Laissez-faire (aka: another thread besides "Ron Paul" that I'd click on)

[sir_scutter]

I pretty much saw the response of TRS viewers who were in favor of big gov't, but anyone else who's into the laissez-faire? I'm talking about the serious followers of minarchism, Objectivism, voluntarism and/or the free market. 100% Pro-Liberty? Give me liberty or give me death? Anyone?

A couple of the differences of people with this mind-set is the choice to be apolitical or try to work within the system. Which do you prefer?

[diane]

Well I would if I thought it was at all possible. The problem with it is this, it was tried in Argentina (1998) and crashed their economy. It was tried here but then got coupled with protectionism and seclusive thought and crashed our economy (Great Depression). The WTO, a HUGE supporter of this form of classical economics, ties low interest loans to poor countries with the provisions of moving more towards this form of capitalism. Problem is that it doesn't address what is almost a given to be corruption and then causes the countries to fall even deeper into poverty.

Honestly, if you want this as our form of capitalism, go for it, but mind you it will be very intense in this country. This form of economics is notorious for producing oligopolies along with huge fluctuations in the market (huge highs and huge lows -hence the depressions). Plus, these markets do have a tendency of making people a bit more cranky and in turn more prone to socialist leanings (people take big issue with their money goes through hyperinflation).

But if you are willing to go for it, the number one thing that needs to change in this country would be the 1886 Supreme court ruling of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. In essence this ruling in a round about way gave personhood to a corporation. Since that ruling this country has pushed more and more towards big government. Why? Simple companies like big government.

Oh no they don't Diane, they say so! Not quite, they don't like regulation on themselves, but they do like big government. Big government benefits them greatly. With protection (tarriff, trade agreements, etc), even continuous revenue sources (can anyone say bridge to nowhere and defense department) and most importantly, stability. Big governments are really hard to tumble, plain and simple. Small ones can easily be overthrown, making it more expensive to do business there.

So if you really want to bring us away from the corporate socialist republic (we have never been a democracy by definition, we have always been a republic), then that is the first place to start. Strip that, and you strip a surprising amount of power corporations can play in politics.

But that is just my point of view. I had a long conservation with a constitutional lawyer about this law and he blames it for all sorts of fiscal ills.

[esophagus]

Nope.





Five characters.

[bigshotprof]

That's a really good question. I've been thinking a lot lately about what my political position is--since Bush and the totalitarian right scare me and my left wing "post modern" friends drive me nuts. The position I have sort of landed on could be called Chaos Communitarianism. One of the tenets shared by Laissez-faire and loose chaos theory is that systems if left alone will organize themselves into productive environments. I thin communities ought to have the opportunity to do this. However--to keep it brief and relevant to the thread--both bottom-up organization writers and and economists (notable Ricardo's iron law of wages) agree that the productive organization that is good for the system is generally very bad for a significant percentage of the people in it. Ricardo specifically stated that money unmanaged tends to flow upward until 90 percent of the people live at roughly subsistence.

I think it is the responsibility of government to mitigate that suffering--to "level the playing field." Business will not (and probably cannot). The ways and extent to which it does so are the content of political communication. But we can't win if we on one hand support a system that by its nature dooms 10-15 percent of its citizens to poverty, then demonizes them because they are "too lazy to work." We have to have a middle ground.

[sir_scutter]

Aw. Why don't you think that the free market could handle itself? If you leave it up to property owners to make their own rules what's stopping actual competition from showing what consumers truly want? There would be industry-set regulations (much like UL listings for consumer products) and if a workplace offered too low a wage, the employee would decide for themselves if they wanted to work there or not. It goes on much like that. Individuals running all of their life rather than the government running everyone's.

[bigshotprof]

Individuals running all of their life rather than the government running everyone's.

This is a false dichotomy.

[sir_scutter]

This is a false dichotomy.

Nah, it's just sloppy. I know what I meant, but I failed to type it in a way others would.

Individuals = everyone (meaning not gov't, they aren't human, hah)

I really just wanted to use that word individual because it's a nice word to use when speaking about people rather than using the nation or society or the people which leads to nationalistic/collectivist ideas and terminology.

So you have the individuals who live within the plot of land known as the USA (not counting the next group) and you have the individuals calling themselves government...


... am i trying too hard?

[diane]

You are making a false assumption that capitalism=democracy. That is false. The closest place right now on the world stage to laissez-faire economics is actually China (very little oversight, regulation, etc). And I would anyone would ever argue that China is a democracy.


Democracy is a political theory.

Capitalism is an economic theory.

They are not mutually enterwined nor are they mutually exclusive. But many a people have made the mistake that one will bring the other. That has been proven false time and time again throughout history. It is a common mistake, starting with Hoover, so it understandable someone would assume that. But please don't assume one brings the other.