Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarianism As Egalitarianism

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:14:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Contrary to what libertarians on this forum seem to portray, I contend that a free market would be vastly more egalitarian than the present capitalistic order of the United States.

The reasoning is simple, without the government passing various measures that benefit small groups of wealthy capitalists at the expense of everyone else, there would not be nearly as large of a wealth disparity.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:20:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In short, I intend to have my cake, free markets, and eat it too, egalitarianism. This is possible because I have a demand for it and the free market will cater to my demand. Also, everyone gets the same amount of cake.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:20:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:16:31 PM, Sieben wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree. However, I am not aware of any extended treatise on this subject. Are you?

I know Kevin Carson has does interesting work on the subject. I'll see if I can find anything.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:21:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:14:38 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Contrary to what libertarians on this forum seem to portray, I contend that a free market would be vastly more egalitarian than the present capitalistic order of the United States.

The reasoning is simple, without the government passing various measures that benefit small groups of wealthy capitalists at the expense of everyone else, there would not be nearly as large of a wealth disparity.

Without the government passing various measures that benefit small and large groups of poor people at the expense of everyone else especially those among the wealthy capitalists not mentioned in your proposal, economy grows. Wealthy people are better at making money already, especially the ones who weren't the "political capitalists," so a smaller group gains so much more than other people gain.

Most people still gain. But the gap still gets bigger. ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:23:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:20:17 PM, Reasoning wrote:
In short, I intend to have my cake, free markets, and eat it too, egalitarianism. This is possible because I have a demand for it and the free market will cater to my demand.

Um, no, you have to offer people something they demand to get something you demand. In similar proportions. Bringing the poor up to the level of the rich (doing the opposite isn't something the market will do to those of the rich who earned it) is a massive demand. You better please a lot of people a lot before you sign a check that big
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:23:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree that there would be less economic inequality, but it wouldn't be egalitarian in the usual sense of the word. See Rothbard on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:25:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:23:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I agree that there would be less economic inequality, but it wouldn't be egalitarian in the usual sense of the word. See Rothbard on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com...

I am using egalitarianism in a different sense than Rothbard. I also use capitalism differently.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:27:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:14:38 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Contrary to what libertarians on this forum seem to portray, I contend that a free market would be vastly more egalitarian than the present capitalistic order of the United States.

The reasoning is simple, without the government passing various measures that benefit small groups of wealthy capitalists at the expense of everyone else, there would not be nearly as large of a wealth disparity.

so you contend that in a free market, no one would be vast;y better at making money than anyone else?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:28:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:21:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without the government passing various measures that benefit small and large groups of poor people at the expense of everyone else especially those among the wealthy capitalists not mentioned in your proposal, economy grows. Wealthy people are better at making money already, especially the ones who weren't the "political capitalists," so a smaller group gains so much more than other people gain.

Most people still gain. But the gap still gets bigger. ^_^.

I think you overestimate the effects of unemployment benefits and underestimate governmental protectionism and other favors doled out to big business.

In other words, most people gain and the gap gets smaller.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:29:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:27:52 PM, belle wrote:
so you contend that in a free market, no one would be vast;y better at making money than anyone else?

I never said that. I said that there would be much less of an economic disparity.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:32:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:29:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/5/2010 8:27:52 PM, belle wrote:
so you contend that in a free market, no one would be vast;y better at making money than anyone else?

I never said that. I said that there would be much less of an economic disparity.

and yet... it would seem to follow naturally that if someone else is much better at making money than i, they would become much richer than me....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:32:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Kevin Carson also makes a good point.

"There's also a more logically coherent left-wing free market egalitarian argument against big government:

Government policies that are ostensibly aimed at helping the poor *usually* turn out to have been designed mainly as a means for the rich and powerful to benefit themselves. Indeed, that has been the main historical function of government: to subsidize the operating costs of big business and protect it from competition.

And this is almost inevitable, by the very nature of government, because it is ideally suited to be the instrument of a ruling class: it's almost impossible for a majority of ordinary people to control it from outside, because those on the inside will always have the advantage in time, energy, attention, information, and agenda control. Therefore, government will tend to be run by those on the inside for their own benefit, and egalitarianism will be used as marketing eyewash to sell it to those on the outside. It's a classic bootleggers & Baptists thing, with egalitarian liberals serving as useful idiots for big business." - Kevin Carson
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:35:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:32:22 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/5/2010 8:29:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/5/2010 8:27:52 PM, belle wrote:
so you contend that in a free market, no one would be vast;y better at making money than anyone else?

