Libertarians

[I_am_John_Galt]

Who do you think these drug dealers get it from? They already bulk ship it in, making it legal would just let them import even more drugs to pollute our population.

Yeah, in your world they send it Panalpina, right?  ROFLMAO!!!  :rofl:

 

[George Wallace]

As I said before:

:

I remember an old Health Canada commercial on this.  It involved an egg in a frying pan.

You are painting a very psychedelic picture of yourself as you spread it over the floor on your way into that corner.   ;D

Are you sure you have made the correct career choices?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Take a look at any 3rd world nation and the corporations breaking down the door to exploit the native population. And “enslaved” is different than enslaved in that being “enslaved” is slavery in everything but name and law.

Define "exploited."
By what mechanism are these 3rd world nation native populations being enslaved?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

As I said before:

You are painting a very psychedelic picture of yourself as you spread it over the floor on your way into that corner.  ;D

Are you sure you have made the correct career choices?

I just think that gangsterism is the bigger problem!

 

[FrenchAffair]

Yeah, in your world they send it Panalpina, right?  ROFLMAO!!!   :rofl:

And the billions of dollars of drugs brought into this nation each year just magically appears? It obviously is not that hard to smuggle drugs in, they aren’t bring it over dime bag at a time buddy, the money is in bring over large amounts, and that is exactly what they do.

Making drugs legal will do nothing to stop these criminal empires, it will just make it easier for them to operate. They have been able to survive the war on drugs, billions of dollars spent superficially at putting them out of business, how will opening the market up pose any more of a challenge than that?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

That's why Al Capone is still running Chicago, right?  And they made Tony Montana a rum-runner?

 

[FrenchAffair]

That's why Al Capone is still running Chicago, right?  And they made Tony Montana a rum-runner?

Ending prohibition didn’t end organized crime. The Chicago syndicate (the criminal enterprise created by Al Capone) still exists today and is one of the most powerful organized crime in the country.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Enough bullsh!t.  Read and learn.  This one sums it up pretty well:  http://danieldrezner.com/policy/RTBreview.doc

You can play ostrich if the cognitive dissonance is too much to bear, but the real world is no longer operating like Dickens's England.  Modern corporate governance bodies understand that they have interests in maintaining access to relatively healthy, educated, and motivated work forces, no matter how trivial the labour.  Even if we stipulate that all corporations are operated by decision makers who cleave to the most selfish perspective of the organizational entity, it is clear that there are countervailing mechanisms.  Your hypothesis is so weak that I can freely concede that corporations would be evil incarnate had they a free hand to do so, and still point to the empirical observation that the results of complex social and economic interactions in the long term amount to increasing improvements - because the corporations don't have that free hand.  It doesn't even matter much where the political cultures are notorious for bribery or "squeeze".

Criminals trade narcotics because the criminalization of narcotics makes narcotics trafficking profitable.  If all aspects of criminality were removed, the supply would surge to meet demand, prices would fall, and the criminals would turn to other, more profitable endeavours.  There would still be the social costs, of course.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Actually many Libertarians argue that drug dealers exist only because the drugs are illegal.

Riiiight, and bank robbers only exist because there are banks.  : ;D 

Drug dealers have a monopoly that is regulated through violence, coercion and corruption (in the event of a contract dispute, there isn't really a court system to which one can appeal).  The lesson is that attempts to regulate social behaviour only lead to unintended consequences.Thus, if drugs were sold through legal channels, black market drug dealers (along with the strife and violence associated with them) would cease to exist: this was certainly the US experience with Prohibition in the 20th Century.

I disagree that drug dealers enjoy a monopoly, after all there are constant turf wars between rival drug dealers/gangs and human nature leads us to believe that their violent tendancies would certainly not change overnight if the drugs were legalized. To use your analogy, organized crime did not disapear nor did it become less violent when prohibition was ended.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I can't imagine that kind of setup being created in the first place without "connections".  Do you think any powerful family or business in existence got where it is today by its own bootstraps, or by exactly the abuses of government power to which I object?  And do you think none of the big enterprises keep their fists firmly up the government's *** so they can control which direction it moves? 

But Brad, your libertarian argument is that with less legislation there is less government, while I can agree that less government is a good idea does this also not mean that less people have to have "fists firmly up [their] asses" in order to control the governmental side of the equation?  You really wouldn't be lessening the overall power of government, just narrowing its focus.

I would also argue that the Irving empire and practically any other you could care to mention did indeed pull itself up by its own bootstraps in the beginning.  Now as time has gone on certainly the connections and control measures you speak of have been cultivated and nurtured but I would also argue that in ANY system, capitalist, communist, liberal, conservative, fascist or libertarian the players within it WILL find a way to manipulate the system for their benefit and to maintain a profitable status quo.  I can not see libertarianism being any different.

 

[Reccesoldier]

There are too many Ethical Funds starting up in the Stock Market and too many Business Ethics doctrines being implemented today to think that these practices will continue.  Will they try to get the cheapest labour and resources?  Of course they will.  It is business, but as I have pointed out, once these impoverished people start gaining employment and earning wages, which they did not prior to this, then their standards of living will improve.

With all due respect George I think that you infer upon Ethical Funds a much more significant position within the stock market than they really command. 

Business ethics also do not tend to extend too much into the forgotten backwaters of third world nations.  Of course once a company is exposed as an exploiter then they make a big show of "improving" but as you yourself pointed out, such improvements are very incrimental and likely as not, only affect those backwater suppliers that are linked to the company by the original complaint.

 

[a_majoor]

I would also argue that the Irving empire and practically any other you could care to mention did indeed pull itself up by its own bootstraps in the beginning.  Now as time has gone on certainly the connections and control measures you speak of have been cultivated and nurtured but I would also argue that in ANY system, capitalist, communist, liberal, conservative, fascist or libertarian the players within it WILL find a way to manipulate the system for their benefit and to maintain a profitable status quo.  I can not see libertarianism being any different.

Well that is really the crux of the argument right there. I have no objections to people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps (indeed I hope to do so as well), what I object to is the mentality that once they have reached the commanding hights, they can then use the power of the State to subtly or unsubtly quash all potential competition.

Libertarians realize that people live to "manipulate the system", but take the realistic view that there is less overall harm if the system is small and fragmented, since players who take over parts of the system have far fewer resources in their hands. The Founding Fathers of the United States realized this, hence the principle of separation of powers. The ancient Greeks realized this also, and attempted to solve it through random selection (drawing juries by lot) and strict term limits.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Do you not understand what the “poverty line” means? Sure these people are getting a pay check each week, but they are living under the poverty line.

Who's poverty line?

They do not make enough money to provide themselves and their family with the basic standards of life.

Who's standards?

How is their quality of life supposed to improve when they can not even provide for their families with what they make now. Add in the Libertarian social policies (no welfare, no public education, no public health care) there is absolutely no way that these families would be able to overcome poverty and improve their standard of living from generation to generation.

Of course they do, the same way the western world did, through insurrection, revolution, civil disobedience and societal evolution. 

One must be very careful not to impose his own standards, prejudice or preference upon another people no matter how enlightened those standards- may be.  Can you say North American Indian, Aboriginal, Iraq, Africa... And the beat goes on.

The only reason the western world has the standard of living we do today is because of these social policies that our governments have instituted. Public access to health care, Public access to medical care, public welfare….. you would do away with these programs and thus ensure that any advances western society has made to improve the standard and quality of life of our citizens is reverted.

 

While I agree on a certain level I would point out that our society has those things not because someone imposed them upon us but because they evolved out of our societal choices.  Who is to say what sort of path India will take due to its societal choices.  Societies evolve just as surely as animals and for the same reasons.

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting observation about the provision of "public goods" could be made about the Walkerton tainted water tragedy. Various levels of government agencies knew about the illegal well, poor "quality control" at the public water treatment facility and so on for up to a decade prior to everything going south, but there was no mechanism to compell anyone to do anything until there were actual deaths. One can only imagine how many Walkertons are out there unremarked because no one has died yet.

The people of Walkerton were able to drink thanks to private industry, however, which provided clean bottled water, water which must be clean and pure in order to maintain its share among consumers who choose to purchase it, and inexpensive enough to compete with tap water......the irony of it all is astounding

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I disagree that drug dealers enjoy a monopoly, after all there are constant turf wars between rival drug dealers/gangs and human nature leads us to believe that their violent tendancies would certainly not change overnight if the drugs were legalized. To use your analogy, organized crime did not disapear nor did it become less violent when prohibition was ended.

Cartels, not monopolies, though local monopolies do exist (sorry, I was thinking faster than I was typing) ... organized crime was created in the United States, for all intents and purposes, during the Prohibition era.  Crime grew dramatically and then declined when Prohibition was repealed.  Following the end of Prohibition, organized crime did  eventually turn to other black markets (notably gambling, labour racketeering and drug trafficking), which is why it continues to exist today ... with the increasing popularity of legally sanctioned gambling, it will be interesting to see what happens with that market in the coming years ...

More here (from the Cato Institute): <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html">Policy Analysis: Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure</a>

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Riiiight, and bank robbers only exist because there are banks.  : ;D 

Apples and oranges ...

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Business ethics also do not tend to extend too much into the forgotten backwaters of third world nations.  Of course once a company is exposed as an exploiter then they make a big show of "improving" but as you yourself pointed out, such improvements are very incrimental and likely as not, only affect those backwater suppliers that are linked to the company by the original complaint.

Back in the real world:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2005/04/samizdata_quote_of_the_day_140.html

Samizdata quote of the day
April 16, 2005
Samizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts)  Globalization/economics

This "trade and cheap labour for manufacturing is the rich world exploiting the poor" argument is not precisely new to my ears. When I was a kid in the 1970s I heard the same thing about how we were taking advantage of poor world sweatshops. The only thing that has changed since then is the location of the sweatshops. In those days people talked about Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, those kinds of places. And what do these places have in common? Well, today they are the rich world. Ten years ago we started seeing "Made in China" on our cheap imports. A lot of this stuff then came from Shenzhen, just over the border from Hong Kong. Well, today Shenzhen is for practical purposes a developed world city. The manufacturing has now moved inland. The process is getting faster, and the more of the world is rich, then it gets faster still for the rest.

- Michael Jennings, getting enraged at Christian Aid yesterday evening.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

If I had to choose sides in a dodgeball game between Progressives and Libertarians I would play with the Libertarians.  I would rather, however, watch them from the stands as they get head-shots.

I do believe that people should be the master of their own destiny and that government does not know best.  I believe that people should be responsible for their actions.  I also believe that unfettered self-interest can lead to a break-down of the society in which individuals live, especially as those societies grow larger and become impersonal.  It can be argued that the West (read English speaking countries) avoided revolutions because of a compromise between free-will/free trade and some form of socialism.  The welfare state annoys me, but I also don't like the idea of a family being sunk if the bread-winner loses his job.  I don't come from a rich family, but my knee got fixed by the same guy that fixes NHL players and my folks didn't have to go into debt.  I don't want the governent to tell my how to raise my kids or decide what movies they can watch, but I do appreciate them checking on the safety of the foods that I eat and the hygiene of restaurants I eat in. 

Now, I do think that we've gone a little too far down the welfare state road.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Well said Red_Five.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>To use your analogy, organized crime did not disapear nor did it become less violent when prohibition was ended.

No, it did not, but how many organizations do you know of that are heavily into bootlegging (except perhaps where the taxes are very high)?