![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOne thing that does not surprise me these days is to see people making multiple millions of dollars advocating laissez-faire systems where they'd benefit greatly but very few others would. The question I have is a simple, if provocative one: isn't it better said that free markets are best made free by government regulation? The height of the Laissez-Faire era co-incided with the robber barons, and it was not a co-incidence. Bereft of things like the income tax and anti-trust laws, essential government regulations for any society making a pretense of freedom much less trying for the real thing the result was the emergence of wealthy and powerful men like Gould, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Astor, and Carnegie.
The "free market" system led not to freedom but to things like said robber barons calling in the US Army to disperse strikers with gunfire into the ranks of said strikers. It led to things like Black Friday, a known incident where a Robber Baron deliberately triggered an economic depression in 1869. The regulations that emerged under the Progressives, FDR, and the Great Society have led to a much deeper prosperity minus the brutality of right and left that resulted in the age of Laissez Faire at its finest, when poverty was also much vaster and deeper than it is today (when one out of every five Americans goes hungry).
So the question I have is simple: if Tea Party anarcho-capitalism gets its wish to rescind things like the income tax, like direct election of Senators, like the Federal Reserve, and like the various anti-trust laws that have been in effect for most of the 20th Century, how do they intend to deal with the emergence of latter-day Jay Cookes who'd have immense sums of money and like their predecessors would be just as keen to have Federal troops disperse any workers foolhardy enough to ask for their rights?
X-posted to my LJ and The_Recession.
The "free market" system led not to freedom but to things like said robber barons calling in the US Army to disperse strikers with gunfire into the ranks of said strikers. It led to things like Black Friday, a known incident where a Robber Baron deliberately triggered an economic depression in 1869. The regulations that emerged under the Progressives, FDR, and the Great Society have led to a much deeper prosperity minus the brutality of right and left that resulted in the age of Laissez Faire at its finest, when poverty was also much vaster and deeper than it is today (when one out of every five Americans goes hungry).
So the question I have is simple: if Tea Party anarcho-capitalism gets its wish to rescind things like the income tax, like direct election of Senators, like the Federal Reserve, and like the various anti-trust laws that have been in effect for most of the 20th Century, how do they intend to deal with the emergence of latter-day Jay Cookes who'd have immense sums of money and like their predecessors would be just as keen to have Federal troops disperse any workers foolhardy enough to ask for their rights?
X-posted to my LJ and The_Recession.
(no subject)
Date: 16/11/10 18:24 (UTC)...private interference from the privatized police, agricultural, medical, housing, media, military, banking and retail industries will skew the economic leverage of the ruling class far more than any single government could.
"By staying informed and being active in the political process. The Constitution of the US is a meaningless document if the people themselves do not protect it by exercising their voting rights and even more importantly applying pressure to those in power to keep them in line."
Oh, good. Your response to the economic leverage issue of libertarianism is solved by being "informed" (oops private media nullifies that one) and "following the constitution" (so we don't want a laissez-faire system).
The solution to the libertarian problem is to follow the laws of the state. Makes great sense.
(no subject)
Date: 16/11/10 18:52 (UTC)Lets see,
Private Police - AKA Security Guards, have no law enforcement powers and no rights to the use of force. Use of private police forces for anything beyond gathering evidence of a crime and handing it over to the real police who have a monopoly on the use of force to enforce the law will just result in your police and leadership being arrested for murder/assault
Private Military - Uh yeah right, lets see some rich dude hire his own army to conduct operations within a nation state, see how long he lasts as a free man.
Further outlawing either of the above is not an infringement on the free market because the laws would apply equally to every one and not work to the specific benefit or detriment of any individual or class of individuals.
Now with the rest, please explain how private agriculture, banking, housing, medical, retail, and media can force ANYTHING on the public without using the power of the government to coerce them?
Lets just take food. Assume that an individual, corporation, or cartel assumes control over 100% of the food production capacity of the country. Well with that kind of power they can do whatever they want right? They can charge any price, create an entire class of slaver laborers, and so on right?
Well not really. If they raise food prices too high then all of a sudden farm land which was not previously economically viable will become so and new competition will enter the market place. Further foreign grown food will also become relatively more affordable and more profitable for the foreign food producers. Finally since there would be laws in place governing the kinds of sale contracts they could engage in they could not "give" the food to those who could no longer afford it for their indentured service.
So without government protecting their market space there really isn't too much power that such an unrealistically commanding market position would grant them.
"Oh, good. Your response to the economic leverage issue of libertarianism is solved by being "informed" (oops private media nullifies that one) and "following the constitution" (so we don't want a laissez-faire system).
The solution to the libertarian problem is to follow the laws of the state. Makes great sense."
Um, where did you confuse libertarianism with anarchism? Yes, Anarcho Capitalism is one specific form of libertarianism but it is a small (bur very vocal) fringe of libertarian theory.
There is nothing at all incompatable between a free market and a minarchist state.
As far as private media "negating" the value of people staying informed and active. Um yeah if we assume a populace who has had their capacity for rational thought systematically destroyed by a government schooling system this may be a problem but even where it is you assume a single private media outlet when in the real world there are dozens of them, all competing and so propaganda on the part of one will be quickly exposed by the others. Sure some of the time most of the people will be fooled on some issues but no one view would ever become dominant and the competition among the sources would ensure that the real information would be available to any who sought it.
(no subject)
Date: 16/11/10 19:33 (UTC)I'm not sure what makes you think that private media can only work poorly with government educational sanction. Do you really think that the self-interest of private media won't encourage reports which support other relevant power structures? That's precisely what we see with the Israel lobby. And it doesn't take our shitty education system for that propaganda to have an effect - home-schooled kids I've spoken to are typically far more pro-Israeli, further solidifying the racist rhetoric that our media engages in.
Really, the government and private enterprise are both to blame for the consequences of their business models. It's incredibly childish to try to route every failing of the economy to the presence of government.
"If they raise food prices too high then all of a sudden farm land which was not previously economically viable "
That is a part of the food production capacity. What about private ownership of 100% of land?