On Free Markets and Government Regulation:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

One 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.

Comments

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

They would be stagnating if not for the developments within the government. Where would Steve Jobs and Bill Gates be now if not for the development in internet and computer development in aerospace and the military?

Besides, how far would any of the have gotten if they hadn't "given" jobs to people they employ. Jobs are not gifts. They are created out of business needs by mutual agreement between employer and employees

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They would be stagnating if not for the developments within the government. Where would Steve Jobs and Bill Gates be now if not for the development in internet and computer development in aerospace and the military?

The same place they were 10 years ago or so, I suppose.

Let's not confuse issues here - the accusation is that the rich are stagnant. Clearly, they're not.

Besides, how far would any of the have gotten if they hadn't "given" jobs to people they employ. Jobs are not gifts. They are created out of business needs by mutual agreement between employer and employees

Absolutely. More reason to appreciate, rather than attack, the rich.

[ninboydean.livejournal.com]

Right, because the wealthy class has a monopoly over the means of production, we should "appreciate" them.

I didn't know that the factory down the street I helped build was, in fact, built by those who had the means to purchase my labor.


The fact is that your argument can just as easily be used to justify the class of nobility in feudal society - after all, they had a monopoly on the means of production and defense.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Right, because the wealthy class has a monopoly over the means of production, we should "appreciate" them.

More that the wealthy make it possible for the rest of us to live good lives.

I didn't know that the factory down the street I helped build was, in fact, built by those who had the means to purchase my labor.

Yep, it did. Not every owner is rich, after all.

The fact is that your argument can just as easily be used to justify the class of nobility in feudal society - after all, they had a monopoly on the means of production and defense.

Not at all - in feudal society, rights didn't exist as we know them now.

[ninboydean.livejournal.com]

Not at all - in feudal society, rights didn't exist as we know them now.

This is a completely different issue. Your argument can still justify feudal relation since the feudal monopoly was the only means of access to production, and so serfs should have been grateful to their lords for providing them with jobs &c.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not at all. I'm not saying we should get rid of the rights of the poor.

[ninboydean.livejournal.com]

Again, that's not the point being made at all in either of my posts. The point is that your line of reasoning is just as applicable to the defense of any centralization of power - once one (or a few) group(s) has that power, it is up to them if the working class can enjoy the value that it controls.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

My line of reasoning goes directly against centralization. As it stands, you want to centralize power in a force that demonizes and scapegoats the rich.

[ninboydean.livejournal.com]

You support the centralization of power into the hands of the rich (or the perpetuation thereof).

I support decentralization. I am not sure what makes you think otherwise.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You support the centralization of power into the hands of the rich (or the perpetuation thereof).

Not at all. I have no clue how you get there.

I support decentralization. I am not sure what makes you think otherwise.

You support a central power that will dictate and force your idea of what the social order should be. *shrug*

[ninboydean.livejournal.com]

Not at all. I have no clue how you get there.

Oh, so you do believe in redistribution of power?

You support a central power that will dictate and force your idea of what the social order should be. *shrug*

Nope. I'm a socialist, which means I believe in the devolution of power to the people through and through. Please find where I've supported centralization of power.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Oh, so you do believe in redistribution of power?

If defined by how you'd define it, probably not.

Nope. I'm a socialist, which means I believe in the devolution of power to the people through and through. Please find where I've supported centralization of power.

As a socialist, you believe in the centralization of power, as centralization of power is the only way socialism can exist. You must force socialism on those who disagree with it to make it happen, thus it requires a strong central power to enforce it.

Most socialists I've encountered and studied seem to miss that part.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

The same place they were 10 years ago or so, I suppose.

Which would be the definition of stagnation

Absolutely. More reason to appreciate, rather than attack, the rich.

As well as more reason to appreciate, rather than attack, the people that the rich employ. Nobody is doing any favors here. The rich hire because they need people and people get hired because they need jobs. There are no real favors being given here. Just mutual benefit.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Which would be the definition of stagnation

No no, I mean think 2000 tech.

The rich hire because they need people and people get hired because they need jobs. There are no real favors being given here. Just mutual benefit.

Then what's with the continued bitching?

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

No no, I mean think 2000 tech.

The 2000 tech was nothing more than a shakeout of an overextended industry, which isn't unusual in a new technology. While many tech companies lost in the wake of that, Microsoft and Apple actually benefited.

Then what's with the continued bitching?

I was responding to your bitching.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

By your standard the French Revolution and hence the fundamental basis of society beyond that of great landlords and starving peasantry is made up of ungrateful wretches and hence we should return to the glory days of feudalism. Ye Gods, Libertarianism is nothing but feudalism dressed up in modern language. >.<