Are were clamoring for deregulation a little too hard?

[powerofreason]

von Mises and Hayek were older genration libertarians. Modern Austrians subscrube to stateless society. All of Ron Paul's closest friends are ancaps. His former Chief of Staff, Lew Rockwell, is an ancap. Most of the speakers at the Rally for the Republic were ancaps.

Ron Paul is not a Constitutionalist because he has respect for government, he is a Constitutonalist because he has respect for liberty. The Constitution is one of the greatest libertarian documents ever written.

The only thing that makes Ron Paul "lean right" is his opposition to abortion, which is because he is religious and believes a fetus is a human being.

Anyone who regularly reads Ron Paul's writings knows he believes there is nothing the government can do that free enterprise can't do better. That is the axiom of anarcho-capitalism. Free enterprise > governmental enterprise.

Its true that all the modern Austrians are ancap. It wouldn't surprise me if RP was a closet ancap. Not that it matters, really.

 

[torchbearer]

Its true that all the modern Austrians are ancap. It wouldn't surprise me if RP was a closet ancap. Not that it matters, really.

In Louisiana its called Laissez Faire economics... or in other words a free market.
Nothing anarchist about people voluntarily trading with each other.
Who would enforce contracts if there wasn't an independent third party type government agency entrusted with such authority over contracts?

You'd have drive-by shootings over every business deal gone bad without courts.

 

[Mini-Me]

von Mises and Hayek were older genration libertarians. Modern Austrians subscrube to stateless society. All of Ron Paul's closest friends are ancaps. His former Chief of Staff, Lew Rockwell, is an ancap. Most of the speakers at the Rally for the Republic were ancaps.

Ron Paul is not a Constitutionalist because he has respect for government, he is a Constitutonalist because he has respect for liberty. The Constitution is one of the greatest libertarian documents ever written.

The only thing that makes Ron Paul "lean right" is his opposition to abortion, which is because he is religious and believes a fetus is a human being.

Anyone who regularly reads Ron Paul's writings knows he believes there is nothing the government can do that free enterprise can't do better. That is the axiom of anarcho-capitalism. Free enterprise > governmental enterprise.

...except for the protection of people's rights, which includes the court system, the military, the police, etc...along with diplomacy with other nations through the state. In addition, Ron would keep a small intelligence agency at the federal level by bringing the CIA back to its original mission. As far as schools go, he obviously wants to eliminate federal control and bring control back to the states and local school boards, but I've never heard him call for the abolition of public schools, though (in the federalist Constitutional system he envisions, I'm sure he feels that's just a decision that states and local communities can legitimately make for themselves - in contrast, anarcho-capitalists would decry such "aggression" by even local communities taxing for schools). Furthermore, I haven't heard him call for the abolition of public roads, either...and there are probably about fifty other differences I haven't thought to include.

He's certainly an advocate of the free market, but he is not in fact an anarcho-capitalist. I am more libertarian than Ron Paul and I advocate an even smaller government than he does, yet even I am not an anarcho-capitalist.

 

[torchbearer]

...except for the protection of people's rights, which includes the court system, the military, the police, etc...along with diplomacy with other nations through the state. In addition, Ron would keep a small intelligence agency at the federal level by bringing the CIA back to its original mission. As far as schools go, he obviously wants to eliminate federal control and bring control back to the states and local school boards, but I've never heard him call for the abolition of public schools, though (in the federalist Constitutional system he envisions, I'm sure that's just a decision that states and local communities can legitimately make for themselves - in contrast, anarcho-capitalists would decry such "aggression" by even local communities). Furthermore, I haven't heard him call for the abolition of public roads, either.

He's certainly an advocate of the free market, but he is not in fact an anarcho-capitalist. I am more libertarian than Ron Paul and I advocate an even smaller government than he does, yet even I am not an anarcho-capitalist.

yeah- what he said, and what I said in the post above it.
Anarchist forget in their little utopia, there is no protection of the individual from fraud or mobs. Without that minimal protection, there is no property and their are no rights.

 

[jyakulis]

when you advocate sound money do you really need regulation? i mean banks don't create credit out of thin air. hence would all these different derivatives and debt instruments they created have ever existed? if we had sound money they'd be sued for fraud.

i mean you legalize fraud through the federal reserve act. then everyone cries foul when the looters run wild. well, what did you expect. just my two cents....

