The debate "Liberitarians should vote democratic. a regulated economy is more free than a crony economy" was started by
March 9, 2018, 5:01 am.
31 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 63 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 29 arguments to the agreers part.
lachlan2 posted 25 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, Matthew354 posted 2 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, historybuff, Against_eu, Drakgo and 27 visitors agree.
chemikilsm0ke, bruh352, Keto, lachlan2, chickboy1776, Matthew354, Andrewchaney69420, mlowe, SMNR, gargi, luljeta101, followdearros, SaffronSHAM3, Debater1127, mrcontro and 48 visitors disagree.
"Crony capitlaism cannot exist without progressives giving new powers to the government. So it might not be the intent of the laws, but it will eventually lead to capitalists wanting to buy the new power."
so when the founding fathers set out to create the american experiment that everyone claimed would inevitably fail, you would be one of the naysayers telling them their efforts are for nothing?
"And as I said before, an industry wide subsidy is still crony capitalism! It is a benofit to the industry at the expense of alternative industries and consumers."
industry wide subsidies are a tool that is bipartisan and non partisan. it is not what I meant by progressive policies. that's mostly worker rights, environmental regulations, and quality/safety standards.
do you not like knowing what's in your food and that the label isnt a lie? do you think farmers shouldnt be held responsible that their runoff is poisoning the water of millions?
And as I said before, an industry wide subsidy is still crony capitalism! It is a benofit to the industry at the expense of alternative industries and consumers.
Crony capitlaism cannot exist without progressives giving new powers to the government. So it might not be the intent of the laws, but it will eventually lead to capitalists wanting to buy the new power.
Democrats dont typically hand out individualized subsidies and tax breaks picking winners... so what exactly is crony about progressive policies?
The choice between Democrat and Republican isnt crony capitalism vs regulations. Big government and cronyism are the same thing.
no, I absolutely want to continue, i just wanted my intentions to be clear considering you said I'm insisting that "libertarians should vote for non-libertarianism."
I'm not making an argument about liberitarians vs non-liberitarian, but about Democrats vs Republicans from a liberitarian perspective.
I will still try to convince you that an equally regulated economy is relatively more free than a crony "pick the winner" economy, but I'm not trying to force your vote. obviously a libertarian candidate is closer to a liberitarians views then anyone from any other party, but there usually isnt a viable liberitarian on the general ballot so between the 2 main parties is where my argument focuses.
as to how big gov can prevent cronyism, primarily by passing enforceable laws with teeth banning crony practices. I'm sure some will find loopholes, at which point the Gov should promptly close them. just like the founding fathers created the first functional large scale representative system that avoids many pitfalls, we can avoid new pitfalls with good policy, planning, and checks/balances/oversight.
Yeah I agree we don't have to keep going if you don't want to.
I'm not voting Republican of thats what you think, that is pretty anti libertarian as well.
"The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."
if your a liberitarian that votes only liberitarian (no trump, Romney, bush, McCain, McConnell, etc) that's your right and I'm not trying to make you change that.
but if you are a liberitarian who votes regularly Republican, then I'm here to convince you that they are far bigger offenders of the free market ideal than Democrats.
so I'm not trying to convince liberitarians to vote non-liberitarian, I'm aiming at liberitarians who ALREADY vote nonibertarian.
I will reply to your other post later on, but I do feel that the point of this thread is lost in our general discussion of big Gov vs small
Either way, this doesnen't prove why the government has the power to arbitrarily subsidize industries, how crony capitalism can be abolished with a big governnent, or why libertarians should vote for non-libertarianism.
I think your making this out like it is the main business practice for Wal-Mart, and like every small town case is exactly how you want it to be. Do you believe supermarkets should not be allpwed to exist then?
You're also ignoring anyone that benefots from tbe convinence of lower prices and ignoring the non-walmart competition that can exist in every region.
"Without security, civilization is cramped and dwarfed. Without security, there can be no freedom. Nor shall I say too much, when I declare that security, guarded of course by its offspring, freedom, is the true end and aim of government."
