Evidence that libertarian states are more prosperous?

[eugenekop]

One of the hardest points in arguing for libertarianism is that there is not enough evidence that libertarian states outperform welfare states and mixed economies. Of course there is America which is richer than Europe, and there is Hong-Kong and south Korea, but there are also Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, all those countries have huge public spending but they also have a very high standard of living. If libertarianism is so radically better, then how can these anomalies exist?

Germany is much more socialistic than Britain but it provides comparable and even higher standard of living. In Singapore the government controls half of the business, yet Singapore is probably more successful than Honk-Kong. Once we could be proud of Ireland which had a limited government and tremendous growth, but now Ireland is bankrupt.

There are historical problems as well. During the American Gilded age the growth rate was a bit smaller than the growth rate in America in the 20th century. Besides almost all western countries have moved from limited government to full blown welfare state, even Honk-Kong now introduces minimum wages.

So guys, do we have evidence that shows that libertarian policies lead to more prosperity? I think we need to have this evidence in order to persuade others.

[oyarde]

Tell ya what , Find me a place where I can live with the lowest taxation possible and I will show you how easy it is to prosper .

[hazek]

What libertarian policies, there is not a single libertarian state I'd know of in the whole world. Hong Kong comes close, but that's about it.

I think it's better to focus on example in segments of the market, for instance health care vs telecommunications and draw examples from there.

[ChaosControl]

Why do you think only one economic model can be successful?
Both a libertarian or a socialist model can be successful if well implemented. Both can also be failures.

[cswake]

Doing a lot of critical thinking lately? :) You're right to ask for evidence, but you're talking about highly complicated systems that will have lots of coincidental events - both intra and internationally. Thankfully, there are resources that have already attempted to compile the evidence:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/

[JoshLowry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otZgd9wxE98&t=1m30s

Many countries are living beyond their means. There will be a correction.

Every "recognized" government approves of the the fiat currency, fractional reserve banking system. No?

[hazek]

Both a libertarian or a socialist model can be successful if well implemented. Both can also be failures.

Wrong. A socialist model can never ever be successful in the long run. Ever.

[Epic]

but there are also Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, all those countries have huge public spending but they also have a very high standard of living. If libertarianism is so radically better, then how can these anomalies exist?


If you remove spending and taxation components of economic freedom, then the Heritage Foundation found that Denmark had the highest economic freedom in the world, because they have low regulation.

The Scandinavian states are helped by many factors such as small size of country, homogenous population, and low defense spending.

[Andrew-Austin]

One of the hardest points in arguing for libertarianism is that there is not enough evidence that libertarian states outperform welfare states and mixed economies. Of course there is America which is richer than Europe, and there is Hong-Kong and south Korea, but there are also Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, all those countries have huge public spending but they also have a very high standard of living. If libertarianism is so radically better, then how can these anomalies exist?

It is the growth of the private sector, of markets, that fuels the growth of the state. If a country has tons of government spending, and at the same time it has what can be considered relatively high standards of living, it is only in spite of the government spending.

You defend it on a theoretical basis. Government produces nothing, it only redistributes. A crude hypothetical example to make a point: Say the only things a government spends its extorted tax money on is 1) a ditch digging program that is intended to create jobs and 2) to create rovers that can be launched to explore other planets. It extorts 100 billion from the market place to finance these two programs. Could these two programs have done anything to increase people's happiness and standard of living? Its very easy to say no. But then a statist comes along and points out that this country does have high standards of living, which he claims (without any proper theoretical explanation as to how) that this must necessarily be because of these two programs. Now with this example you can easily say no the government's programs did not increase standards of living, but my point is you can do this with any government expenditure. How would the free peoples of this country have spent that 100 billion dollars? They might have invested it in computer technology, they might have padded their retirement funds more, they might have spent it on a similar but better and more efficient market plan to explore other planets. All this activity was crowded out by the arbitrary government expenditures.

It is not enough for the statists to say that "country X has high levels of government spending, country X has ' high standards of living', therefor the latter fact only resulted from the former. You could just as easily say country X has higher standards of living because it has more red heads or something silly. History is very easy to distort, without correct theory one can not understand history, therefor you argue theory.


Once we could be proud of Ireland which had a limited government and tremendous growth, but now Ireland is bankrupt.

There are historical problems as well. During the American Gilded age the growth rate was a bit smaller than the growth rate in America in the 20th century. Besides almost all western countries have moved from limited government to full blown welfare state, even Honk-Kong now introduces minimum wages.

It is the success of the market which encourages the growth of the state, which makes the growth of the state possible to begin with. If a country starts out relatively free under a state, that state will have all the greater potential to grow in to a totalitarian behemoth. But the growth of the state can not continue unabated, it must necessarily come to an end.

[oyarde]

If you remove spending and taxation components of economic freedom, then the Heritage Foundation found that Denmark had the highest economic freedom in the world, because they have low regulation.

The Scandinavian states are helped by many factors such as small size of country, homogenous population, and low defense spending.

The real key in the small countries , I think is total population , there really are not that many draining the system by using all the services .

[Liberty4life]

Your argument against libertarianism falls flat on this forum.

While it is true that to a degree society can benefit from forms of socialism, and I admit some parts of it are attractive.

But they deter as much as they attract, no true liberty minded person would be willing to endure some of the restrictions
in these countries.
Try chewing gum in Singapore, or even jaywalk across the street. While their logic makes sense as why, like people won't
spit their gum out on the street, or get hit by a car trying to jaywalk.

Thats the problem with nannyism you never grow up. Your government for whatever reason has people in it who believe its
their job to keep you in line.

So you create a class system of elites and serfs.

I mean turn it over and look at what it is.

In a libertarian society, the people themselves choose their own happiness, not the government.

[oyarde]

Wrong. A socialist model can never ever be successful in the long run. Ever.

In a large country . I agree , long term , doomed to failure and reversing. People seem to have a hard time understanding how expensive socialism / communism is and how much lower productivity you will get by removing incentive .

