Instigator
Banned
What were governments supposed to do during the Great Depression? I'm curious to know if your money-worshipping ideals hold up when the going gets really tough.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Simple question to libertarians
- Thread starter Instigator
- Start date
- Status
captainbiotch
Banned
Instigator said:
Who wants to talk to a smart ass trying to pick a fight?
Alucard said:
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
Instigator
Banned
captainbiotch said:
Good bye.
Instigator said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Scroll down, read "US Federal Reserve and Money Supply". Even better, try reading "Free to Choose" or "A Monetary History of the United States", both by Milton Friedman (and others). That should give you a pretty good idea of what libertarians believe could've been done by the government during the depression. Of course, given your "money-worshiping" comment, I suspect you're naturally biased against any argument libertarians could possibly come up with.
Insofar as America is concerned?
I dunno, for starters they could try to not make it worse and / or prolong it like FDR's policies did.
I suppose we could have learned our lesson and gotten rid of the Fed. And stopped stupid things like trade protectionism. And generally done a lot of things better, you know, instead of tearing the constitution in half and pissing on it.
* * *
Edit: Although if you were you talking about the idea of governmental charity, then that's a lot easier. None. Ever.
I dunno, for starters they could try to not make it worse and / or prolong it like FDR's policies did.
I suppose we could have learned our lesson and gotten rid of the Fed. And stopped stupid things like trade protectionism. And generally done a lot of things better, you know, instead of tearing the constitution in half and pissing on it.
* * *
Edit: Although if you were you talking about the idea of governmental charity, then that's a lot easier. None. Ever.
Instigator
Banned
p2535748 said:
It doesn't matter if I'm biased, all that matters is your solution to fix a problem.
Actually, the Wikipedia link only provides part of an answer. It goes to great lenghts to explain what some would have done to avoid the Great Depression, but my original question refers to solutions when the damage was already done with the bankrupcies and the massive unemployment
a) This thread is pretty hostile and non-intellectual to begin with.
b) Since you want to talk about bankruptcy and unemployment and not the economic aspect, then this is much easier.
The government should do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Individuals can donate of themselves and / or can organize larger private charity organizations to help people. Government has no role here.
Maximize the freedom of the market, maximize the freedom of the individual.
b) Since you want to talk about bankruptcy and unemployment and not the economic aspect, then this is much easier.
The government should do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Individuals can donate of themselves and / or can organize larger private charity organizations to help people. Government has no role here.
Alucard said:
Maximize the freedom of the market, maximize the freedom of the individual.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
JayDubya said:
Awesome plan.
Instigator
Banned
JayDubya said:
That's what I suspected, unless there's disagreement among libertarians.
Thanks!
Instigator said:
Well what do you expect? We don't oppose things like Welfare and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and all this entitlement shit that's a financial albatross hanging around our collective necks and then turn around and say, "OH, except during the Great Depression, then it's okay."
Of course, neither can the progressives and the Keynesians claim that they felt that such things should be temporary institutions, either.
Instigator said:It doesn't matter if I'm biased, all that matters is your solution to fix a problem.
Actually, the Wikipedia link only provides part of an answer. It goes to great lenghts to explain what some would have done to avoid the Great Depression, but my original question refers to solutions when the damage was already done with the bankrupcies and the massive unemployment
Well, that's sort of why I guided you to more in depth explanations (as found in books). The argument is essentially that the government could've helped out by freeing up money supply, thereby allowing corporations to borrow more easily. This increase in investment would then hopefully lead to more jobs. Basically, instead of the government directly funding projects, it's a way for the government to allow corporations to fund projects more easily. The more in-depth explanation is given in either one of the books I mentioned earlier.
Instigator
Banned
JayDubya said:
Because at the other end of the political spectrum, when dogma reigns supreme and government balloons and social programs go out of control, financial reality will kick in soon or later and tough choices will have to be made.
The Great Depression presents a nice example because if governments had done nothing. like you're prescribing, the end results would no doubt have been massive social unrest and political pressure, forcing those same governments to act in some fashion.
buckfutter
Member
Socially I'm pretty close to the libertarian point of view, I think, but economically I don't think I could ever be convinced that a free market would actually fly. Not without shitting on a huge amount of people as it soared overhead.