Lincoln era republican - Charles Sumner
"If a Walmart moves put of a town and nobody wants to replace them with a new business no aggression has been committed"
I'm sorry, I dont understand what your saying or if you understood what is happening.
people are more then eager to replace it with new businesses, the problem is everyone would have been better off had walmart not put everyone out of business, eliminating wage competition, impoverishing the town until it wasnt worthwhile even having the walmart, and then leaving a town of poverty and desolation. how are new businesses supposed to support themselves in a town of unemployed previously minumum wage workers?!? that's delusional.
people certainly will grow businesses to replace them, but that takes a bunch of capital and with the people impoverished, it will take many years to decades for the towns economy to recover.
I'm not sure if your taking this seriously with conclusions like "noone wants to replace them" and pretending like walmart did not cripple these town. as I said, this is the future you are promoting for the entire country. predatory pricing is real, and still exists today in small towns where monopolies can form locally. it's not some fantasy that causes no damage. believing that this is just is the fantasy.
If a Walmart moves put of a town and nobody wants to replace them with a new business no aggression has been committed. Also, staying and charging above market prices just result in unsold surpluses and other businesses absorbing business. This is because prices are still not arbitrary and there are no barriers to entry.
A static economy, where products are the same and industry never changes, is the mainstream view of "perfect competion" is the mainstream view in economics. It dosen't factor the real meaning of competition and all the different factors other than prices that determine consumer preferences.
destroyed their economies moving in
leaving ghost towns moving out.
this is the world you are promoting.
do you really think those prices will stay low once competition has been eliminated? once again, reality is complicated, and you need to follow the logic past the tip of your nose.
why in your example do all those small businesses having static products? what part of anti trust laws mandate static products? I have no clue what your talking about here.
the static product nonsense aside, numerous small businesses have to fight over customers, leading to innovation. a goliath that drove away all competition does not need to innovate. that is the future you are promoting.
I know it happens, I'm telling you its not predatory to anyone. Getting more for less is good not bad. The meaning of competition is not infinite small static businesses selling the same thing, its the change of some meeting consumer preferences better than others.
Try taking a break from wikipedia and read FA Hayek's essay, "The Meaning of Competition".
If you call a businessman "predatory" just because he provides for consumers better than others, you are not operating on the protection of consumers, but pure greed and envy, for the petty reason that he has more wealth than you.
I'm not trying to convince you whether it works or is logical because it is a historic fact. people have done it, it has worked, and it worked until gov made it illegal... its history brother.
No, its not a tool of copycats, nobody can operate with negative profit.
That cannot create a real monopoly because only governnent can create a monopoly. If a company is getting more consumer they are creating a better deal for consumers. The problem with anti trust cases is that they don't really understand competition in the sense that it is the changing business practices to better supply consumer demand. So consumers might prefer a bigver store with inexpensive bread over a hundred small businesses with higher priced bread. Forcing the latter would hurt consumers.
because that's a strategy that only works when you are a giant profitable company with a warchest that can absorb the short term loss.
also this was made illegal by the antitrust laws of the new deal (thank you government). before that it was a common strategy used by geniuses and copycats to create monopolies. thank you for the compliment :)
If your price theory works why don't you just buy bread from firms for 3 dollars and sell it for 1 cent, putting all the other bread out of business. Genius.
No, corporations don't support laissez-faire. Name one prominent business person that is fiscally libertarian besides Charles and David Koch.
Businesses don't decide market prices, this is a very poor understanding or basic economics. Prices are decided by the subjective value scales of both sides of an exchange. If all firms wanted to block barriers to entry then I guess they would infinetly lower prices then. Forget the fact that tgere would be mass shortages of everything they would continue to operate at a loss... So you obviously have no idea how market prices work.
The only entity that can limit entry to an industry is governnent.
big companies do not favor more regulation because it cuts into their bottom line, if they wanted to prevent new competition they can always drop their prices to make the new competition unprofitable.
competition is in the peoples interest. instead of cutting taxes on the giant, highly profitable, richest companies in the world, we could have lowered taxes on small businesses, or eliminated taxes for a year or 2 on new businesses using government power to help them compete instead of hinder.
and either way, are you saying that we should let companies dump garbage in our water and air??? the regulations are necessary regardless of consequences, but the consequences can be mitigated with basic policies like I just suggested.