[Philhelm]

Your argument against libertarianism falls flat on this forum.

While it is true that to a degree society can benefit from forms of socialism, and I admit some parts of it are attractive.

But they deter as much as they attract, no true liberty minded person would be willing to endure some of the restrictions
in these countries.
Try chewing gum in Singapore, or even jaywalk across the street. While their logic makes sense as why, like people won't
spit their gum out on the street, or get hit by a car trying to jaywalk.

Thats the problem with nannyism you never grow up. Your government for whatever reason has people in it who believe its
their job to keep you in line.

So you create a class system of elites and serfs.

I mean turn it over and look at what it is.

In a libertarian society, the people themselves choose their own happiness, not the government.

Exactly. The concept of liberty is about far more than owning shiny baubles. The most important aspect is that people would be free to go about their business, as they see fit, so long as they do not infringe the life, liberty, or property of another. That alone would be the highest standard of living.

[Agorism]

This all sounds like a utilitarian argument anyways, which isn't the point.

[hazek]

In a large country . I agree , long term , doomed to failure and reversing. People seem to have a hard time understanding how expensive socialism / communism is and how much lower productivity you will get by removing incentive .

My country has 2mil people and we have huge problems atm. We have public health care that has huge problems, we have public railroads that have huge problems, we have public energy that has huge corruption, we have public schools that are becoming worse and worse, we just had to reform our social security because it cost too much, we have record deficits and record debt, we have corruption all over the place, we have major factories going out of business, we have record high unemployment, we have public roads with big problems and huge fiascoes when building something and I could go on and on and on

And on top of it, we're not even 20 years old. So no. Not just in big countries but anywhere - socialism FAILS.

[Liberty4life]

OMG has no one said it yet? The reason socialism fails to work in the long term is that what happens when the wealthy
run out of money.
Thats where we are right now, the government has played robin hood until the vaults are empty.

[oyarde]

My country has 2mil people and we have huge problems atm. We have public health care that has huge problems, we have public railroads that have huge problems, we have public energy that has huge corruption, we have public schools that are becoming worse and worse, we just had to reform our social security because it cost too much, we have record deficits and record debt, we have corruption all over the place, we have major factories going out of business, we have record high unemployment, we have public roads with big problems and huge fiascoes when building something and I could go on and on and on

And on top of it, we're not even 20 years old. So no. Not just in big countries but anywhere - socialism FAILS.

The unemployment , lower productivity , closing plants etc are going to compound the problems quickly . If they need a good man to take over the corrupt energy , I may be available : ) . 2 Million people ? That is not enough to sustain public rail and govt health in my opinion .Rail should be paid by users , cost determined by usage . Health is on the individual .

[oyarde]

Two million total ? How many working ? Cannot support a social security system like that .....

[hazek]

Rail isn't free, it's just ran and owned by the government. I think we have around 1mil people working in both sectors.

[JacksonianBME]

In terms of the Scandinavian states, like mentioned earlier, they have higher economic freedom in terms of business investment. So it is easier than in the United States to open a business there and this makes up for the taxes to support a social safety net like theirs. To reiterate, their healthcare system works because of a homogenous population. There is a much smaller distribution of health condition in such a population, so the risk is much more easier to insure against. Also, I think pretty sure ethics plays a role. For example, in Sweden I think nearly 85% belong to the Church of Sweden, so prima facie it seems many of them would hold the same ideals.

It also helps that Norway sits on the best real estate in the world. Lots of natural resources for exporting and GDP growth. In addition a natural resource economy is by default protectionist.

[noxagol]

OMG has no one said it yet? The reason socialism fails to work in the long term is that what happens when the wealthy
run out of money.
Thats where we are right now, the government has played robin hood until the vaults are empty.


Robin hood stolen from the government and gave people back their money.

[JacksonianBME]

It also helps that they have sensible central banks. I know the Swedish one is raising interest rates right now because commodity and utility prices are getting too hot (we all know that this was probably caused by prior easing of rates). http://www.riksbank.com/

[agar]

Nations like Norway, Germany, Sweden etc have high standards of living IN SPITE OF their socialist policies...NOT BECAUSE OF.

They would be even more prosperous if they had 100% free economies. The relative prosperity that still exists in some "mixed economies" comes from the free market half, not the socialist half.

Imagine a short chubby man marrying a tall statuesque female.

They have a child who grows up to be an 6'7" NBA power forward. Only a fool would point to the father and say that it was his genes...or that this athletic body was the result of a "mixed gene pool".....No....It was clearly the mother!

Same thing for the relative success of the "mixed economies" of Europe....which by the way....

[zade]

OMG has no one said it yet? The reason socialism fails to work in the long term is that what happens when the wealthy
run out of money.
Thats where we are right now, the government has played robin hood until the vaults are empty.

What?!

[keh10]

It also helps that Norway sits on the best real estate in the world. Lots of natural resources for exporting and GDP growth. In addition a natural resource economy is by default protectionist.

Yes, many of the Scandinavian countries have huge trade surpluses from their natural resources. I believe a lot of those resources were nationalized until recent history, so there is no telling what kind of wealth these countries could have had if they didn't implement such socialized policies.

[BarryDonegan]

Honestly, I'd take an economic comparison between my right to work home state of Tennessee versus other states with more Nanny State mentalities. Tennessee hasn't been hit as badly by the downturn as some other places, and the cost of living remains low and comfortable.

[JacksonianBME]

Honestly, I'd take an economic comparison between my right to work home state of Tennessee versus other states with more Nanny State mentalities. Tennessee hasn't been hit as badly by the downturn as some other places, and the cost of living remains low and comfortable.

I always love it when they rank average wage by state. Tennessee is always near the bottom, yet you can live somewhat comfortably in pretty glitzy Nashville on $40,000.

[oyarde]

I always love it when they rank average wage by state. Tennessee is always near the bottom, yet you can live somewhat comfortably in pretty glitzy Nashville on $40,000.