 

[powerofreason]

I'm not in the mood to write up a long moral and practical defense of Rothbard style libertarianism. I'll just say that I would be fine with it if we could have a minarchy forever, but its utopian to think that nice people will always be in charge of government and never try to expand it. Or that lazy slobs will not vote themselves your money in the form of welfare checks. If you're curious about how such a voluntary and stateless society might function, I would suggest reading For a New Liberty by Rothbard. Theres also mises.org and the freedomain radio podcasts.

Somalia: Craphole of crapholes better off without a government.

http://mises.org/story/2701
http://mises.org/story/2066

 

[jmlfod87]

yeah- what he said, and what I said in the post above it.
Anarchist forget in their little utopia, there is no protection of the individual from fraud or mobs. Without that minimal protection, there is no property and their are no rights.

I rather having the mafiarun the country than a government. Because the only difference between the mafia and thr government is atleast the mafia has competition.

In an anarchist society there would be property because you would have private companies enforcing property rights. The only difference betwen an anarcho-capitalist society and YOUR ideal society is that ancaps believe contracts and laws should be enforced by private companies, not a government monopoly.

Having competition in the law enforcement industry would guarantee a more efficient, cost-effective, fair, and less oppressive justice system.

 

[torchbearer]

I rather having the mafiarun the country than a government. Because the only difference between the mafia and thr government is atleast the mafia has competition.

In an anarchist society there would be property because you would have private companies enforcing property rights. The only difference betwen an anarcho-capitalist society and YOUR ideal society is that ancaps believe contracts and laws should be enforced by private companies, not a government monopoly.

Having competition in the law enforcement industry would guarantee a more efficient, cost-effective, fair, and less oppressive justice system.

When the founders were debating what government they should install, why didn't anarchy sound too appealing?
Because it is mob rule. Rule of the jungle. Might makes right.

What was the closes thing they could get to anarchy and still have protection of the individual. A constitutional republic.

The only problem, any advance form of self-government requires that each person be educated enough to keep its constitutional government... well, constitutional.
Can it happen? It is more likely to happen that a bunch of individuals with no government not having some evil freak decide he and his gang is going to take everything from you by force.
You want mob rule... well, you have it right now. Its done by vote and its called democracy. You are welcomed to it.

 

[exomniac]

This is what I do. Look at any law, and ask yourself, "Does this law protect any one's rights?" and "Does it infringe on any one's rights?" Keep in mind that our rights are simply our lives, our liberty, and our property. We'll simply define liberty as the right to do as you please, as long as you are not violating any persons rights.

This is why the Federal Income Tax is wrong. You work for a wage, and a portion of it must be given to others, or you go to jail (or shot dead in your home). That's what we call "legal plunder". The government makes theft legal, as long as its the government that is taking the money.

By purchasing an AK-47 I am not violating any persons rights. By smoking a pound of weed over the weekend on a camping trip, I am not violating any persons rights. Tinting my windows, not wearing my seatbelt, smoking in the bar, marrying someone of the same sex, taking photographs, practicing religion, staying out past 10, giving the finger to a cop.

This is just one philosophy. It's simply the idea that the law is created only to serve justice to those that violate another persons rights. This should be especially true on a federal level.

As far as economic regulation goes?

1. The government had no business pushing institutions to give loans out to low-income consumers.

2. The bailout was a gross extension of "legal plunder". So gross. I think I'm gonna vomi...

3. Read above. No intervention unless rights are being violated. I dont know why even typed this 3-point list.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

An interesting discussion, but in the end it always comes back to what limits are acceptable for what would, if completely unregulated, be pure libertarian freedom, social and economic, to range within. Some say no limits, others say any limits the majority can be persuaded to approve, by whatever means. Get everybody to agree on what the limits should actually look like in all matters and the societal machinery can certainly be built to accomplish exactly that. It's the agreement part that's the rub.

In the unregulated economy, after all, anyone is free to control the printing of currency presumably from their home printer, when they so chose. Of course how much value it would have would be subject to the other guy's confidence in the stuff in the proposed transaction. And of course if the stronger guy just enforces his will regardless of the approval of the weaker guy with regard to the transaction, without any regulatory authority then that's just how it goes, and the weaker guy has to look for someone weaker still to prey upon to recoup.

