OFFICIAL: "How Libertarian Are You?" Thread

[libertybrewcity]

I consider myself a left-libertarian. This quote about sums it up

There is no reason why we couldn't redefine the 'traditional placement'

 

[00_Pete]

Localist/Voluntarist first and foremost.

Rothbard´s Libertarianism in a distant second place.

 

[teacherone]

Wow. Great quote.

horrible quote-- as if "left" and "right" mean a damn thing.

false paradigm--- break through it and destroy it for others.

 

[RokiLothbard]

SentientVoid,

Can you show me where Rothbard states that fractional reserve banking is, in and of itself fraudlent? even when no government force is used? even when depositors completely understand the nature of the transaction?

I believe he makes empirical prediction that without force and fraud fractional reserve banking would end all by itself (a prediction I disagree with). But this prediction alone is unimportant for moral classification.

I just think Rothabard gets slightly oversold in this arena. He is no DeSoto, at least not from what I remember reading. He might have changed his mind on this as he got older. But I swear I remember reading either "Panic of 18-something" and/or "History of Banking" (jeez man I mangled both titles), and while he clearly isn't crazy about the idea, I recall he spent most of his time focusing on how it was propped up by the government, and how, in the event of bank runs, the depositors shouldn't be bailed out ..... we should just have bankruptcy sale and split the proceeds on a pro-rated basis. No where can I recall him saying that even if depositor understands the nature of the transaction, that any third party would be justified in using force to prevent a mutually agreed-upon financial arangement (as I believe DeSoto would advocate).

I'm right there with you on the IP thing though. And don't think Murray got Childrens issues quite right either. Other than that am Rothbardian too.

 

[erowe1]

SentientVoid,

Can you show me where Rothbard states that fractional reserve banking is, in and of itself fraudlent? even when no government force is used? even when depositors completely understand the nature of the transaction?

That's definitely the impression I got from him in The Mystery of Banking.

I don't think he said it as explicitly as you just did. But he casually called fractional reserve banking "fraud" throughout the book without clarifying whether or how it would be fraud if it was done openly. It sometimes seemed like he was implying that keeping fractional reserves was always done surreptitiously, as though it couldn't happen otherwise.

On the one hand, that assumption seems hard to comprehend initially, since everyone knows that banks don't keep all your money there and that they actually lend it out to others. On the other hand, people don't really comprehend the system that makes that possible, and how absent a central bank, one might argue that with a pure commodity currency, banks wouldn't be able to do that, so that in such a scenario where they have to assure their depositors that they actually do keep full reserves it would then be fraudulent for them to do otherwise. I remember being confused on that point when I read that book, and thinking that Rothbard used too much value laden rhetoric (such as "fraud") in what I expected to be a more objective educational book.

 

[Sentient Void]

SentientVoid,

Can you show me where Rothbard states that fractional reserve banking is, in and of itself fraudlent? even when no government force is used? even when depositors completely understand the nature of the transaction?

I believe he makes empirical prediction that without force and fraud fractional reserve banking would end all by itself (a prediction I disagree with). But this prediction alone is unimportant for moral classification.

I just think Rothabard gets slightly oversold in this arena. He is no DeSoto, at least not from what I remember reading. He might have changed his mind on this as he got older. But I swear I remember reading either "Panic of 18-something" and/or "History of Banking" (jeez man I mangled both titles), and while he clearly isn't crazy about the idea, I recall he spent most of his time focusing on how it was propped up by the government, and how, in the event of bank runs, the depositors shouldn't be bailed out ..... we should just have bankruptcy sale and split the proceeds on a pro-rated basis. No where can I recall him saying that even if depositor understands the nature of the transaction, that any third party would be justified in using force to prevent a mutually agreed-upon financial arangement (as I believe DeSoto would advocate).

I'm right there with you on the IP thing though. And don't think Murray got Childrens issues quite right either. Other than that am Rothbardian too.

Erow1 covered the Rothbard issue pretty well, I think.

But in regards to children's right... there's a thread in Philosophy (started by Theocrat) talking about animals rights, where humans get rights from, etc - and I went over my view of animals and rights (or lack thereof and why), and went into how rights apply to fetuses (the abortion issue), as well as children, etc... I'd like to know your thoughts.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=253201

 

[jessenclerk]

As a libertarian I can hold no non-libertarian beliefs...much like an atheist can hold no belief in GOD. It would be heresy to hold non-libertarian views for a libertarian and to believe in GOD for an atheist.

 

[SteveR]

I am being pushed to the left. As corporate power and large special interest lobbies grow, the imbalance in the distribution of wealth increases, and the standard of living declines. When the wrong kind of government controls are created to attempt to improve the standard of living, I am pushed further to the left because these type of government controls do not attack the cause of the problem: increasing corporate power and large special interest groups. For example, government controls, like the financial reform act, do not attempt to decentralize the financial oligopoly and the corporate power base of the banks and their lobbies. Rather it attempts to place controls with additional rules and fees on their existing centralized power base. But without decentralizing their power, and increasing competition, these additional fees imposed on the banks will be easily passed down to the American consumer, aggravating the social and economic imbalances which continue to attack our individual freedom.

 

[Knightskye]

What, no survey?

 

[Elwar]

I'm an individual.

 

[axiomata]

On a scale of 1 to 10 I'm so libertarian that I totally reject to 2-dimensional scale. It's more like a diamond and I'm at the pinnacle.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This was like the second thread I ever made at RPF.