"Yes I think the constitution should have limited government more directly."
that wasnt the question... it was an example showing how Benjamin Franklin who very much agreed with that, ended up realizing that Gov power was needed to do much good.
why are you assuming the item being subsidized is something people dont need? if your only juggling 1 or 2 factors it's probably wrong.
if we have been importing steel for a long time, and the supplier ran out or decided to stop trading with us, we still need the steel, we just cant get it. and kickstarting an industry from the ground up is not always profitable for a long time.... but we need it. the consumers consumers need it.
another example: we are doing great business growing and exporting cotton, but theres a food shortage. the cotton industry is very profitable and farmers wont switch on their own, but food costs are rising and starvation is spreading... are you saying the consumers dont need food?
reality is complicated.
I think your fallacy is falling for the euphanisms of big government that enable cronyism. You don't think energy companies favor increased environemntal regulations in order to increase costs of prpduction, to therefore limit new firms from joining the industry? Just about any new govenrment agency can be used to prop up a business.
"Trying" does hurt because there is nothing more permanent than a "temporary" government action. No "try" by government is ever repealed. I guarantee you Trump's tariffs and farm subsidies will still exist when you and I are dead.
Yes I think the constitution should have limited government more directly.
"Spurring" an industry that consumers are not willing to pay for anymore, by stealing the consumers' money and giving it to the industry is cronyism at war with consumers AND alternative industries. For instance, an industry wide subsidy for trains would be cronyism that hurts the auto industry. Alternatives matter.
Competitive advantage? Like a business that produces products or services that consumers prefer over the alternatives? That just means consumer preferences are changing and industries rose and fall over time in a progressing economy.
How can you call yourself progressive if you want to artificially prop up business that consumers don't demand anymore? You dont have a "right" to a subsidy if consumers are not willing to pay a profitable price for your shitty product.
I understand your logic but I believe there is a fallacy at its core: you seem to treat government power as a single thing. does the power to regulate pollution or provide health = power to jail dissidents and enforce curfews? no!
it's not just about more power or less power but also *what power* we give them. most powers are not transferable.
giving the gov power to curb pollution for all companies is a great good. it's not that hard to monitor for corrupt inspectors just like we weeded most corruption out of our police force (successfully). I get (but disagree with) the idealism of a free market but I dont understand this habit of declaring that everything is too hard and not to even try!
by your logic, our founders should not have bothered with a government of the people as it has always failed and is subject to mass corruption, the problems of majority rule, mass hysteria, etc. yet they found ways to divide government, add safeguards, and created an amazing nation... if we dont try, we will never grow.
yes, any industry wide subsidy artificially props an industry, but my main concern is competitive advantage. by implementing them we give no specific company an advantage over their competitors, so the winners and losers remain natural. it may be needed to spur a market like steel if it ever becomes needed, or food during a famine. lots of potential good and a strong card to play in our competition with other nations. should we really surrender such a powerful tool?
however it is when government picks individual winners that real cronyism with real disturbing effects comes into play.
When a business uses governnent power to get ahead, as opposed to getting ahead by fufilling consumer demand. I would consider all subsidies to be cronyism. If it is industry wide, then the industry is just artificially propping up their products.
This is impossible if all subsidies are abolished (which is just redistribution from successful businesses to failing businesses, so regressive) and tax credits are replaced with no income tax.
If these things exist, politicians and crony capitalists will not be able to resist the power and wealth. Further atempts to "abolish" cronyism that multiply government power just multiply the power corporations can buy.