As usual, the "solution" is probably some sort of compromise. Unfortunately I find it hard to be convinced that any system is going to really keep working in the long term.
/random musings
As usual, the "solution" is probably some sort of compromise. Unfortunately I find it hard to be convinced that any system is going to really keep working in the long term.
/random musings
Smiling Bandit
Banned
Weird question, didn't know they were money worshipping. Makes kinda sense though. Well, since they are the masters over many books I guess reading would be an option during depression. Maybe you could find some helpful tips to get you out of the depression or how to avoid another one.
JzeroT1437
Member
I don't know much about libertarianism, but from this, it sounds a lot like idealism. How can anyone realistically buy into this? You can't expect people to respect the rights of every individual, nor can you expect everybody to behave peacefully or honestly. This whole political philosophy reeks of short-sighted individualism.
People choose their philosophies (religious, social, and political) in herds; they always have and always will. Consequently, there will always be people who disagree with these philosophies thereby creating social tension. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's how it works. To believe that something otherwise is possible is to be blinding one's self.
border said:
Basically. capitalism and business to its very core seek to destroy competition and without laws and caps on it, it will inevitablly lead to a small upperclass and a very large working poor class with little or no middle class.
More over I am curious why libertarians believe that any laws and caps on business is unconstitutional? Since Jefferson, Madison and pretty much every founding father DID NOT BELIEVE in corporate personhood, in fact it wasnt even created till the later 1800s(through manipulation by railroad companies). Jefferson himself wrote several times about the corruption and evil of business if left to its own devices and said we are not to work in its interest but in the interest of keeping a middle class and a poor that were capable of voting because they were taken care of. Business inevitablly works against that goal.
Hell the founding fathers were mostlly freemasons, the first union to have ever formed.
JzeroT1437 said:
I think you've misunderstood. The argument is not that libertarians expect people to act "peacefully and honestly", but that when they do act that way, others (or the government) shouldn't infringe on their rights. In other words, as long as they're not harming anyone else or defrauding someone else, the government should leave them be. It's not that they expect everyone to act this way.
JzeroT1437
Member
p2535748 said:
Ah, so they do agree that authority figures are necessary, but only as means for squelching crime? But if this is true, who decides what infringes on another person's rights and what doesn't?
Funny, that's what I say about Marxism.
Indeed, and that is why governments exist - to remove liberty from those that would abuse their freedom to do harm to others, defraud them, trample on their rights, etc. The difference in philosophies is not at that level, but rather at where liberty is removed and from whom. Libertarianism is not preemptive or utilitarian in its approach - you do not remove liberty from the many because you expect the few to abuse it. This does not differ when you are talking about people or talking about businesses.
hoochinlondon
Member
Instigator said:
im not american so not commenting on THE great depression but when this kind of issue happens to a country and you need to revive the economy you go to war!
JzeroT1437 said:
Now you're getting into the issues of what separates a philosophy from a system of government. The quote you selected only lays out the principles of (their interpretation) of libertarian thought, it doesn't lay out exactly how a society should be run.
Anticipating (perhaps) a response of "isn't that sort of nebulous and wishy washy?", I would point you to something like the Bill of Rights. Does the Bill of Rights state exactly who gets to decide if something is free speech or not? No, it just says that, with a few exceptions, the right to free speech and freedom of religion should not be impinged upon.
This is essentially the same thing, except it's saying that, with few exceptions, my rights to do what I want with my life should not be impinged upon.
Jonm1010 said:
Gah, I can see this is devolving already. The problem is that so many wackos have co-opted the term libertarianism that now people believe that this is the sort of crap they believe in. Libertarians do not believe that the market should be totally unregulated. Obviously some regulations are needed to protect competition, and to prevent fraud.
Also, I don't think freemasonry was a union. I'm not sure about it, but I've never heard that, and I can't find any reference to that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Freemasonry
JzeroT1437
Member
JayDubya said:
But who decides where it is appropriate to remove the rights from citizens? Who decides what is and isn't impeding on a person's "freedom"?
p2535748 said:
But the goal of business is to increase profits which invitablly leads to the small concentration of rich owners and stockholders seeking to decrease wages and cut benefits of its workers to turn that profit consistenlly. Yet you all seem to advocate the businesses rights above all else, or at least that they have the right to do that, I just dont get that.