I never said that. I said that there would be much less of an economic disparity.

and yet... it would seem to follow naturally that if someone else is much better at making money than i, they would become much richer than me....

I don't see why there couldn't be a few people that, through luck, a rare skill or abnormally hard work, could rise considerably above the mean, but a free market would still be vastly MORE egalitarian than the present system.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:41:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:23:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/5/2010 8:20:17 PM, Reasoning wrote:
In short, I intend to have my cake, free markets, and eat it too, egalitarianism. This is possible because I have a demand for it and the free market will cater to my demand.

Um, no, you have to offer people something they demand to get something you demand. In similar proportions. Bringing the poor up to the level of the rich (doing the opposite isn't something the market will do to those of the rich who earned it) is a massive demand. You better please a lot of people a lot before you sign a check that big

I was trying to be humorous.

I also think that you think more of the rich earned their wealth legitimately than I think they did.

By and large, I think it would be fair to say, the rich are rich because they are thieves and the poor are poor because they have been robbed.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:45:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wage slavery would also be drastically reduced in a free market.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:48:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, all of the women would be beautiful and want to have sex with you.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:48:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The last post was a joke, fyi.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 8:51:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:48:52 PM, Reasoning wrote:
The last post was a joke, fyi.

Damn. Oh well.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:09:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:28:47 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/5/2010 8:21:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without the government passing various measures that benefit small and large groups of poor people at the expense of everyone else especially those among the wealthy capitalists not mentioned in your proposal, economy grows. Wealthy people are better at making money already, especially the ones who weren't the "political capitalists," so a smaller group gains so much more than other people gain.

Most people still gain. But the gap still gets bigger. ^_^.

I think you overestimate the effects of unemployment benefits and underestimate governmental protectionism and other favors doled out to big business.

In other words, most people gain and the gap gets smaller.

Let's take a look at the actual gov't budget.

course, there are conflicting sources.

This, for example, a source you'll like, has two charts, one of which it claims is a deception. Both are bad, just because payroll taxes are separate from income taxes doesn't mean Social Security and Medicare aren't genuine spending:

http://www.warresisters.org...

I'm gonna try to fuse them, viewing the "non-deception" as a more detailed subset of the latter.

Interest on the debt, 8%of the total, mostly goes to the rich.

past military, which, taking their word for it is separate from present military and not counted in 20 percet for the sake of argument, goes mostly to the poor (veterans, a disproportionately lower class group). I think that probably fits under "other mandatory, being most of it " and Medicare, Medicaid, that, plus social security (take a generous 10 percent out as not being past military or one of those three) is 44 percent, going mostly to the poor.

Present defense personnel are mostly poor, that's where they recruit from and where most go back, some people gain class from it but they have to handle it first :P. So let's say that 20 percent of the total that is present military (because remember, the chart they like, excluding social security and such, is definitely deceptive) is half wages, and 8/10 of that goes to poor people. Let's say, being generous, 12/20 of the 20 for military goes to rich contractors and the brass and such.

so far we've got 52 percent for the poor and 20 percent for the "political capitalists."

Let's say all the rest goes to the political capitalists too. That still means the government is favoring the poor.

And given economic growth from either minarchy or, for the sake of argument, anarcho capitalism, those numbers swell as do the incomes they have now-- bigger total numbers, bigger gap.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:10:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Now remember, that's "out of arse budgeting." I don't think it's important enough right now to devote a more in depth effort, but those are the preliminary indications anyway.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:20:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The government spends quite a bit on the poor, but it doesn't help the poor with that spending. Programs such as welfare and social security only keep poor people poor, they aren't really "benefits."

The government doesn't favor the rich through direct spending, it does so more indirectly. Take the Federal Reserve for example. It pumps trillions of dollars into the banks, which, of course, greatly benefits the rich. The resulting inflation hurts everyone else, particularly the poor, for whom it is generally more difficult to get inflation adjusted wages, and have savings that aren't as well protected against inflation.

Regulations are another example. Workplace regulations and the minimum wage almost always serve to help unions maintain their power while preventing poor people from earning a living. Business regulations, on the other hand, protect large corporations at the expense of small businesses. The large corporations usually write the regulations themselves, and then use the regulatory agencies to create mountains of red tape that are manageable for large firms but create a large barrier to entry for new businesses. Then, when these large corporations need help, they get the government to bail them out, since they can now claim to be "too big to fail."
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:25:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 9:20:21 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The government spends quite a bit on the poor, but it doesn't help the poor with that spending.
It helps the very least worthy among them. ^_^. And it certainly helps "squeeze the gap" even where it doesn't actually improve anyone's life.