Yes , i know a guy who lives just outside Nashville that makes less than 50 k .

[farrar]

Wrong. A socialist model can never ever be successful in the long run. Ever.

I would never say never. I find it highly unlikely, but if motivation and education of the people in that direction was maintained... I think it could be. The wealthy do not need to be. Just have everyone live on the same wage payed out by the government. It didn't work great for Somalia, but if they had some sort of nazi-esque motivation I bet they could have squeezed a few generations out of it if not at least 1. It would be a closed society though, no immigration. I wouldn't like it, but it is humanly conceivable. Just because somthing is highly improbable doesn't mean it is impossible.
I like the anarco-capitalist model better though, because it is self motivating and does not require an educated masses.

In regards to the OP, I would argue that prosperity is irrelevant. If a libertarian society was the worst prospect for prosperity ever humanly concieved I would still be a libertarian because it is still the only moral choice. It accepts the right of a man to own himself and the productions of his labor. It promotes non-aggression without cause, and it promotes the individual over the group.

Socialism asserts no one owns himself, his productions belong to the whole, violence in the name of a greater good it fine if truely for the whole and it promotes the idea that the group presides over the individual forgetting that a group is nothing but many individuals.

Utilitarian argumentation is fine when called for, but I don't think it should ever be the major case for libertarianism.

[hazek]

I respectfully disagree. It can never work. It's human nature, period. A socialist market will never seek progress and will never be prosperous.

And you have it backwards, it's the capitalist system that requires the masses to be educated about asserting their rights and why and how theirs system functions and it's socialist system where the masses can have their brains turned of knowing that the nanny state will provide for every aspect of their life as long as they play by the rules.

[cindy25]

the Nordic countries are prosperous mainly because of the protestant work ethic, and the small family size.

in Latin countries it does not work.

[Angel]

I always love it when they rank average wage by state. Tennessee is always near the bottom, yet you can live somewhat comfortably in pretty glitzy Nashville on $40,000.

Do keep in mind that the states use a socialistic system with federal tax dollars. The federal spending in Tennessee per dollar of federal taxes collected is $1.27. So Tennessee is receiving $1.27 back for every $1 they give the fed, being more dependent on the federal government for their economic health. If you are looking at the economic health of each state, as if they were a sovereign country, you should take into consideration their relationship with the federal government.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

I have always wondered though, how they ultimately determined that, say, for instance, Virginia would get a bigger percentage of tax money than New York.

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly. The concept of liberty is about far more than owning shiny baubles. The most important aspect is that people would be free to go about their business, as they see fit, so long as they do not infringe the life, liberty, or property of another. That alone would be the highest standard of living.

I agree completely.

A prosperous economy is a positive side effect of liberty and freedom, but, even if it wasn't, I'd take a little less "prosperity", especially as it's sold now, in exchange for more freedom.

[Travlyr]

I agree completely.

A prosperous economy is a positive side effect of liberty and freedom, but, even if it wasn't, I'd take a little less "prosperity", especially as it's sold now, in exchange for more freedom.

I agree too, yet I am convinced that a free society is only possible with honest money.

[james1906]

I agree completely.

A prosperous economy is a positive side effect of liberty and freedom, but, even if it wasn't, I'd take a little less "prosperity", especially as it's sold now, in exchange for more freedom.

OMGZ!1111111111111!!!!!!!1 you wannt to live in Sumalia!

[JacksonianBME]

OMGZ!1111111111111!!!!!!!1 you wannt to live in Sumalia!

LOL. I fucking can't stand people who comeback at me with that straw-man. Government mules, I swear.

[Anti Federalist]

OMGZ!1111111111111!!!!!!!1 you wannt to live in Sumalia!

LoL.

Adversity breeds men.

Prosperity breeds monsters.

I'm really coming to the conclusion, as things spiral out of control, that those words are truth.

[JoshLowry]

LoL.

Adversity breeds men.

Prosperity breeds monsters.

I'm really coming to the conclusion, as things spiral out of control, that those words are truth.

Don't think I've thought about that. The good guys tend to shine when times are darkened!

[Liberty4life]

In this case robin hood takes most for himself

Robin hood stolen from the government and gave people back their money.

[jbuttell]

I would never say never. I find it highly unlikely, but if motivation and education of the people in that direction was maintained... I think it could be. The wealthy do not need to be. Just have everyone live on the same wage payed out by the government. It didn't work great for Somalia, but if they had some sort of nazi-esque motivation I bet they could have squeezed a few generations out of it if not at least 1. It would be a closed society though, no immigration. I wouldn't like it, but it is humanly conceivable. Just because somthing is highly improbable doesn't mean it is impossible.
I like the anarco-capitalist model better though, because it is self motivating and does not require an educated masses.

In regards to the OP, I would argue that prosperity is irrelevant. If a libertarian society was the worst prospect for prosperity ever humanly concieved I would still be a libertarian because it is still the only moral choice. It accepts the right of a man to own himself and the productions of his labor. It promotes non-aggression without cause, and it promotes the individual over the group.

Socialism asserts no one owns himself, his productions belong to the whole, violence in the name of a greater good it fine if truely for the whole and it promotes the idea that the group presides over the individual forgetting that a group is nothing but many individuals.

Utilitarian argumentation is fine when called for, but I don't think it should ever be the major case for libertarianism.

very solid post, your points are dead on. i hope most people appreciate what you're saying here.

[BarryDonegan]

It's so true. Nashville is a clean, safe, friendly city with a high standard of living at a low wage. Our auto industry in nearby Spring Hill and Smyrna pays out 20-40k rather than 80k like Detroit, and, here, that is about the same amount of money lifestyle-wise. In the end, our labor was more affordable for times like now. Not to mention we're within a 12 hour drive of 80% of the US population.

Nashville, TN and Tennessee are much better off than other places, and I think the primary reason is our right-to-work tradition.

[ChaosControl]

Wrong. A socialist model can never ever be successful in the long run. Ever.

Yes, it can.

