Letter to a conservative.

Where do you find those "free

Where do you find those "free markets" without government rules and regulations?  The law of the jungle is not freedom.  Landlords and warlords love anarchy if they have the guns and money to operate "freely."

I want government out of the bedroom and into the boardroom.  We want a government bureaucrat between us and our banksters--the sheriff.

When conservatives come up with a way to keep Commerce from owning the State, they will be talking about political solutions to political problems.  Just blaming government and not dealing with non-governmental tyranny is just the same old Libertarian laissez faire, and it always leads to Robber Barons, Banksters and the ruination of honest Middle Class Americans.

Try some economic compassion with fair markets where predators are not allowed to do their criminal activities.  It would be real competition about real value, not leveraged buyouts and bundled derivatives.

is this letter to a

is this letter to a particular conservative?

Quote: Where do you find

Wherever there aren't government rules and regulations, considering that is the definition of a free market. (Currently nowhere in the world, but some markets are more free than others and the more free the better)

Right. Freedom, in this context, means justly held private property rights; The right to exclusively do with your property as you wish so long as you do not impinge the rights of other owners. It does not mean the freedom to rob, assault or steal, but freedom from robbery, theft, and assault. You're just playing loose with the word and sloganeering, even though you know what it means in the context of the discussion.

I want them out of both. And I think it's inconsistent to only want freedom in one area but not the other. What is the objective reason for it being desireable in only one area of our lives? There is none.

Here's a simple solution. Abolish the government. problem solved.

Non-governmental tyranny is just private crime. And there are ways of dealing with this: getting a gun, hiring private security, and purchasing insurance.

There is nothing wrong with the old libertarian laissez faire. Robber Barons were part of the feudal state apparatus. Banks are organized into a cartel by the Federal Reserve Act. Their monetary expansion is coordinated by the Fed's reserve requirements and the Fed's monetary expansion. Bailouts are given to them by the government.

The ruination of the middle class is the result of inflation, mass immigration & anti-discrimination legislation, excessive taxes and regulations, which have all combined to erode incomes and destroy savings. It has nothing to do with laissez faire. If anything, the middle class arose because laissez faire allowed for several centuries of capital accumulation.

There's nothing inherently wrong with leveraged buyouts or bundled derivatives. I am of the opinion that the current financial crisis can only be explained by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

Been through that before,

Been through that before, dude. I posted the page numbers on the previous Message Board when I was reviewing the works...along with direct quotes. I'm not going to toddle down to the library  again. Go to the old board and enter a search if you're really interested. It will refresh your memory from the previous conversations.

 Absolute Advantage was refering to nation states...not individual corporations. While outsourcing labor costs  may give  particular corporations  profitable advantages, it impoverishes the nation that allows it. I'd suggest you re-read Ricardo and Smith.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Quote: Been through that

I've never read Ricardo or Smith. Who said I did?

But I'm familiar with their arguments. The argument basically states that if there are proportional inequalities between the productive capacities of two nations along alternate lines of production, national productivity can be increased by specializing in the line which the nation is absolutely or comparatively more efficient and trading.

Now, the law of association applies to more than just nations. It can apply in principle to any two (or more) producing entities. It applies just as much to households, firms, or down to the level of individuals. It is the very reason why we engage in division of labour.

Labour is more productive under a division of labour than under isolated production. Outsourcing is just expanding the division of labour across national boundaries. It doesn't make nations poorer, but richer. Any argument against free trade is an argument in favour of moving closer to isolated production and greater relative poverty.

@ rbs What have you actually

@ rbs

What have you actually read on Austrian economics and libertarian theory? What other subjects have you studied?

Why haven't I been banned yet? Were the other libertarians rude or something?

No offense, but unless you have a theory of strategy and know alot of economic theory and philosophy, I'm not really interested in advice on the subject.

   I've noticed that

I've noticed that Republicans and tea baggers are always goin' on about how evil "big government" is---- such an oppressive, meddling burden on the people and business yada yada, But then on the other hand when faced with a socialist argument, always rush to "decry mob rule," and "that's why we're not really a democracy, but a Republic!!" etc.etc.--to keep those belligerent riff-raff from running things?

I don't know-seems like a contradiction to me!