The notion that some types of regulation aren't regulation and other types of regulation are regulation is complete nonsense of course. All regulation is regulation, and in the end it always comes back to the question of limits upon complete freedom, and if we're going to set them, where to set them, how to set them.

 

[jmlfod87]

When the founders were debating what government they should install, why didn't anarchy sound too appealing?
Because it is mob rule. Rule of the jungle. Might makes right.

lol 'when the founders were debating what government to install', clearly by the simple fact that they were debating to install government shows that they were all statists to a degree.

FYI: The founders werent gods, they were human beings. Austrian economics hand't even been invented yet.


Anarchy is not mob rule. Democracy is mob rule. Anarchy is the rule of those who are the smartest, strongest, and most determined, meaning THE FITTEST. Might does not make right under an anarchy unless the people want it to. If people want minimal government they will purchase justice from a less-oppressive company.

The only problem, any advance form of self-government requires that each person be educated enough to keep its constitutional government... well, constitutional.
Can it happen? It is more likely to happen that a bunch of individuals with no government not having some evil freak decide he and his gang is going to take everything from you by force.
You want mob rule... well, you have it right now. Its done by vote and its called democracy. You are welcomed to it.

LOL again. You prove my point, that Constitutional government descends into mob rule.

You don't seem to understand the concept of competition. Competition means instead of having ONE EVIL FREAK = "The government", you have TWO OR MORE 'EVIL FREAKS', and YOU get to CHOOSE which freak you think is the least evil to provide law enforcement. Competition forces law enforcement businesses to be as benevolent as possible, otherwise they wont get your business.

 

[RCA]

Doesn't anarchy seem very collectivist? Catch phrases such as, "every man for himself", "the strongest will survive" and "the greater good" all have very little regard for an individuals natural born rights correct? I guess it's the full circle analogy. If you go too far to the left you get statism and no individual rights which is adjacent to the extreme right where you get anarchy and no individual rights.

 

[torchbearer]

lol 'when the founders were debating what government to install', clearly by the simple fact that they were debating to install government shows that they were all statists to a degree.

FYI: The founders werent gods, they were human beings. Austrian economics hand't even been invented yet.


Anarchy is not mob rule. Democracy is mob rule. Anarchy is the rule of those who are the smartest, strongest, and most determined, meaning THE FITTEST. Might does not make right under an anarchy unless the people want it to. If people want minimal government they will purchase justice from a less-oppressive company.


LOL again. You prove my point, that Constitutional government descends into mob rule.

You don't seem to understand the concept of competition. Competition means instead of having ONE EVIL FREAK = "The government", you have TWO OR MORE 'EVIL FREAKS', and YOU get to CHOOSE which freak you think is the least evil to provide law enforcement. Competition forces law enforcement businesses to be as benevolent as possible, otherwise they wont get your business.

Anarchy is mob rule. With no government. Me and My buds are grabbing our rifle and taking everything from you. Deal with it. We have more guns.

 

[Mini-Me]

An interesting discussion, but in the end it always comes back to what limits are acceptable for what would, if completely unregulated, be pure libertarian freedom, social and economic, to range within. Some say no limits, others say any limits the majority can be persuaded to approve, by whatever means. Get everybody to agree on what the limits should actually look like in all matters and the societal machinery can certainly be built to accomplish exactly that. It's the agreement part that's the rub.

The disagreement here ultimately comes down to two questions:

• What are the inalienable natural rights that every individual possesses from birth, if any? (I would say life, liberty, and property, to condense them all into an easy phrase. Some people would disagree that property is a right, and this is the fundamental difference libertarians have with people who believe that a majority vote is enough to strip someone of their property.)
• Should government instate laws for the sole sake of protecting people's natural rights (because they are rights after all), or should it instate arbitrarily invasive laws based on a majority vote or someone's subjective feelings about what "greater good" goals somehow trump individual rights? If people choose the latter, is the degree of arbitrary invasiveness going to be strictly limited at all? If so, where does it stop?