I would also like to know how libertarians anwser to the FACT that since Reagans deregulation in the 80s and then Clinton with NAFTA and further free trade things, that has allowed businesses the most free reign since before the sherman antitrust acts etc. That following with those deregulations and such the middle class has shrunken and the number of poor has inreased and the gap between the rich and the middlle-class/poor has never been greater since that time.
hoochinlondon
Member
I wasnt being funny its true
not only has war solved the economic problems of many many countries its also due to battlefield technology that we have mobile phones and microwaves and a million other devices.
Even Japan only became the global economic force it wavers in and out of because it had the atomic bomb dropped on it and it had to start again.
Britain was the only country that fought in WW2 to be worse off than when it started, American became very rich, britain used most of its nation wealth to buy weapons and supplies from them pre america joining the war. The Germans had to rebuild their country from scratch and did so very efficently and ended up with a strong well organised industry driven economy. Russia gained a huge amount of territory and Japan is mentioned above.
not only has war solved the economic problems of many many countries its also due to battlefield technology that we have mobile phones and microwaves and a million other devices.
Even Japan only became the global economic force it wavers in and out of because it had the atomic bomb dropped on it and it had to start again.
Britain was the only country that fought in WW2 to be worse off than when it started, American became very rich, britain used most of its nation wealth to buy weapons and supplies from them pre america joining the war. The Germans had to rebuild their country from scratch and did so very efficently and ended up with a strong well organised industry driven economy. Russia gained a huge amount of territory and Japan is mentioned above.
chaostrophy
Member
I disagree with many of the tenets of libertarianism, but judging from some of the comments about it on this thread and various others, it is grossly misunderstood by many leftists. From my experience, libertarians don't tend to be ultra-rich assholes who think they're better than the poor in every way and want to see people starving on the street. I've seen more of that self-righteousness from standard conservatives, and tend to think it comes more from the social/religious side of their ideology than the free-market side (that may sound paradoxical but I'm not sure how to explain it better). Libertarians are more purely rational and don't think of themselves as innately good or special (except for the Randroids but most libertarians don't take them seriously).
Libertarianism is really about stabilizing and strengthening the economy by decentralizing wealth, seeing the government as a single point of failure and limiting its power to cause massive damage.
Libertarianism is really about stabilizing and strengthening the economy by decentralizing wealth, seeing the government as a single point of failure and limiting its power to cause massive damage.
JzeroT1437
Member
p2535748 said:
And what if what you want to do with your life heavily influences another group of people either directly or indirectly? What if you want to build a superhighway through a community, but doing so would heavily detriment the lives of those already living in the community? Should you be allowed to do so? It's influencing their lives, but is doing do indirectly, and it's what you want. This is both an economic and social issue which the government would have to decide on.
It seems that you're suggesting that the government should be run almost solely as a judicial system to decide what is and isn't impeding on peoples' rights, and to rectify any problems that arise, yet if this is so, they are still the sole governing body which decides what people can and can't do, and could therefore "infringe" on the rights of the individual. This philosophy seems very circular.
Further, aside from tax collection, what exactly does the government do that's so invasive to the common citizen?
p2535748 said:
Free masonry was a trade and I guess there are plenty of theories of they're formation. But it is pretty hard to say that they werent originaly formed as a collection of masons gathered together. By definiton that would be a union. Speculation has also arisen that there rise out of the poor class was probably due that since masonry was not a widely held skill, that there coming together allowed them to receive higher salary and wages than they could previouslly and individually by controlling its flow and such.
However its offtopic and probably wasnt the best argument as my basis for saying it was flimsy evidence at best.
Jonm1010 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Scroll down to "Household income over time". There's no doubt that income inequality has risen over time, but the notion that the poor are getting poorer, or that there's more of them is not true. In 1980, the bottom20% of wage earners made ~16,500. In 2003, they made ~18,000 (note that this is in constant dollars). It's not a big increase, and I'm not trying to say that we should be happy with this picture.
chaostrophy
Member
border said:
Left-Libertarian perhaps? That's generally what I identify as politically. I generally don't support increasing redistribution of wealth, but unlike most mainline libertarians I think it's just to focus on cutting back government benefits to the rich, and taxation from the poor, first.