Austro-Libertarian wrote: @

As Jim Higahtower noted in an

As Jim Higahtower noted in an interview on Bill Moyer's Journal, "And I guess that's one big difference between real populism and what the Tea Party thing is, is that real populists understand that government has become a subsidiary of corporations. So you can't say, let's get rid of government. You need to be saying let's take over government. "

Or, as one populist protestor explained:

LARRY GINTER: "The preamble of the constitution says promote the general welfare. Well, does that sound like a government that's hands off? That isn't involved into the overall well-being of everybody in this country? So this idea of get government out of my life- I don't know how that works. Because we're supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. So how do I just take government out of my life? I am government! "

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04302010/transcript5.html

Perhaps it's time to re-claim it.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

drew013 wrote:  A lot of the

Slabmaster wrote re:

Slabmaster wrote re: banning:

"Tell that to Sawdust. His crime was to insult politician Jimmy Carter. The era of groupthink is upon us."

--------

Hardly. I've diced up every Pres. except FDR...I'll probably get around to him sooner or later...they all have/had their screw ups.

Rules of the Board: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/04/message-board-and-chatroom-rules They call for remaining civil, not derailing threads with emotion baiting or repeated intentional diversions.... and not twisting what another poster has said. 

You can denounce actions of any president/politician...including the current twit residing in the White House. The one who appointed the engineers of the current meltdown to head his economic team.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a ;disease"

:

polycarp2 wrote: Slabmaster

I don't recall Sawdust derailing, baiting, diverting, or changing threads. He mearly called Carter a tottering fool. Presidents get critisized when they do stupid things. 

Thanks Poly.  The trashing of

Thanks Poly.  The trashing of Carter does not mean that he did everything right.  He was deeply betrayed by a very disloyal opposition, and that is the point that matters.

It still does.  We do not have a loyal opposition today because the GOP Cult believes that only its "God ordained" mission is American.  It treats the rest of us as "traitors" if only in a latent sense.  

Describing Obama as a "corrupt baffoon" is also provocative without any supporting evidence.  It is the personal attacks without the evidence to back up more than a coincidental or contextually structural case that anyone in the White House must deal with electoral and legislative politics without being able to change the game unilaterally that make them empty.

Of course Obama must deal with Wall St. and the Pentagon rather than taking them down with his Mighty Army of Progressives.  The only candidates who can get through the gatekeepers will not be progressive or fiscal conservatives either.  Is that your measure of corrupt?

And whatever else you believe, calling Obama any disrespectful name associated with incompetence is incredible.  We have not had a person of his skill and character in public leadership for a long time.  I can disagree with him without thinking of him as a bad person.  He is an intellectual, and even Mr. Rhodes Scholar Clinton did not use any intellectual skills out of the box.  He just played the game better than the Republican emperors while the GOP witch-hunted him.

When I described Bush as lazy and incurious George, I was right about him.  Calling Cheney a paranoid is justified by his words and actions.  Neither of these tragic failures is just another example of the typical American President.  They took it to deeper and darker places and had us wondering whether it could all be incompetence instead of criminal intent.

I watch Obama try to find a way to a bipartisan healing while he gets nothing in return.  Is it a Purple Haze going round his brain or a smart political assessment of the fragility of the Union?  Lincoln thought he was holding things together until it could not be held together but by war.  Obama may be doing something similar, and events may determine what he does more than his hopes for smooth and cooperative change.

I forget the historian who linked Obama to Frederick Douglas as an educated black man who "crossed over" from racialist to statesman.  The "crossover" is in our minds more than his, as it was for Douglas.  Being the "exotic" who is also sort of "one of us" gave Douglas the chance to be heard as well as speak.  Obama gets a hearing when he speaks, and he has something to say.  It is rarely partisan, but it is rarely irrelevant or unimportant either.  We are not ready yet.  Only those afraid of losing their narrative to the truth really need to demean Obama.

Quote:Now can you explain to

A nation becomes poorer when its treasury becomes poorer. Its treasury becomes poorer when fewer people pay less in taxes. Fewer people pay taxes when fewer people are employed in that nation. A nation's treasury also becomes poorer when a higher percentage of the aggregate wealth belongs to owners of those corporations which do not pay taxes in that nation and who pay a diminished percentage of their earnings in that nation. A nation becomes poorer when a higher percentage of the aggregate wealth resides in the stock market, which cannot be considered a national asset in any meaningful sense.

Is there really a 'free

Is there really a 'free market' devoid of any and all compelling or forced activity that ALWAYS ends up 'making some better off and others less so'?  Where?  I don't see that ever happening in any situation that involves 'institutions'--ie. those structures of grouping behavior that are set to implement an action despite any individual's 'will'.  And, today's  'free market' is run by the 'institutions' of corporations--NOT, as Austro-Libertarian implies, 'two traders trading without outside influence'. 