I dont think it's that hard with proper policy, but to make sure we are on the same page, what do you see as crony capitalism?
to me crony capitalism is anything where the government treats similar companies differently, such as tax breaks, subsidies, etc. industry wide subsidies are crony on an international scale, but I dont consider them crony within our economy. free factories, free land, anything that goes to a company but not their direct competitors is crony.
if that is your definition as well, then we can simply ban government from handing out individual favors and only allow it to make rules or gifts to industries instead of companies. the only way I would support individual tax breaks is if they are instead of cash payment for products or services. it may be a good alternative to taking debt.
it will take some effort and planning to ensure crony capitalism doesnt corrupt the system, but it certainly can be done. nothing of value is easy, and there is much good that can be done with government. Benjamin Franklin was one of the biggest small market proponents with a vision of self sustaining farmers... but when land became short, he relied on the unconstitutional power of big government to purchase land doubling our nation and used big gov embargoes to enforce a small gov agricultural economy.
But as long as government power exists, and it is more profitable than hosenst business, corporations will line up to buy the power. So it actually becomes extremely hard to supress cronyism with an expanding government.
I agree with your first point. Crony capitalism requires a big government. but big government does not require crony capitalism. you cannot have crony capitalism without big government, but you can have big government without crony capitalism.
being mindful of potential pitfalls is important to avoid them, but just because there's a chance of getting hit by a car or cracking your head open on a rock, does not mean you should never try to go outside. big government, when used properly, can do alot of good.
I do disagree with the second part. you should absolutely vote for your ideal candidate or run yourself in a primary. But once it comes down to the general election, one of those 2 will be your next president and you may as well pick the one closer to your ideals since not picking at all sacrifices any say you have and voting 3rd party is a vote for the opposite side of the spectrum.
if you believe that it is better to not vote, that is your right. but if you do decide to vote, I believe that the equally regulated economy of the Democrats is closer to libertarian values than the picked winners of Republican crony capitalism. neither may be ideal, but 1 is definitely better.
picking winners is not capitalism.
I understand both of your viewpoints, the point I was trying to get across is the fact that a government requires power to pick winners and losers. They do so with regulations, subsidies, etc. So cronyism requires big government.
It is also not zero sum to vote democrat or republican. Both believe in an interventionist government so libertarians should vote for neither.
yeah, cost a company 10s of millions of dollars by triggering tarriffs killing hundreds of jobs, then threaten the company with higher taxes. what a great leader.
"President Donald Trump says Tuesday that Harley-Davidson will be "taxed like never before" if they move production overseas.
"A Harley-Davidson should never be built in another country-never!" Trump says in a tweet."
oh yeah, the Republican party with their threats to specific businesses and instructing them what to or not to do.
totally in line with liberitatian ideals.
"do as the government says, or we will guarantee you will be a loser no matter what markets say".
I am not putting conservatives on the same level as liberals. I think what conservatives are doing is far worse then anything liberals do economically. setting general rules is in no way equal to giving specific companies a unfair competitive advantage.
so your telling them to not vote at all? that doesnt seem good. all I'm saying is that if someone prefers less government control, having the government give specific companies an advantage is FAR WORSE then setting general rules and regulations for an entire sector equally.
It's not hand picking if liberals prefer more laws and regulations on the economy than conservatives, so you need to stop putting the conservatives on the same level as liberals.
And even if conservatives are just as equal to liberals when it comes to regulating the economy like you think they do, libertarians would just stay out of both parties and support themselves. Sorry, you are convincing no libertarians.
so your saying that hand picking which company wins and loses is more in line with libertarianism than general rules and regulations.
he isn't claiming libertarians would want those kinds of regulations. but those kinds of regulations target everyone in an industry instead of individual companies in and industry. if you actually cared about things you claim to care about, that would matter to you.
"and yet republicans routinely select winners and losers by offering specific companies custom tax breaks and subsidies"
And you are saying that because Republicans support just as much state intervention policies as much as Democrats, and Democrats do it better? That is absolutely far from the truth. You fail to understand that Democrats prefer to pass a lot more policies in government intervention of the free market a lot more than Republicans, and it's pretty much the opposite of their values in comparison to Republicans.
"I know a regulated economy is not the libertarian ideal"
No, it's not at all. Neither is the Republican ideal for the libertarians, it's just more preferable to them than Democrats.