As for corporations, they are not free-market entities. They exist through government interference in the market, called corporate personhood laws. Respectable libertarians support abolishing them.
You blame the corporations. I blame the people. Everyone in the US has access to a full college education. Don't want it? I really don't care if you die of starvation. Let that money go to someone in a developing country that is willing to work hard. I love free trade!Jonm1010 said:
JzeroT1437 said:
On your first point, you're still confusing philosophy with a system of government. Libertarians don't say that there should just be one law that says "don't infring on other people's rights", but that this notion should be a guiding principle in determining whether or not a law is reasonable. It's basically saying that if a law infringes on people's rights, it better have a good reason for doing so.
As for the whole "who gets to decide" argument, you have that problem with any philosophy, and the answer is generally that the people decide. Libertarianism isn't somehow opposed to the idea of representative democracy, it just says that the people in the government, and the people voting should try to think about this principle when making their decisions. So, if the government wants to build a superhighway through someone's backyard, they have to explain why they think it's okay to infringe on all of those people's property rights.
As to your second question, about what the government does, the answers are varied depending on what kind of libertarian you're speaking to. A common example is the legalization of drugs. Most libertarians believe that if your drug use doesn't harm anyone else, then there's no reason why it should be illegal. Similar theories would apply to prostitution, though there's obviously some need for regulation in both cases.
p2535748 said:
Thank-you for confirming what I said:
The gap has increased by a much larger margin since that deregulation stuff. Theres also an argument to be made that the slow deteriaration of Unions and such since Trumans veto was overwridden in 47 in which the Taft-Hartley act was passed which started a slow trend of taking away the power of unions also contributed highlly to this trend.
JzeroT1437
Member
JayDubya said:
This is crazy. How can you possibly say this isn't idealism in action. You expect people who have money to go out and throw it to the poor because there's an economic crisis?
But don't people judge what is and isn't influencing them based on their own morals? Wouldn't the Christian right say that having their children exposed to prostitutes or having to deal with the potential dangers caused by free drug use would be influencing them? Are we supposed to expect people to put aside their own individual convictions in order to decide whether a law does or doesn't influence anybody but the individual committing the act? I fail to see how this works. Further, it seems that you're overlooking all of the side-effects that come about as a result of things such as drug use--yes there are people who use illegal drugs responsibly, but there are also those who cause large social messes as a result of their own vices. The same can be said of prostitution. Those kinds of laws are mostly in place for public protection--the same as speeding laws-- and not to infringe on peoples' rights.
Everything the government did during the great depression just made it worse.
Protectionism (which is what actually caused most of the great depression), wage/price controls, massive amounts of new regulations on the economy, huge growth of the government, all were detrimental to the economy.
Luckily the USSC bailed us out by ruling the NRA and the AAA unconstitutional.
Although with your rhetoric about 'love of money' shows that you clearly understand nothing about libertarianism or free market capitalism in general.
The reason people oppose governmental interference in the economy is that it never does any good, by it's very nature it can't. It's not because of greed or selfishness or anything of the sort. Just that through reason and logic people have come to the conclusion that government is merely a parasitic organism that is incapable of actually creating any wealth.
I recommend you read Hayek or Mises or Bastiat or any of the economists from the Austrian school. Maybe then you will have a deeper understanding of why libertarians think as they do. Everyone should read Adam Smith as well, as his work is the root of all modern economics.
Mises was one of the only economists to correctly predict the Great Depression:
http://www.mises.org/story/2344
I especially recommend Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, as it explains in detail how collectivism invariably leads to reductions in freedom, and ultimately, totalitarianism. This is the reason many libertarians and classical liberals fear governmental involvement in the economy, not simply due to selfish desires.