In fact, that's one of the first discussions that I got into with sawdust on thomland's forums:  What constitutes a 'free market'?  sawdust claimed it's all about 'lack of government interference'.  I contended that that doesn't address any and all other possible forms of 'interference' that compels the process--particularly corporate interference.  My definition of 'free market' was just that--'two traders trading without outside influence'--but, then, isn't even just a price tag established from some office far away from the direct transaction a form of 'outside influence' I asked sawdust.  I still believe it is.  In the modern world, there is NO SUCH THING AS A 'FREE MARKET' in that manner.  And, until everything implodes and we all go back to bartering, there won't be.....the 'free market' is just another 'religious-type myth' used by the 'real believers'....

Now, can 'government' be that 'institution' that interferes?  Certainly.  But, then, what other choice do you have when corporate interference is a problem when it comes to 'two traders trading without outside influence'?  That's why I believe that a government that acts under the specific guise of 'endorsing individual rights' (and expressing to be doing so or explaining why not) is the best 'institution' of all.... 

Quote: He also notes in the

Failed in what respect?

From Peter Schiff, Crash Proof 2.0 pg.14:

"The world no more depends on U.S. consumption than midieval serfs depended on the consumption of their lords, who typically took 25 percent of what they produced. What a disaster it would have been for the serfs had their lords had their lords not exacted this tribute. Think of all the unemployment the serfs would have suffered had they not had to toil so hard for the benefit of their lords. What would they have done with all that extra free time."

And he continues on with a second analogy.

Austro-Libertarian

Pretty bad analogy by Schiff. The 25% of the production the Lords took was a tax. The economy didn't depend on the Lord's taking a tax. It was pretty much a subsistence sort of affair.

The U.S. was a driver of the world's economy. That's over.

If you'd like to know why George Soros called U.S. market fundamentalism just another failed Ideology, read the interview link posted above. This isn't the place to post a several page disertation.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

The free market is defined as

The free market is defined as a market free of government intervention.--Austro-Libertarian

How does that correlate with your previous statement on what characterizes a 'free market' here:

A free market is characterized by voluntary transactions.--Austro-Libertarian

And, how does a 'market transaction' around a price tag (most of the time remotely determined by those NOT involved in the immediate transaction) connote a 'voluntary transaction' in the 'A voluntarily exchanges good x for good y with B' manner you describe above?   That sounds like 'A' and 'B' are directly negotiating the deal--but, that doesn't happen with a pre-set 'price tag' (determined by those NOT involved in the immediate transaction), does it?  So, how does that connote a 'free market' in the manner you previously suggested?  I don't think it does--and it has NOTHING to do with 'government intervention'--but, it does have something to do with someone 'skewing the trade'....away from 'A' and 'B' getting to do it.....

Quote: The free market is

Government intervention is coercive and compulsory. Non-coercive interaction is voluntary. Does that clear it up?

If a retailer offers merchandise at a set price and customers puchase it at that price, the transaction is voluntary. The retailer prefers a certain amount of money to the merchandise and the customer prefers the merchandise to the money he pays for it. The analytics remain the same.

It is realizable. It is not a practical impossiblity such as producing a square circle.

Austro-Libertarian

Of course the world doesn't need the U.S. to consume their products for them. All they have to do is pay their own workers enough to buy them. All Soros did was say the model of the U.S. consumer being the driver of the global economy .was done.... and that a new model was needed.

After taking a hit with the U.S. consumer meltdown, Asia is recovering nicely with new economic models minus the U.S. The new Chinese/S.E. Asia trade agreements, for example, exlude the U.S. and its undesireable dollar.

Retired Monk  - "Ideology is a disease"

Quote: How 'realizable' is

All I meant was that it is possible to implement such a system.

To have a pure free market, none.

Crime is sporatic and random. It is not institutionalized or socially accepted. That is the big difference between the coercion of private criminals and the compulsion of the state. The crime of criminals is not considered a part of the economic system. The compulsion of the government, is. Crime is not part of the market as an institution. The governments interventions are considered part of the econonmic system.

So the two statements that there will always be crime, since human beings are not angels, and that there is no coercion in a free market, are not contradictory statements.

I think justice is an exact science which is discovered through human reason. Government can no more decide what the difference is between right and wrong than it can decide what the physical laws of the universe are.

Yep, it sure is. It would actually be more accurate to say that it is the ultimate arbitrator in all cases of conflict including conflicts involving itself. That is the first defining characteristic of a state.