Personally, I would say that if there's any kind of widespread disagreement on whether the government should have any particular coercive power, it should not. After all, in the words of George Washington, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." If any significant number of people believe that they should not be forced to do something, they're almost certainly correct. Any attempt to force them is nothing other than the tyranny of the majority. In one sentence, you refer to limits "the majority can be persuaded to approve," and in the next sentence, you say, "Get everybody to agree..." These are contradictory notions. If everybody agrees on something and nobody whatsoever objects, then it should certainly be law, but the more people that disagree, the greater the minority that will be oppressed by what they consider an unjust use of force.

As a rule, government should be limited to instating only those laws that protect natural rights, and all law should be limited to the smallest jurisdiction that can reasonably enforce it (so it's imposed on the smallest possible number of people who disagree). Otherwise, what's the point of government other than an infrastructure for tyranny and a way for some to impose their "might makes right" will on others through that powerful infrastructure? While some may disagree on what our human rights are, I believe they basically amount to, "Leave me and my stuff in peace." In any case, I operate under the assumption that I'm correct, and those are the rights respect with regard to others, which I reserve for myself, and which I'm willing to defend...except of course when they're being violated by such an overwhelming force, like government, that I have no practical recourse at any given time. Anyway, while I accept some minor concessions on principle (and some do not) - such as very minimal taxation - to carry out the "necessary" functions of government to preserve these rights, I believe these rights are nevertheless absolute and certainly not subject to the whims of a majority vote. In other words, people have an obligation to respect, but not necessary to protect, other people's rights, but I'm willing to compromise on that and codify some protection into law, facilitated through minimal taxation. I'm also willing to consent to the will of the population when about 95+% of people agree on some other law (so long as the jurisdiction is proper), but that's quite a slippery slope, and I might not necessarily like it.

In the unregulated economy, after all, anyone is free to control the printing of currency presumably from their home printer, when they so chose. Of course how much value it would have would be subject to the other guy's confidence in the stuff in the proposed transaction. And of course if the stronger guy just enforces his will regardless of the approval of the weaker guy with regard to the transaction, without any regulatory authority then that's just how it goes, and the weaker guy has to look for someone weaker still to prey upon to recoup.

In an unregulated economy, people would not rely on 100% paper currencies for exactly this reason. The fact that the supply of paper currency can be manipulated at someone's whim is the biggest problem with having a paper currency backed by nothing limited in supply in the first place. Instead, people would freely decide to use some limited commodity as a medium of exchange - preferably one with a relatively stable supply, such as gold, which cannot be manipulated at will - and that would be their base currency. Of course, competing insured companies would exist who will store such physical commodities and issue paper certificates or electronic credits for the sake of convenience (in the case of electronic transfers, the actual currency would be frequently moved between holding companies, since they'd each want to make sure they and their customers are not getting screwed). If any particular company was found to be fraudulent and issuing more certificates than they have actual base currency, nobody would accept their certificates anymore, and that company would go out of business. In other words, the free market spreads and decentralizes risks of inflationary fraud...whereas with legal tender laws as we have today (which are regulations saying we must accept FRN's and only FRN's as legal tender, in violation of our right to exchange our goods and services for whatever we want), all risk is centralized and we're all at the mercy of the central bank.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to the stronger guy enforcing his will on the weaker guy during a voluntary transaction. In the free market, all transactions are voluntary, and competition keeps the power balance oscillating around equilibrium levels. Are you referring to coercion in contracts, e.g. Don Vito Corleone's "offer you can't refuse," at the point of a gun? If so, such violent extortion is a violation of rights, and so it is outlawed by common law which exists to preserve rights. Business regulation, on the other hand, does not preserve rights; rather, it violates rights in the pursuit of other goals.

The notion that some types of regulation aren't regulation and other types of regulation are regulation is complete nonsense of course. All regulation is regulation, and in the end it always comes back to the question of limits upon complete freedom, and if we're going to set them, where to set them, how to set them.

All regulation is regulation, but not all laws are regulation. There's a difference between laws that recognize and protect people's rights, and laws that arbitrarily violate people's rights for some other purpose. If really you want, you can choose to call all laws "regulations," but then you're only conflating these two very different types of laws through semantics, and your chosen terminology would not capture the fundamental difference between the two, nor would the widely recognized connotations of the word remain relevant.

 

[tremendoustie]

It's the "duh" stuff that I'm referring to. In order to have the "duh" regulations, there must be, well, regulations. I don't hear this point brought up in the daily clamoring for "DEREGULATION!".