Also, Bastiat's essay That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen is a good explanation of how you have to look at the picture as a whole, you can't just look at how the government is providing money for public works and assume that is a net benefit because it is providing jobs for people, when that tax money, if left in the hands of individuals would still be spent and would still provide jobs for people, but in a more efficient manner than the government could ever dream of doing.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Protectionism (which is what actually caused most of the great depression), wage/price controls, massive amounts of new regulations on the economy, huge growth of the government, all were detrimental to the economy.
Luckily the USSC bailed us out by ruling the NRA and the AAA unconstitutional.
Although with your rhetoric about 'love of money' shows that you clearly understand nothing about libertarianism or free market capitalism in general.
The reason people oppose governmental interference in the economy is that it never does any good, by it's very nature it can't. It's not because of greed or selfishness or anything of the sort. Just that through reason and logic people have come to the conclusion that government is merely a parasitic organism that is incapable of actually creating any wealth.
I recommend you read Hayek or Mises or Bastiat or any of the economists from the Austrian school. Maybe then you will have a deeper understanding of why libertarians think as they do. Everyone should read Adam Smith as well, as his work is the root of all modern economics.
Mises was one of the only economists to correctly predict the Great Depression:
http://www.mises.org/story/2344
I especially recommend Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, as it explains in detail how collectivism invariably leads to reductions in freedom, and ultimately, totalitarianism. This is the reason many libertarians and classical liberals fear governmental involvement in the economy, not simply due to selfish desires.
Also, Bastiat's essay That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen is a good explanation of how you have to look at the picture as a whole, you can't just look at how the government is providing money for public works and assume that is a net benefit because it is providing jobs for people, when that tax money, if left in the hands of individuals would still be spent and would still provide jobs for people, but in a more efficient manner than the government could ever dream of doing.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Jonm1010 said:
I said specifically in my post that there's no doubt that income inequality has increased. My disagreement was with the argument that there are more poor people today than there were before deregulation, or that the bottom wage earners have less money than they did before deregulation.
What would be the libertarian answer to Civil Rights issues of the 20th century? "If a business does not want to serve certain citizens, they are free to do so and the government should not interfere"? Or are they less strict about the interpretation of equal protection?
That's hardly an answer to his concerns about pie-in-the-sky idealism. And unless the guy you're saying this to is a Marxist, it's not even a witty retort......just an attempt to change the subject.
JzeroT1437 said:
Yes, it's crazy to believe that "Robin Hood-style" governmental thievery is wrong and that if people see others suffering and want them to be helped, they should help them.
"Oh, those poor people. SOMEONE should do something. Not me, but someone. This is clearly the city's job."
If it bothers you that much, do something yourself. Volunteer. Donate. Organize.
You don't have a right to take other people's property against their will.
border said:
Absolutely, and I have said this on numerous occasions, in case you didn't get the memo.
Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is absolutely bad law. If I own a business, I should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. If people don't like that, well, that's what boycotts are for.
This isn't just about race. It's about smoking / non-smoking, trans-fat bans, whatever other stupid intrusions nanny government has made into private business. Unless we've switched to communism and I missed the memo, a restaurant or bar is not communal property all of a sudden.
aswedc said:
Full college Education? really? I sure dont, I am taking out huge loans just to get by. Pelt grants dont help for shit and im not a minority. Please show me this free money cause id love to have some. In my school we had several strong A students who DIDNT get one scholarship and since the cost was too much they ended up not being able to go.
yep work hard like Mexico am i rite? like how the mexicans started asking for a slight raise and ANY sort of health benefits and (steel, i think) businesses up and leave for cheaper labor in another country, yep go free trade. I mean businesses like so deserve more rights then the people who allow them to exist in the first place.
And if you dont care if they die of starvation well I would ask you to read some of Jefferson's letters and his explaination abut why he changed right of property to the pursuit of happiness. Which was he believed it was the GOVERNMENTS job to make sure EVERYONE had the ability to pursue happiness and be taken care of. Caring for the poor and there rights was what he said made us dfferent from the monarchies of England.
border said:
I don't like this notion that there's one "official" libertarian answer. Like any philosophy, it can be interpreted (and often misinterpreted) differently by different people in different situations. In my mind, there's no disconnect between the ideas of libertarianism and the civil rights movement. Businesses and governments were infringing on non-white's people rights to do what they wanted with their lives, and the government stepped in to set things straight.
- Status