That sounds to me like a triangular intervention, where some third party is coercively preventing them from trading. Some examples of this are grants of monopolistic privilege, liscensing restrictions, and prohibition.

Sorry, but this example is too obscure to decide either way. You seem to have added a third party in without making it clear what the exact contractual arrangements are between the third party and A and B.

I prefer free-market defender. There is nothing to apologize for. I'm not sure what you mean by 'it doesn't fit all the facts...'. There are no contradictions in my overall position or definitions. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'believer in a belief-system.' I defend truth and justice as best as I can. You can call it whatever you want.

Austro-Libertarian wrote:

Austro-Libertarian wrote: "The U.S. is not the motor driving the world economy. It's the caboose holding it back (or at least it has been)."

------

That's what Soros said...using different words. The U.S. is no longer the driver of the global economy. That's  "done, finished".

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

@ polycarp2 I have yet to

@ polycarp2

I have yet to hear an answer from you on free trade. I think you owe me one since you grilled me for not reading Ricardo. Since you're such an expert on the subject, would you care to explain how it can impoverish a nation?

slabmaster wrote: He mearly

I will never forget what a living hell the Carter years were.

Gas was fifty cents a gallon and America was at peace with the world.

It was hell!

It was hell!

It was hell!

It was hell!

It was hell!

It was hell!

The crime of criminals is not

The crime of criminals is not considered a part of the economic system.--Austro-Libertarian

Again, that depends more on who gets to determine what a 'crime' is in this 'system being implemented'--and how you define 'crime' to begin with.  For instance, if I, as a 'free market believer' using your description of a 'free market transaction' as being 'mutually beneficial', believe that any 'transaction' that is NOT 'mutually beneficial' is a 'crime', I'm already up against some difficulty in reasoning out that concept much less adhering to ANY 'systems implementer' to 'do it for me'...especially, excluding all 'organizations' as being 'exempt from the crime' by you suggesting that all crime is 'individualized' and  'sporadic and random' as your description of 'crime'.  In the context of 'mutually beneficial transaction', some workers may (and have) argued that they are not getting their complete share of the 'beneficial transaction' as they see 'corporate implementers' getting more than what they may consider fair with respect to 'mutually beneficial transaction'.  To those workers, that may be considered a 'crime'--and they may be appealing to some 'systems implementer' (as 'government'..) to correct it.  Lots of difficulty in applying your concepts to the real world when you don't clarify what you are saying as you 'apologize' your way to confirming your 'free market' belief....

Crime is not part of the market as an institution.--Austro-Libertarian

You do keep saying that--but is it really true?  You don't believe in such a thing as 'organized crime'?  Or, is it to you that the only 'organization that is criminal' is 'government'?  Is that it?  But, isn't any other entity acting as a 'systems implementer' in your 'free market system' just 'replacing government' and calling it something else?  Or, is your 'free market systems implementer' some sort of a 'seamless entity' that 'implements' without stepping on someone's 'voluntarism' in doing so?  If not (and I see no 'reasonable' way it can be), then, again, you are an apologist for the 'free market system'--and it doesn't address every aspect of reality in your claim (which was my point in calling you an 'apologist' to begin with).

I think justice is an exact science which is discovered through human reason--Austro-Libertarian

I believe you to a point in 'using reason to determine justice'--but, I wouldn't qualify it as an 'exact' science.  If that is the case, what is the specific premise upon which you base this 'science' on?  If it's 'mutually beneficial', consider my example with workers not thinking that get their share of 'mutual benefit' and tell me how your 'implementer' is going to 'exactly' resolve it....

Government can no more decide what the difference is between right and wrong than it can decide what the physical laws of the universe are.--Austro-Libertarian

Well, since you are into the 'exact' science of reasoning, tell me 'exactly' what part of 'government' does the 'reasoning' to 'decide what the difference is between right and wrong'.  And, then, tell me how any 'systems implementer' under any other name doesn't act 'exactly' like 'government' in making any 'decision of the difference between right and wrong'--and how it can implement such a decision against anyone's will and NOT be 'exactly' like 'government'.  Or, have you envisioned a 'systems implementer' in this 'free market' that doesn't act against someone's will in some way?  That's about as likely as every transaction concerning the market as being seen as being 'mutually beneficial' in every circumstance.  Who gets to judge that and in what manner are they able to 'implement' that justly in any system you envision?  You say you 'envision' it but you don't say exactly what that 'vision' is....other than the platitudes you claim in this 'free market' that, to date, I don't see you giving a real world example of....besides in the minds of apologists like yourself, where is it?

"And, in being able to determine what a 'crime' is, is that not, in itself, a 'governmental intervention'?"--me

Yep, it sure is. It would actually be more accurate to say that it is the ultimate arbitrator in all cases of conflict including conflicts involving itself. That is the first defining characteristic of a state.--Austro-Libertarian

Now, you seem to be contradicting yourself.  If government 'can't decide what the difference is between right and wrong', how does it determine what a 'crime' is or not?  And, you seem to imply that there isn't a set-up like 'government' to play as the 'arbitrator of conflict' in this 'systems implementer' of the 'free market' that you suggest is 'without government interference'.  How does the 'systems implementer' in this 'free market system' of yours do that without acting 'exactly' like 'government'?  Government always was the 'structure of reasonable transactions' as the actors in that structure are to 'provide the reason'--but, sometimes, actors don't act 'reasonably'....then what?

Apologists don't address all the 'conflicts involving themselves' when it comes to reasonably and realistically defining their beliefs through what can be found in reality.  That, again, is what makes them 'apologists'.  Yet, now, you are stating that that's 'exactly' what 'government' should do--and I agree.  However, you also imply that government, as not being able to 'determine what is right and wrong',  can't do it.  And, you see THAT as 'reasonable'? 

So, now, why isn't there a role in your 'market' for 'government'?  And, if there isn't, what is to take its place?  And, if nothing is to do so, what 'arbiter of reason' do you have in this 'free market system'--more specifically, what 'arbiter of reason' do you have in the 'systems implementer' of this 'free market system' if it's not 'government'--or something acting like it?  Those are reasonable questions that I don't see that you have answered, yet...

"Now, what happens between party 'A's' and party 'B's'  'freedom' in their 'market transaction' if what they are 'transacting' is determined to be 'criminal'?  And, what happens to party 'A's' and party 'B's' 'freedom' if they don't agree that what they are doing is 'criminal' even as it 'benefits both'?  What did 'voluntarism' go in this instance?"--me 

That sounds to me like a triangular intervention, where some third party is coercively preventing them from trading. Some examples of this are grants of monopolistic privilege, liscensing restrictions, and prohibition.--Austro-Libertarian

No, the concept that I'm trying to get across is not the third party 'coercively preventing them from trading', the concept that I'm trying to get across is that, in the corporate world, around the predetermined price tag done in a remote corporate office, the immediate 'traders' don't have the say-so on what amount to determine the value of their trade.  That's been set as a price tag in a remote corporate office--so, that 'organization' has already taken away the 'freedom' of the two immediate traders in determining the value of the trade between themselves.  If you want to use your jargon, then all corporate trade is a 'triangular intervention' between the freedom of the immediate traders being able to decide that among themselves since they both have to act around a price tag (determined by a remote corporate office) in 'negotiating the trade'--and their 'choices' are also so limited...and, since the practical aspect of all freedom is determined by the 'number of choices' you have, that, also, limits their freedom....so, how is a 'corporate market' exactly 'free'? 

You seem to have added a third party in without making it clear what the exact contractual arrangements are between the third party and A and B.--Austro-Libertarian

What difference does that make if the 'contractual arrangements' limit the choices party 'A' and party 'B' have in negotiating the trade that they have at hand right now?  Are you saying that the 'freedom' in the 'free market' stops at a contract--a 'pre-arranged contract'?  While I would agree with the nature of the obligation in assuring the commitment to the deal, I don't agree with how you describe it as 'free' in any way.   Why even use the word 'free' exactly in adhering to this myth you call the 'free market' when it's based on 'contractual obligations' to work--and a government (or something acting like it) to see to it that such obligations are met?  And, since 'contractual obligations' require the intervention of government (or something acting like it) to regulate and assure implementation of such obligations, then, how is your 'free market' EVER devoid of 'governmental intervention' in 'implementing it'?  And, since it's never free of governmental intervention to assure the compliance of contractual obligations, why do you keep claiming that a 'free market' is defined by 'lack of governmental intervention'?  Other than being an apologist ignoring aspects of reality from a reasonable perspective, I don't think that you can....

I prefer free-market defender. There is nothing to apologize for.--Austro-Libertarian

But, there's a whole lot that you don't account for that your claim about 'free market systems' and such 'implementations' such a system would have to use that you don't address nor clarify--which makes you an apologist that has to ignore them (not 'self-reflect' on them like you say a 'government' does...).  And, if we ignore the facts of reality in our 'reason', and we don't specify the premises upon which we are to judge those facts, then, 'anything' can look like 'the truth'....and 'reason' has nothing to do with it....