"democratic subsidies and regulations target everyone within an industry equally giving noone an undo advantage, while setting standards and increasing consumer confidence."
When will you understand Libertarians don't value policies like that? They don't!
and yet republicans routinely select winners and losers by offering specific companies custom tax breaks and subsidies.
I know a regulated economy is not the liberitatian ideal, but hand picked winners and losers is in absolutely no way free.
democratic subsidies and regulations target everyone within an industry equally giving noone an undo advantage, while setting standards and increasing consumer confidence.
They are certainly not, because we conservatives and libertarians prefer less government compared to liberal values. Regulated economy however, is the complete opposite of less government and we libertarians and conservatives are certain there is too much government.
well of course you would. they vote for your candidate normally. I think they are mistaken.
As a conservative, I would rather argue more libertarians than pro government liberals. As well as have have more libertarians than liberals in America...
in regard to the theory of regulations and taxes, I have 2 relevant threads, 1 about the effectiveness of government vs private ventures, and 1 about the functionality of pure libertarianism on a national level.
which one is more relevant to your views? I'll bump it. or of these are phrased to specifically, feel free to make a new thread. I'm not trying to falsely frame the discussion, just get it started :)
if you vote for neither 1 or 2 then you dont vote outside of primaries do you? it's a 2 party system.
"Nemiroff, I know you never said that, but you made a logical fallacy by arguing a marginal case when we are talking about all regulations in general."
that's the thing. I never spoke about regulations in general. I just stated a fact: neither of the 2 parties in our 2 party system will eliminate all regulations. this thread is not about examining theory of taxes or regulations (always eager to elsewhere) but just seeing whether democratic vs Republican policies are more true to a libertarian perspective.
the thing is that the party that only wants those minimum regulations also routinely practices picking winners and losers. that's the libertarian conundrum imo.
I would like to engage you about the "intolerant left" narrative. similarly like I argued against your "feminists defend women rapists" claim in the men equal rights thread. I dont think the right accurately reports what the left wants to do. if you wish to judge the left i suggest judging them based on their own claims rather than second hand opposition interpretation of their policies. it is my assertion is that the right is intolerant one. the only intolerance the left has is against intolerance. punching someone is bad, but returning a punch is at least more justified then the unprovoked attack, no? being violently anti violence is not the same as being violent against peaceful scapegoats. dont you agree?
Yes I see your numbers 1 and 2 and I would vote for neither, because as I saod before, if the problem is unequal taxation, the problem is not "better" by scewing everyone equally.
It's not like Democrats just believe in a few more regulations here and there and a bit more tax. They want to centralize government power more than we've ever seen before and its basically an anti-capitalist party.
And if you really want libertarians to vpte Democrat, something I didnt mention that is reallt obvious, is that the current left is extremely intolerant of all other views. Conservatives accept libertarians as a wing of their party, the leftists don't. This is why Ron Paul ran as a Republican, because he could.
Nemiroff, I know you never said that, but you made a logical fallacy by arguing a marginal case when we are talking about all regulations in general.
If I'm saying that current regulations on the economy imposed by democrats are bad, and you say " well, we still need protection from treason and a military"... thats not relevant because if we made the case to have a government that only imposes those few regulations, you would not agree, so to bring it up is meaningless.
as to the rest of your argument. your comparing pure libertarian principles to democratic principles, which will obviously have disagreements. but that is not my point and as you pointed out, there is significant disagreement between libertarians and republicans.
the point of this thread is not to compare pure democratic values with pure libertarianism, but to compare democratic to Republican values and see which is closer to libertarianism. this is a 2 party system after all.
both Democrats and republicans will have some taxes and regulations. both higher than what libertarians want. on top of that default minimum libertarians have little choice but to tolerate, they have a choice:
1) join Democrats who impose even more taxes and regulations but evenly across entire industries or,
2) join Republicans who dont impose more equally spread taxes and regulations but do provide select breaks to specific companies giving them an unfair advantage against competitors who werent government selected.
1) is a government that imposes stronger but equal regulations.