YES! to laws and regulations against fraud and theft. NO! to "regulations" that try to prevent bad decisions or irresponsibility.

It's quite simple in my view -- one does not have the right to commit fraud or theft, but one has the right to act foolishly with one's finances. Of course, if one acts foolishly one should face the consequences, not get bailed out by taxpayers ...

 

[Truth Warrior]

Are were clamoring for deregulation a little too hard?

Are were clamoring for FREE market Laissez-faire hard enough?

The answers to BOTH questions is, NO!

 

[Conza88]

Anarchy is mob rule. With no government. Me and My buds are grabbing our rifle and taking everything from you. Deal with it. We have more guns.

See.. I'll hold back for the mean time, but just wondering: are you attaching Anarcho-Capitalism to your definition of anarchy?



The post Austrian economist are all ancaps because they follow the logical progression of their premises to it's proper conclusion. If the Founding Fathers saw the state of America today... do you think they would have changed anything if they could have gone back?

Bit of a no brainier imo.. the experiment with limited government failed. If they had the opportunity to read Rothbard, I think it's pretty clear they would have come to similar conclusions. (With hindsight anyway).

I also think RP is a closet anarcho-capitalist. But, like I would do... to further the cause of liberty - people ain't going to swallow that pill. He is the standard bearer who rallies people to the cause, sound bites is really all you get in the MSM.. and the Constitution is a great rallying point. We've got to aim for that anyway if we are to get to an anarcho-capitalist society anyway... So it makes sense.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Anarchy is mob rule. With no government. Me and My buds are grabbing our rifle and taking everything from you. Deal with it. We have more guns.

How you get all of that BS from of "without a leader ( ruler )" is still beyond me.

 

[Mini-Me]

See.. I'll hold back for the mean time, but just wondering: are you attaching Anarcho-Capitalism to your definition of anarchy?



The post Austrian economist are all ancaps because they follow the logical progression of their premises to it's proper conclusion. If the Founding Fathers saw the state of America today... do you think they would have changed anything if they could have gone back?

Bit of a no brainier imo.. the experiment with limited government failed. If they had the opportunity to read Rothbard, I think it's pretty clear they would have come to similar conclusions. (With hindsight anyway).

I also think RP is a closet anarcho-capitalist. But, like I would do... to further the cause of liberty - people ain't going to swallow that pill. He is the standard bearer who rallies people to the cause, sound bites is really all you get in the MSM.. and the Constitution is a great rallying point. We've got to aim for that anyway if we are to get to an anarcho-capitalist society anyway... So it makes sense.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers and Framers would have changed some things if they knew what we know today, but I think it's quite a jump to assume they would have decided on anarcho-capitalism. They might have, and I'm certain at least a few would have pushed for it, but they also may have just decided to stick with something closer to the Articles of Confederation, or maybe change some things in the Constitution to give it teeth, etc. My concerns about the anarcho-capitalism alternative aside, I still think there plenty of ways to structure limited government to keep it limited. There've been several threads on it, actually.

In any case, I don't think RP is a closet anarcho-capitalist...particularly considering his views on abortion.

 

[literatim]

FYI: The founders werent gods, they were human beings. Austrian economics hand't even been invented yet.

I assume you have never read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.

Anarchy is not mob rule. Democracy is mob rule. Anarchy is the rule of those who are the smartest, strongest, and most determined, meaning THE FITTEST. Might does not make right under an anarchy unless the people want it to. If people want minimal government they will purchase justice from a less-oppressive company.

Anarchy is a vacuum that allows a dictator to rise in power. People don't have a choice in the matter when they are conquered and forced into either servitude or death.

LOL again. You prove my point, that Constitutional government descends into mob rule.

Constitutional government is about the law, not mob rule.

You don't seem to understand the concept of competition. Competition means instead of having ONE EVIL FREAK = "The government", you have TWO OR MORE 'EVIL FREAKS', and YOU get to CHOOSE which freak you think is the least evil to provide law enforcement. Competition forces law enforcement businesses to be as benevolent as possible, otherwise they wont get your business.

They kill each other and conquer each other's territories until their numbers are reduced to a few of the most powerful. It has happened throughout time.