[hazek]

Only in a world with unlimited resources where bad business decisions don't matter.

On planet Earth it can't, ever.

[Elwar]

One of the hardest points in arguing for libertarianism is

Where are you arguing for libertarianism?

[ChaosControl]

No, just in a nation that wants it and isn't corrupt. Just like that is the only way capitalism can work properly either.

[low preference guy]

No, just in a nation that wants it and isn't corrupt. Just like that is the only way capitalism can work properly either.

You're not familiar with the economic calculation problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem), right?

[ChaosControl]

You're not familiar with the economic calculation problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem), right?

I disagree with it even though I agree that a free market approach is preferable.

[hazek]

A nation can want it but it will still fail. Unless individuals start behaving like robots, what socialism leads to is inefficiency, shortages and little or no progress.

But hey, don't believe my word for it. I politely invite you to listen to: Calculation and Socialism by Joseph T. Salerno (http://mises.org/media/5220)

[ChaosControl]

It can lead to inefficiency, shortages and little progress, true, as can capitalism. No system is perfect, but any system can work in the right circumstances, just as any system can fail in the wrong circumstances. Capitalism isn't intrinsically good or better than other systems.

[hazek]

No no, there is no chance involved my friend. Socialism ALWAYS leads to inefficiency, shortages and little progress. It's a given.

The only weak link the capitalist system has is government. If the government doesn't enforce contracts of it's citizens then you're right and capitalism will have the same problems. But if the government functions properly in it's proper role then there's no chance in hell capitalism would ever be inefficient, create shortages and not bring progress.

How do you think the greatness of your country came about? Until of course fascism took over.

But hey man, I don't want to win this argument, personally I give two shits about what you think. You your self have to figure out which system will give you the most pleasure and the least pain. If you think it's fun to live without any private property, maybe have a dirty job you know you're smart and capable enough to do better, have a mediocre education, mediocre health care, mediocre you name it, not have any rights as an individual, if you want to be oppressed, if you want to be mesarble then hey be my guest and go for socialism.
But if you want to live free, have your unalienable rights protected, live in a prosperous market, get payed what your worth, have private property, witness progress that you and your family can enjoy, have top notch education, health care, and other services, live free and unoppressed then you'd want to think about learning from mises.org why capitalist is the only system that can work and you'd ever want to live under.

[farrar]

You're not familiar with the economic calculation problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem), right?

I am familiar with the economic calculation problem, but that is a matter of efficiency not impossibility. A "crappy" economy is still an economy.


I respectfully disagree. It can never work. It's human nature, period. A socialist market will never seek progress and will never be prosperous.

And you have it backwards, it's the capitalist system that requires the masses to be educated about asserting their rights and why and how theirs system functions and it's socialist system where the masses can have their brains turned of knowing that the nanny state will provide for every aspect of their life as long as they play by the rules.

How do you define capitalism? I define it as a mode of voluntary exchange. It simply means an economy that is managed only by mutual and contractual agreements between parties engaging with one another without interference from others. When I say an anarco-capitalist model does not require education, I mean that it does not require institutional education. Anarco-capitalist models are controlled by natural law, and do not require institutional education for people to function in it properly. Experience and an education may help in matters of personal efficiency, however anarco-capitalism being a non-government and entity is the default governance of a society that has not been tampered with by prior systems or institutions. A System that has no monopolistic institution for laws or governance, and has no monopolistic laws on the means of voluntary exchange is in essence anarco-capitalism (a very simplistic mode, but agreeable I think). You do not need an education to trade 5 berries for an acorn, you just do it. You do not need to learn human nature, we just know it

a socialist society requires an education, because you do not naturally work your butt off for the same wage as someone else who does less work. You have to be "breed" to believe in what you are doing and to work hard for the other sitting next to. I equate this to an education because that is what modern schools have reduced it to. This pits alot against a long-term socialistic society... but it is not impossible. Just highly improbable. Like you asserted earlier, it is against human nature and as such a socialist requires alot of mechanisms in place to put pressure against it and a lot of maintanence to keep it up.

Just so we understand what I mean by improbable, the chances of the earth being placed the perfect distance from the sun to allow for life to be created as it is today is aproximately 1:10,000 over the course of 4billion years. This is a very modest calculation, in fact when we consider the probability of earth being placed within the 2 inch margin from the sun, which is required for life on earth, we can imagine how that ratio may be exponentially less likely. Civilization is about 10,000 years old. I am not saying that the ratio for life somehow equates to the development to a long-term socialist society, I am merely hinting at how something so improbable can happen.

[farrar]

No no, there is no chance involved my friend. Socialism ALWAYS leads to inefficiency, shortages and little progress. It's a given.

The only weak link the capitalist system has is government. If the government doesn't enforce contracts of it's citizens then you're right and capitalism will have the same problems. But if the government functions properly in it's proper role then there's no chance in hell capitalism would ever be inefficient, create shortages and not bring progress.


I disagree, Capitalism does not require government, in fact it is almost incompatible. I equate the probability of true capitalism being compatible with government almost the same chance as socialism being long-term. Just as socialism is against human nature, true capitalism is against the nature of government. It is not impossible, it just requires alot of education and mechanisms that are highly unlikely to be sustained in the long term. An educated society that keeps its government in check isn't a condition that is likely to last just as a government that keeps its people working hard for less isn't a condition that is likely to last. Again, the key word here is likely.


How do you think the greatness of your country came about? Until of course fascism took over.Here in lies my point, government and capitalism are incompatible. Government is winning, hence the notion of fascism taking over. Of course, since you appear to believe in capitalism and government (though limited), you also appear to believe in improbability. The same improbability that could allow for a socialist society to last in the long-term.


But hey man, I don't want to win this argument, personally I give two shits about what you think. You your self have to figure out which system will give you the most pleasure and the least pain. If you think it's fun to live without any private property, maybe have a dirty job you know you're smart and capable enough to do better, have a mediocre education, mediocre health care, mediocre you name it, not have any rights as an individual, if you want to be oppressed, if you want to be mesarble then hey be my guest and go for socialism.
But if you want to live free, have your unalienable rights protected, live in a prosperous market, get payed what your worth, have private property, witness progress that you and your family can enjoy, have top notch education, health care, and other services, live free and unoppressed then you'd want to think about learning from mises.org why capitalist is the only system that can work and you'd ever want to live under.

Are you accusing some here of being socialistic because we recognize improbability is not impossible just simply improbable? that notions like long-term are subjective? trying to adhere to Objectivity and total agreeing with something are two completely different things that should not be confused.

[hazek]

I define capitalism as you do. But I do not believe in anarco-capitalism because I believe a certain force in a society is always need to uphold laws and order so that the members of said society can have more freedom.

I like how JBS explains it in "Overview of America", where they say that Anarchy is just a short transition period between governments. Actually if you watch it, it's exactly what I believe in regards to our discussion.

And since I believe a limited government is necessary in a society I also believe it's members need to be educated. Not because they need to know how to properly transact with the market but to understand and enforce the proper role of government. It's precisely why I think we have all these problems that we do today, for lack of education about what the proper role of government is suppose to be.

But I see your points and I'll admit that socialism also needs education if that's what you want to call it. I think of it more like brainwashing and oppressing but that's just my opinion of how I view forcing people to live in ways that go against their nature.

[hazek]

Here in lies my point, government and capitalism are incompatible. Government is winning, hence the notion of fascism taking over. Of course, since you appear to believe in capitalism and government (though limited), you also appear to believe in improbability. The same improbability that could allow for a socialist society to last in the long-term.

I see your point but I don't think it's improbable. I think you forget how young the ideas of a limited government actually are and that maybe just maybe the founding fathers although formulating a brilliant constitution still made mistakes, left loop holes for fascism to creep back in. So I wouldn't call it failure but rather feedback on what has to be improved on the next time. Meanwhile you can go back very far in history and find oh so many examples of oligarchies or forms of it that failed miserably.


Are you accusing some here of being socialistic because we recognize improbability is not impossible just simply improbable? that notions like long-term are subjective? trying to adhere to Objectivity and total agreeing with something are two completely different things that should not be confused.

Dude I'm not accusing you of anything. Let me write in red so you'll see it this time:

I give two shits about what you think

Really, I don't care man. It's your life your options, as long as you don't expect me to follow you can choose and adhere to whatever. I only laid out the two options for you, that's it.

[ClayTrainor]

You're not familiar with the economic calculation problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem), right?


I disagree with it even though I agree that a free market approach is preferable.

You disagree with it? Care to elaborate?

This debate should've been settled decades ago, as far as I'm concerned. The Economic Calculation problem is written off too soon by too many.

Here's the thing... Socialist economic theory provides absolutely no mechanism for determining value and calculating the distribution of goods. Whenever I ask socialists for solutions to the calculation problem, the best that they usually come up with is form of Central planning and/or democracy. The fact is, these kinds of responses do less than nothing to address the reality of the calculation problem.

Socialism always leads to the destruction of wealth, because there is no rational way to determine where that wealth would be used most productively.

[cswake]

I am familiar with the economic calculation problem, but that is a matter of efficiency not impossibility. A "crappy" economy is still an economy.If you consider government failing and defaulting on all its promises a continuing economy, then you're right, something still remains in the ashes and continues to function. Most people who stop receiving entitlements, starving to death, rioting in streets, etc. will disagree with you.

[farrar]

I define capitalism as you do. But I do not believe in anarco-capitalism because I believe a certain force in a society is always need to uphold laws and order so that the members of said society can have more freedom.

This is more of an ideological debate i suppose. I assert that the market will function as the force you require government too. There is a market for government, I anarco-capitalism is when you legalize competition in that regard. (again a rough way of putting it but it works for right here).


I like how JBS explains it in "Overview of America", where they say that Anarchy is just a short transition period between governments. Actually if you watch it, it's exactly what I believe in regards to our discussion.

I have seen it before, back when I was still against anarco-capitalism. What bothered me about it was that it blew over anarchy so quickly and incorporated the conception of it being chaos which even I at the time did not go as far as to assume it was that. There probably is an argument for it being the phase between governments, but there are different sorts of anarchy and I would assert that institutions that are created artificially from the prior government have potential to meddle in the middle phase. For instance that artificially large corporations in America today, which could not have existed without corporatism, have potential to meddle in an anarchist society if it ever followed today's government. That could contaminate the results. I also don't agree with its justification of republicanism. Republicanism (to me) is almost like a distorted democracy. It has the same problems only instead of the majority taking from the minority, the majority elects someone to change the laws to take from the minority. It gives a fighting chance, but only a chance. Granted, I like it better than a democracy, and if I can't have an anarco-capitalist society in my life time by all means lets restore the republic we have here at the least.


And since I believe a limited government is necessary in a society I also believe it's members need to be educated. Not because they need to know how to properly transact with the market but to understand and enforce the proper role of government. It's precisely why I think we have all these problems that we do today, for lack of education about what the proper role of government is suppose to be.

I agree, in order for a Republic to work and stay limited, coexisting with capitalism and the intention of the founders, we certainly need an educated society. Like I said earlier, in order for government and capitalism to coexist there must be some kind of mechanism in place to safe guard the two from conflicting. An educated society in itself would act as that mechanism. I personally am skeptical of how long we can preserve that kind of an education and mechanism. People evolve and have their own ideas, even when they are suppressed. I assert that inevitably someone will get a "bright" idea and either lead us toward anarco-capitalism or socialism. Today I think we are on the path to socialism thanks to someone's "bright" idea.


But I see your points and I'll admit that socialism also needs education if that's what you want to call it. I think of it more like brainwashing and oppressing but that's just my opinion of how I view forcing people to live in ways that go against their nature.
We call it brainwashing because we are libertarians. A socialist would call it education. What we call the nature of man, a socialist would call primitive and uneducated thinking. "If only they understood what could be, they just don't seem to understand the grand scheme of things. If only they were intelligent and understanding like me" -Some liberal who makes the mistake of NOT first seeking to understand, then to be understood.


I see your point but I don't think it's improbable. I think you forget how young the ideas of a limited government actually are and that maybe just maybe the founding fathers although formulating a brilliant constitution still made mistakes, left loop holes for fascism to creep back in. So I wouldn't call it failure but rather feedback on what has to be improved on the next time. Meanwhile you can go back very far in history and find oh so many examples of oligarchies or forms of it that failed miserably.
I don't think time is relevant in this case. Given enough time all improbabilities are inevitable. Time would prove nothing, so all we have in this regard are concepts. One can believe it was a failed first try but unusual in the grand scheme, or believe as I do, that if such a society is successful it would a matter of time coinciding with probability. I think it is also important to note that socialism and wealth distribution, is a relatively new concept as well, and in my opinion would inevitably succeed if it were given enough retries, just as a limited government capitalist society would.


Dude I'm not accusing you of anything. Let me write in red so you'll see it this time:

I give two shits about what you think

I read it the first time. You followed it with two options:
1. Setup to be wrong from the start in your word crafting
2. Your answer, setup to be the right answer of capitalism

In combination with the preceding phrase "I could give two shits what you think" It gave the tone of condecention. Since you would not disagree with your own answer, you basically defaulted everyone who disagrees with you to a choice number 1. A socialist who must accept the mediocre. This may be fine to others, but to most on this forum it is an insult.

I may have misread you, but I read it as an insult so i responded in defense of myself and others whom it was directed to.

Anyways this has been interesting. looking forward to further commentary and critique.

[hazek]

Yes I apologize. I did word it exactly as you took it and I tend to do that although lately I try hard to avoid it. I guess I wasn't of a strong enough character to do so in this instance. Again I'm sorry.

It's also been interesting for me but I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree. My beliefs and values just don't allow me to understand your point of view and in turn make my point of view look like common sense.

I do think though that socialism had quite a few more attempts at success then capitalism and I don't think you can dispute that although I agree that it as well is a relatively young ideology.

[farrar]

You disagree with it? Care to elaborate?

This debate should've been settled decades ago, as far as I'm concerned. The Economic Calculation problem is written off too soon by too many.

Here's the thing... Socialist economic theory provides absolutely no mechanism for determining value and calculating the distribution of goods. Whenever I ask socialists for solutions to the calculation problem, the best that they usually come up with is form of Central planning and/or democracy. The fact is, these kinds of responses do less than nothing to address the reality of the calculation problem.

Socialism always leads to the destruction of wealth, because there is no rational way to determine where that wealth would be used most productively.

I argue that the economic calculation problem merely alludes to the fact that without overcoming exponential ratios of improbability, a socialist society would be highly inefficient. To me, all the economic calculation problem "proves" is that if a free market would provide most with a 3 story home, and socialist economy would provide you with a 2 bedrooms a living-room and a bathroom. Not extravagant or efficient, but there is a huge difference between efficiency and functioning. My friends 20 year old car functions, doesn't mean its gets 35 mpg. (it gets 15mpg).

The debate should have never happened, because there is really no way to refute the inefficiency of not knowing the market price of material. There is also no way to assert that If a central body who decides what we consume decides to charge the same for the labor to mine iron as they do to pick apples that it must collapse. Sure the miner got "stiffed" in real terms, but that doesn't mean the economy will collapse. It means the Miner has a shitty job. Now we can assert that this will lead to collapse when the miners and doctors of the economy buck on everything. I assert that with the right mechanisms, such as some sort of Nazi like passion for their job and country, socialism can exist as an inefficient body in the long term.

That mechanism must be throughly maintained to accomplish it, as it must resist the pressures of the nature of man, but it is conceivable even if improbable.

What bothers me is many here always end their arguments with "socialism always leads to a worse less prosperity"
What is the relevance? We'd be a more prosperous society if we killed a third the population and absorbed their property, doesn't make the assertion right though.
Utilitarian arguments should be "oh, and on the bright side...." not "And thats why I'm right :)"
Was Truman right to bomb 150,000 civilians to end the war, or was that just a bright side of the horrible deed?
Don't assume that because the ends are good that the means are fine, its not always true. I happen to believe it works out ok for libertarianism, but when we let that take over the argument I think we lose sight in what should be the true goal. A moral system, not an efficient system.

It appears that often times on these forums when we decide something is inefficient we think its wrong for that. While it may be wrong, its not wrong because it is inefficient. It is wrong because it is immoral or something else comparable. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be tricked into that false relationship between wrong and inefficient, it can lead us to contradictory conclusions and falsify our premises as far as libertarianism goes.

And that was not directed at you Claytrainor, its a generalization.

[hazek]

It appears that often times on these forums when we decide something is inefficient we think its wrong for that. While it may be wrong, its not wrong because it is inefficient. It is wrong because it is immoral or something else comparable. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be tricked into that false relationship between wrong and inefficient, it can lead us to contradictory conclusions and falsify our premises as far as libertarianism goes.

Inefficiency is followed by starvation, and just in general a way lower life expectancy which is immoral wouldn't you say?

[farrar]

Inefficiency is followed by starvation, and just in general a way lower life expectancy which is immoral wouldn't you say?

No. If I, owning my own body, produce an apple tree on my property which i acquired without theft or force, then I own that tree and its apples. If i decide that i don't like the apple skins, and when i cut them off I also lob off half the mass of the apple and dispose of these bits without reworking them into anything useful or otherwise being inefficient, I would argue I did nothing immoral. I have acted in an inefficient manner, but if I want to dispose of my time, my labor, and my property in such a wasteful way which does not harm others as they have no direct relation to that property, then I can do so. How you or "society" should have anything to say about what I do with my body and my labor I have no idea. I think you probably agree with me here at least up to a point if not completely.

Just as Wasting that nutrition might lead to a lower life expectancy, so would have not creating the apples. Is it then immoral, not to create? Is the man who spends his days staring into the clouds, possibly living off of charity, immoral? or is he just lazy/incapable/etc? Because he has lowered life expectancy in a general sense by not providing for himself, and even going so far as to accept the gifts of others.
Just as i said earlier, basing arguments on efficiency can lead to obscenities. For instance, we could continue in this friendly intellectual debate, or if you were, hypothetically speaking, sitting next to me it might be more efficient for you to slit my throat instead. (I appear to have a niche for not knowing when to shut up)
Efficiency and morality are indifferent. Sometimes they line up, sometimes they don't. The problem with basing an argument on efficiency is sometimes one must accept obscenities like murder in place of more logical and decent positions and at times moral positions.

In cuba, universal health care has decreased infant mortality rates below that of the U.S. In that sense it is more efficient. Of course it also forces others to pay for something they may or may not have wished to pay for which is immoral by my definition anyways. Also their health-care is inefficient in many other ways, which creates a conflict. Are we looking for cost efficiency, mortality efficiency, or what? On what basis of efficiency can you decide which mode of efficiency is more efficient than the next? When a clear moral code is defined and used as a basis, these sort of questions are never asked. When efficiency is used, things can get muddy.

Thats just my position I suppose.

[Keith and stuff]

It's so true. Nashville is a clean, safe, friendly city with a high standard of living at a low wage. Our auto industry in nearby Spring Hill and Smyrna pays out 20-40k rather than 80k like Detroit, and, here, that is about the same amount of money lifestyle-wise. In the end, our labor was more affordable for times like now. Not to mention we're within a 12 hour drive of 80% of the US population.

Nashville, TN and Tennessee are much better off than other places, and I think the primary reason is our right-to-work tradition.

Nashville is like the 35th most dangerous city in the US last I looked. Memphis is like #3 and Jackson is like #15 or something. The major cities in east TN also tend to be some of the most dangerous in the US. So Nashville and TN in general isn't safe at all. It's one of the more dangerous states to live in. Sure, it isn't as bad as LA or NV, but it's generally dangerous.

Thanks to distrust of government and taxes, especially in east TN, TN have been able to have the least restrictive government in the Southeast. I don't know how much right to work comes into play. NH, the freest state in the nation isn't a right to work state but it's noticeably freer than TN and people tend to earn a lot more here. But maybe you are right :)

[ChaosControl]

No no, there is no chance involved my friend. Socialism ALWAYS leads to inefficiency, shortages and little progress. It's a given.

The only weak link the capitalist system has is government. If the government doesn't enforce contracts of it's citizens then you're right and capitalism will have the same problems. But if the government functions properly in it's proper role then there's no chance in hell capitalism would ever be inefficient, create shortages and not bring progress.

How do you think the greatness of your country came about? Until of course fascism took over.

But hey man, I don't want to win this argument, personally I give two shits about what you think. You your self have to figure out which system will give you the most pleasure and the least pain. If you think it's fun to live without any private property, maybe have a dirty job you know you're smart and capable enough to do better, have a mediocre education, mediocre health care, mediocre you name it, not have any rights as an individual, if you want to be oppressed, if you want to be mesarble then hey be my guest and go for socialism.
But if you want to live free, have your unalienable rights protected, live in a prosperous market, get payed what your worth, have private property, witness progress that you and your family can enjoy, have top notch education, health care, and other services, live free and unoppressed then you'd want to think about learning from mises.org why capitalist is the only system that can work and you'd ever want to live under.

You're confusing capitalism as a synonym for free market or for freedom and socialism or any alternative to capitalism as a synonym for statism. I strongly oppose statism, regardless of whether it is capitalist or socialist, either form is as bad as each other. I support a free system regardless the economic model. You can have a community that decides to share all resources and labor with one another, you can have another that relies on contracts and private property, or you can have something in between. Any of those can be as free as each other, any of them can be productive and successful.

You say "until fascism took over", but this country was never really free or great. It has always effectively had a ruling class keeping the rest of society down. It may not have always had as large of a government as today, but the government and ruling class it has always had have always managed to screw over everyone else.

Don't think I am a socialist, I am not. I am also not a capitalist either though. I support people to freely decide for themselves what economic model they want for their community. My preference for my own community? Not particularly sure.

[ChaosControl]

You disagree with it? Care to elaborate?

This debate should've been settled decades ago, as far as I'm concerned. The Economic Calculation problem is written off too soon by too many.

Here's the thing... Socialist economic theory provides absolutely no mechanism for determining value and calculating the distribution of goods. Whenever I ask socialists for solutions to the calculation problem, the best that they usually come up with is form of Central planning and/or democracy. The fact is, these kinds of responses do less than nothing to address the reality of the calculation problem.

Socialism always leads to the destruction of wealth, because there is no rational way to determine where that wealth would be used most productively.

I disagree that it ALWAYS leads to destruction, however I would agree that state socialism or extremely centralized planning does. On a more local level though I think it can do fine. Just like capitalism can do fine on a local level. I think both are destructive at a central level. I don't think capitalism though does any better of determining where wealth is spread or how labor is valued. In fact in many cases I think it does poorly.

If a person has to accept the job for $7/hr or die of starvation, they don't truly have equal bargaining power with the employer, so it wasn't a true acceptance of labor for the wage. Personally I think a truly fair wage is one in which you earn what you produce. So my ideal of a company is one that is employee owned rather than owned by someone who profits off of his employee's labor.

[Travlyr]

"A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings." - Ludwig von Mises

"Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management." - Ludwig von Mises

[YumYum]

Why are Republican states like Mississippi the poorest states, and some blue states, like Washington, more prosperous?

[ChaosControl]

Probably because there is a lot more people who have a college degree in Washington. We like that there book learnin'

[heavenlyboy34]

Why are Republican states like Mississippi the poorest states, and some blue states, like Washington, more prosperous?