The government doesn't favor the rich through direct spending, it does so more indirectly. Take the Federal Reserve for example. It pumps trillions of dollars into the banks, which, of course, greatly benefits the rich. The resulting inflation hurts everyone else, particularly the poor
The rate of inflation is a few percentage points. It's the equivalent of turning that 8 percent interest on debt into 11 percent.

Regulations are another example. Workplace regulations and the minimum wage almost always serve to help unions maintain their power while preventing poor people
Unions aren't typically made of rich businessmen, but the "middle class," i.e., not a whole lot of impact on the rich poor gap. And they ruin rich people too, by ruining businesses (see the auto industry)

Business regulations, on the other hand, protect large corporations at the expense of small businesses.
That one's nasty, but I don't think it outweighs the other effects.
\
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:27:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
First, I'd like to thank Ragnar for taking the time to do some research.

But, the budget isn't the whole picture. Not even close. Protectionism, land grants, transportation subsidies, IP, etc.

I'd also like to point out that I'd imagine much of the military budget goes to pay the military-industrial complex, so they can make their war profit, it does not go to poor recruits.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:32:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 9:27:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
First, I'd like to thank Ragnar for taking the time to do some research.

But, the budget isn't the whole picture. Not even close. Protectionism, land grants, transportation subsidies, IP, etc.
IP raises the gap (and the standard of living in general). Land grants? Recently? Protectionism's bad for most of the rich too, as are transportation subsidies (btw guess who rides buses).


I'd also like to point out that I'd imagine much of the military budget goes to pay the military-industrial complex, so they can make their war profit, it does not go to poor recruits.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...

my buttpull number for personnel was half, it's a third.

Still though, even a gaping wide taxpayed profit margin on military equipment can't average out to more than 50 percent or so of what's left.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:34:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 9:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/5/2010 9:20:21 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The government spends quite a bit on the poor, but it doesn't help the poor with that spending.
It helps the very least worthy among them. ^_^. And it certainly helps "squeeze the gap" even where it doesn't actually improve anyone's life.
It does help the lazy poor, yes. It also does work to increase the gap through keeping poor people poor.
The government doesn't favor the rich through direct spending, it does so more indirectly. Take the Federal Reserve for example. It pumps trillions of dollars into the banks, which, of course, greatly benefits the rich. The resulting inflation hurts everyone else, particularly the poor
The rate of inflation is a few percentage points. It's the equivalent of turning that 8 percent interest on debt into 11 percent.
The rate of inflation is more than a few percentage points. The real rate of inflation has been close to 10% a year over the past decade. (The official calculation for CPI has been changed several times over the past few decades to make price inflation seem lower. I am using the calculation used during the stagflation of the 70's.) Not only that, but even 0% price inflation would still be theft, since in a free market, prices would naturally decrease by a few percent each year. And, of course, none of that is including the coming hyperinflation. Finally, since the money goes to a very small group of people at the very top, it does increase the rich-poor gap quite a bit.

Regulations are another example. Workplace regulations and the minimum wage almost always serve to help unions maintain their power while preventing poor people
Unions aren't typically made of rich businessmen, but the "middle class," i.e., not a whole lot of impact on the rich poor gap. And they ruin rich people too, by ruining businesses (see the auto industry)
True, unions are middle class. My point was that hurting the poor necessarily increases the income gap.
Business regulations, on the other hand, protect large corporations at the expense of small businesses.
That one's nasty, but I don't think it outweighs the other effects.
I think it's a pretty large factor. There would be few, if any, very large businesses without government interference.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:35:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 9:32:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
IP raises the gap (and the standard of living in general).
I understand your moral reasons for supporting IP, but it certainly does not raise the general standard of living.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:36:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 8:23:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I agree that there would be less economic inequality, but it wouldn't be egalitarian in the usual sense of the word. See Rothbard on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com...

That's my favorite of Rothbard's essays.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:43:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/5/2010 9:36:23 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/5/2010 8:23:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I agree that there would be less economic inequality, but it wouldn't be egalitarian in the usual sense of the word. See Rothbard on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com...

That's my favorite of Rothbard's essays.

My favorite is:

http://williamgillis.blogspot.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2010 9:45:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://c4ss.org...

That's a good article and it shows a number of ways that the government benefits a small group of rich people at the expense of everyone else.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran