who use empirical data in addition to deduction (unlike a deontological austrian) to determine more freedom does lead to higher utility. This isn't to say that, libertarians espouse total individual freedom (one doesn't have the freedom to kill a person, harm their property, or enslave them.) Obviously it isn't as clearcut as you make it seem, especially since modern liberal society has many failures of its own both when addressing the problems of subsets and the total set of populations.
|
I want to say i've been through this dance with you before, but we can observe that the total freedom to use your property as you see fit (even without the three obvious caveats you mentioned) does not always lead to optimum benefit to society.
1. Money, for instance, works more efficiently when it's treated as a means of exchange rather than a piece of property: money only does anyone any good when it's moving. Saving is only beneficial to hedge against a future where your income could be diminished (less money moving today for a guarantee of money moving tomorrow). Too much saving, especially among the wealthy and large corporations, and you get the deflationary problems that are plaguing most first-world economies, yet it is rational on the individual level to save.
2. The difference between things that are rational on the micro level but harmful on the macro level are the gap between total individual freedom and maximum social utility. Environmental damage is another issue. It is rational for corporations to build up air-polluting factories in a business-friendly city. They end up poisoning the air in this city, in a way that does not effect the capital owners of the plants who live half a world away. Air is nobody's property, nobody collects or can collect fees for maintaining its quality under the market system. Some plant owners might be convinced that it would be a good idea for PR purposes to invest in cleaner factories, but everyone in the group has to make that choice, or the polluter will out-compete the non-polluters and it goes back to square one.
Externalities and the micro-macro divide are two of the problems.
3. The third, in this case, is that libertarianism often doesn't account for non-economic and irrational actions which are built upon social mores. I recall from the 60s and civil rights when a Chamber of Commerce down in Dixie declared "we don't need nigger business." First, it might be irrational to cater to blacks because it would scare off all of the white customers, and then you simply trade a more lucrative market for the less lucrative, preventing private property holders from making the correct decision. But beyond that, the racism was so entrenched in the private property owners that they didn't even consider that element: they just plain didn't want to serve black people.
What recourse, then, does the black community have in this situation? Libertarianism would re-inforce Jim Crow, not abolish it. The most the blacks could hope for would be to essentially build an economy all on their own, their own banks (because white banks won't lend to you), their own shops, their own schools. But because all of the good and worthwhile property has already been monopolized by the racist whites, you're never going to have a chance to get ahead even if you did try to fight your way out of the situation in a libertarian fashion.
4. In steps the outside government actor, fixing the problem. (yes, obviously, a ways to go and all that, but the laws demanding businesses serve all people help the marginalized group get access to market factors that irrational social factors would have banned them from).
Of course, the latter point doesn't really work with this law. Firstly because it's much harder to tell someone's homosexual rather than black (duh). Secondly because homophobia is nowhere near as astringent today as racism was back in Jim Crow, so you don't quite get the same factor. Some businesses could benefit from catering to homophobes, but most would lose out, so the free-choice selection is more viable in this case, but it's also clear from history that it's not the proper tool in all cases.
This is all i will say on the matter.
|
1. Why can't money be both? Money is what one exchanged one's property for. It is, as you said, the common medium of exchange. You mention thrift, but there are many mainstream economists who don't buy keynesian economic policy (particularly Chicago school and certain Neo-classical groups.) So obviously the only solution to thrift isn't just to remove freedom, as these other groups which espouse private property rights disagree with keynesians on said fiscal policy.
2. Under the market/government hybrid system what you say is true. Government protects polluters from liabilities caused from their pollution (i.e: fracking.) That is a government failure, not a market failure. In the market one is able to sue for damage to their own being or the being of their property caused by negative externalities, such as pollution. Then when you consider issues like the tragedy of the commons, the immediate conclusion is propertarianism, as people take care of private property much better than common resources.
3. You'll have to ask the libertarian based on their economic views what "rational" means. An Austrian will say if a human beings acts towards a purpose then their action is rational. That means your Dixie example is, indeed, rational. According to an Austrian all actions are economic actions. Then you have the chicago school who defines rationality as "wanting more rather than less of a good." They concede that their rational choice theory models are likely not a full description of reality, and support any endeavor to obtain empirical evidence, so I don't understand where you get that libertarians don't consider irrational behaviors.
4. As for the racism entrenched in southern society, that might be true, but there is no reason to believe that such a society can't change culturally without forceful actions from a central authority (southern states.) Sooner or later some group of people would realize that they'd rather have more money/property/goods than to be racist and they'll tap in the large (untapped) African-American market of consumers and producers to do that. The only way the people in power could prevent them is if they used the force of government, i.e Jim Crow laws. Libertarians oppose Jim Crow, they oppose government enforced segregation and discrimination, just as their ideological predecessors opposed slavery and supported voting laws for blacks. I don't see the logical path that got you to the conclusion, "libertarians would reinforce Jim Crow." Can you emphasize your thoughts in more details? Until then, let's assume the libertarians are consistent and oppose force, especially that coming from states, meaning no Jim Crow laws. When Jim Crow is abolished the southern states would be responsible for providing "public" goods to blacks (14th amendment), and not discriminating against /segregating them (allowing them into white public schools.) It would be illegal for these states to allow for state discrimination according to the new federal CRA law. Future generations, as they have in the real world, would become less racist, because they would've gone to the same schools, just as it happened in the real world. The part of the CRA libertarians disagree with is the private property provisions, that private business owners MUST only discriminate independent of race, sex, or whatever other predetermined trait. How exactly does this change the cultural elements of the people involved? The crucial portions of the CRA remain. As public schools became more integrated and so will the middle-class and working class white businesses (to compete with the larger businesses that you say will refuse to accept black consumers/producers) the society of the south would change to accept blacks. As the northern states progressed economically there is no reason why, without the restrictions in place, southerners wouldn't start to interact with African-Americans in order to boister their economy and compete with northern states. Especially when we consider how impoverished both whites and blacks were/are in the southern states. It is only when you take state power out of the hands of the authorities, such as the Chamber of Commerce you mentioned, that natural interactions can exist. It wasn't because people were forced to interact with each other that they did. The effect of forceful interaction was white flight, not integration. It was because they wanted to work together for their own personal benefits that the races interacted with each other.