Define "prosperous". In terms of industry (heavy industry, like oil and fabrication, that is), there's a lot of it in the south. Their poverty tends to be because of lack of education (begetting lack of upward mobility). The demographics in the states you mentioned also come into play. JMHO

[Keith and stuff]

Probably because there is a lot more people who have a college degree in Washington. We like that there book learnin'

The people in the Northeast tend to be far more educated than the people in the Southeast. MS isn't noticeably more free than WA, and it isn't even a Republican state.

[MaxPower]

In cuba, universal health care has decreased infant mortality rates below that of the U.S. In that sense it is more efficient.
It's lowered their nominal infant mortality rate by bringing forced abortion of deformed or otherwise physically-challenged babies into the equation. A greater percentage of viable Cuban offspring do not progress past infancy than those in America.

[farrar]

It's lowered their nominal infant mortality rate by bringing forced abortion of deformed or otherwise physically-challenged babies into the equation. A greater percentage of viable Cuban offspring do not progress past infancy than those in America.

Health care is of a higher quality here when you have it, and a baby receiving health care here has better chance than in cuba. At the same time, mortality is lower in cuba because everyone has health care even though it is crappy. It is possible for crap care to overcome results of quality care, if the crap care covers a greater base. Looking at other socialized medicines this is not always the case because of various factors, but it often is.

4.4 of 1000 died in cuba in 2009. roughly 6.5 of 1000 died in the US in 2009. Ratios are not nominal in the way I know the word, can you explain to me what you mean by nominal?

[oyarde]

Nashville is like the 35th most dangerous city in the US last I looked. Memphis is like #3 and Jackson is like #15 or something. The major cities in east TN also tend to be some of the most dangerous in the US. So Nashville and TN in general isn't safe at all. It's one of the more dangerous states to live in. Sure, it isn't as bad as LA or NV, but it's generally dangerous.

Thanks to distrust of government and taxes, especially in east TN, TN have been able to have the least restrictive government in the Southeast. I don't know how much right to work comes into play. NH, the freest state in the nation isn't a right to work state but it's noticeably freer than TN and people tend to earn a lot more here. But maybe you are right :)

Those higher earning are really less because of cost of living .

[jtstellar]

there's little to no modern evidence.. well, not in a textbook sense. the chance of it being acknowledged and well documented by our omnipotent academia who saw the crash coming all along is slim to none. you have to make the observation yourself.

true libertarianism only came when individuals were empowered enough be largely free from needing protection from the states. because when you seek protection from the states, you give away your liberties.

so what was the cataclysmic event that empowered individuals? the invention of guns. the wheels started turning since then.

the country that was fought through force for independence was the united states. it's safe to say that freedom/libertarian-leaning states is but an experiment shorter than 200 years with a half of that already leaning socialist, in mankind's thousands of years of economic history and different kinds of social political systems

you're not thinking rationally when you asked for evidence--the fact that this used to be the most powerful nation mankind has ever seen on the face of the earth should be enough evidence.

also, libertarianism has a lot to do with size. a small country could operate more municipally or in similar ways of a small US state with tighter yet not exactly inefficient laws and local controls.

libertarianism matters more for larger nations where local cultures, languages and many other things vary and have little hope of assimilation. libertarianism turns that diversity into strength, and when applied, can explore the true potentials of the size and diversity of a large nation and trump a small/locally efficient nation. you're leaving the size/population complexity factor out by asking such an overly simple question.


... there is Hong-Kong and south Korea, but there are also Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, all those countries have huge public spending but they also have a very high standard of living. If libertarianism is so radically better, then how can these anomalies exist?

Germany is much more socialistic than Britain but it provides comparable and even higher standard of living. In Singapore the government controls half of the business, yet Singapore is probably more successful than Honk-Kong. Once we could be proud of Ireland which had a limited government and tremendous growth, but now Ireland is bankrupt.

There are historical problems as well. During the American Gilded age the growth rate was a bit smaller than the growth rate in America in the 20th century. Besides almost all western countries have moved from limited government to full blown welfare state, even Honk-Kong now introduces minimum wages.


this is exactly what i am talking about in regards to you missing the greater element

the european nation-states are much smaller in size and they can be governed with stricter rules like how individual states can each govern itself without losing much efficiency. this was exactly the reason why western europe prospered after renaissance. they were in fact the most libertarian states at the time with each nation-state ruling its own while having to compete for the most talents by providing the most trade-friendly environments. otherwise they could simply travel to other states--just like what we have here.

look how much has changed since european union was established to homogenize economic policies through the control of interest rates and currencies. is that not evidence?

in regards to hong kong, again if it's a regional policy then it can be a lot more efficiently managed and perhaps applied from situation to situation. libertarianism is a word to describe the macro-aspect of things. in a way, the whole world combined makes a great libertarian world as long as people can freely travel--because the talents can find the most suitable environment, and that country will prosper and let other political systems fade from history. this is again why a one world nation/global ruling class is dangerous because if the world become homogenized, there is no libertarian style competition to weed out bad policies.


this is another reason why i think china will crumble within years of taking over as the world's leading economic powerhouse. their population complexity is arguably even more difficult than the states. they need libertarianism, which won't happen. if you're really hard headed, wait for what happens to china, and you will see.

[YumYum]

The people in the Northeast tend to be far more educated than the people in the Southeast. MS isn't noticeably more free than WA, and it isn't even a Republican state.

Mississippi voted Republican in the last four elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

[AminCad]

Government controlled economies that are successful were ALREADY successful when they adopted big government, or became successful after the advent of big government due to factors completely unrelated to form of government, like Norway's discovery of oil (making it one of the largest per capita exporters of oil in the world).

And Singapore is not a government controlled economy. Most of the businesses the government owns in Singapore are run for profit, and don't receive government monopolies in their markets. Since Singapore is pretty much a dictatorship, the government has a profit motive in managing them well, unlike the management of government enterprises in democratic states where governments have a rent-seeking motive. Singapore has very low taxes and light regulations. It's a good example of a more libertarian country.