2) is a government that imposes lighter but unequal regulations.
as far as freedom goes, having the winner chosen at the beginning sounds like by far the least free. your independent promotion of libertarian values on their own is something I would gladly address (and I do strongly disagree with them) but that is not what this thread is about. neither party will put in place a 5% flat tax so that isnt a realistic option in the voting booth which is what this thread is all about.
umm you must have misunderstood.... everything
I never said Democrats want the minimum regulation. I said both parties have some regulation at a minimum. Democrats definitely want to expand regulation, I'm not denying that. in fact I support it whole heartedly. however their regulations treat all players equally, unlike Republican policies which pick winners and losers.
so it is relevant. you just misunderstood.
second I never said equal outcome, I said equal treatment under the law and a fair shot for all at the beginning. I have no idea where you got equal outcome from besides default anti left talking points. I said equal treatment under the law meaning your competitor wont have an advantage you dont, like subsidized taxes or the public paying for their factory, but not giving similar assistance to their direct competitor. offer no assistance to either or equal assistance to both, as long as both are treated the same, the competition is fair.
I'll address the rest of your posts tomorrow. but I did want to clear up these misunderstandings.
And just to prove that your initial argument is irrelevant let me ask you a question:
if the problem is politicians arbitrarily granting tax breaks to corporations with tax credits I propose we fix the problem by abolishing tax credits and the IRS, and enforcing a 5% flat tax on everyone equally. Problem solved. Yes or no?
... we'll see if your interested on stamping out cronyism or just confiscating more from individuals.
And then straw man argument aside, no because libertarians favor non- aggression and liberty, not equal outcome. If a crony capitalist is using the state to infringe on his competition, a good solution isnt to expand the infrigment to all indivoduals! that dosent solve the problem, the problem is a loss of freedom not unequal pain. The problem is the government that has the power to pick winners and losers with illegitamate power. Capitalists will do what they can to succeed, so the state shouldnt have the ability to do what they want them to.
I think the argument your making is irrelevant "minimum regulations". Saying that we neee military, protection against treason etc. is not what we're talking about. Were talking about the deep state executive branch agencies that we dont elect arbitrarily regulating nore and more things that dont belong to the executive branch, the federal reserve, entitlement programs ...etc. So saying "a few basic regulations" is irrelevant because the democrats want to expand the state even further than its expanded now.
noone should vote blindly for any party. but I do feel that democratic equal treatment of all companies within a market is closer to the liberitatian ideals.
Gov regulations may be not be prefered, but hand picked winners and losers should be complete blasphemy if I understand liberitatian phiosophy correctly.
that is true but there will be some level of regulations regardless. we do have to make sure that people arent laundering money or supporting terrorists dont we? as well as taxes if only for funding the military. so some level of both will be present in both republicans and democrats.
however republicans are the ones that by large provide tax breaks or subsidizes for specific companies rather than whole industries. that is blatant gov picking of winners and losers.
Democrats pass more industry wide regulations but have no significant history to my knowledge of utilizing targeted crony capitalism policies. setting minimum standards in my opinion has many benefits that outweigh the costs in both moral and economic, but no matter how strict, treats all companies equally giving noone a competitive advantage.
I think that is the definition of a free market. not a wild west with no rules, but one in which all rules are clear and equal.
Btw though I don't think we should blindly vote republican either.
A crony capitalist economy requires an regulated economy. For corporations to use government to supress their competition and get monopoly status, the government must have power in the first place. So you're refering to the same thing. This is why most big business owners like big goverment.
lol. universal disagreement.
anyone want to actually debate this?
what would be the liberitatian priority?
freedom from rules?
or freedom from predetermined outcomes?
any of the disagrees care to elaborate?
by regulated I mean general rules that apply to all players in an industry equally keeping the competitive balance.
by crony i mean individualized subsidies and tax breaks which give a certain company a competitive advantage against other companies. in effect picking winners and losers.
regulations may increase costs, but they also come with better outcomes. you may argue whether the outcomes will really be better, but having the government pick specific winners and losers is not capitalism and may as well be centralized planning. it is the worst of both communism and capitalism where the free market is a sham but the wealth is still consolidated.