New Hamspshire is rolling up

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I hate it when people make wide claims "there is no evidence it will work" without being specific. Please make specific claims which we can then counter as we have hundreds of times in the past. There is plenty of research out there for free market solutions to economic problems. Sometimes it can only be proving the ineffectiveness of the current socialist methods when it's something we haven't been without in a long time, but even then there are usually some good examples of a move toward a free market solution working better.

Anyhow, I'm not going to make a mega-post that shows how ever facet of the economy works better the freer it is using real examples, largely because I can't remember off the top of my head every facet of the economy. But if you'd like to say "what about X" then make a thread and let's talk about X.

Milton Friedman had free reign in Chile in the 1970s, why did it end in disaster? Why did he gloss over the fact that his policies could only be implemented through the overthrow of democratically elected governments, the fracture of an entire society, and the disappearing of tens of thousands?

What examples can you point to of these reforms working, even within a country in which democracy doesn't play a role?

[thewise1]

When's the last time a society was really allowed to work like a libertarian would like?

What country was that anyway? I'd love to read about it.

[motivez]

I'm talking about in recent times, not back when you still had to wait 6 months to get mail from someone and very few people left a few mile radius of where they lived.

Today's society is far more complex than it was back when the US was founded.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

There isn't a logically grounded reason?

What about the incentive of greed? That's a pretty logically grounded reason.

It's a pretty good reason for why your system will never work. We need to create systems that help counter our weaknesses, not play them up. It's madness to do otherwise.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

There isn't a logically grounded reason?

What about the incentive of greed? That's a pretty logically grounded reason.

Yeah, and one that if allowed to take over, would be willing to fuck people over at every given opportunity for a buck. I've said it many times, the market is fantastic at great number of things.. but if left to its own devices, too many people get caught up in the churn, and it's not worth it.

Hardly a philosophy that sounds good to most people, which is why Ron Paul and the Libertarian party continues to do so poorly..

There has to be SOME form of regulation, and a government organization elected by and for the people is a great way to do it. It just sucks that we often have to deal with bad government.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

When's the last time a society was really allowed to work like a libertarian would like?

What country was that anyway? I'd love to read about it.

I don't know, but it obviously worked.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by bheld

Milton Friedman had free reign in Chile in the 1970s, why did it end in disaster? Why did he gloss over the fact that his policies could only be implemented through the overthrow of democratically elected governments, the fracture of an entire society, and the disappearing of tens of thousands?

What examples can you point to of these reforms working, even within a country in which democracy doesn't play a role?

I had a feeling you were referring to Pinochet in a different post (think it was earlier in this thread).

If you actually read a little about Friedman, his stance was that a free market would lead to a freer people, and as such he lectured in socialist countries such as china, chile, and a few others that I don't remember and offered advice.

He did not have "free reign" that I'm aware of in Chile, and was never an advisor to Pinochet according to wikipedia (not the best source, I know - sorry)

Also, I wonder about the truth of saying that he couldn't implement these solutions except through these human rights abuses. The man was a dictator, and was before he went free market, and after he went free market. Hardly a true free market when you have to worry about such things, it seems to me

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by bheld

It's a pretty good reason for why your system will never work. We need to create systems that help counter our weaknesses, not play them up. It's madness to do otherwise.

I don't view greed as a weakness. I view it as a strength.

[Ardentfrost]

Again, bring up specific examples and I bet there are good examples of it working in the not-so-distant past. Talking broad is easy. You can say "free market won't work" and I can say "free market can work" and we've accomplished nothing. Offer up something specific. I've read enough from various sources of REAL examples to show it working.

But if you're looking for an example of a free market pipe dream, then that's not going to happen.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, and one that if allowed to take over, would be willing to fuck people over at every given opportunity for a buck. I've said it many times, the market is fantastic at great number of things.. but if left to its own devices, too many people get caught up in the churn, and it's not worth it.

Hardly a philosophy that sounds good to most people, which is why Ron Paul and the Libertarian party continues to do so poorly..

There has to be SOME form of regulation, and a government organization elected by and for the people is a great way to do it. It just sucks that we often have to deal with bad government.

How is it fucking people over for a buck, if it's a voluntary transaction between two people?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I don't view greed as a weakness. I view it as a strength.

I view it as predictable. And it's just as predictable in a free market system as it is in an unfree system, it's just that unfree systems offer more ways in which people can take advantage of the system, as any greedy society would.

The free market predictions of greed don't create a bad situation since there is nothing to take advantage of.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by thewise1

How is it fucking people over for a buck, if it's a voluntary transaction between two people?

How many times do we have to say "unions are a free market answer to a disparity between an employers expectations of its workers and the workers expectations of its employer." Localized unions, as shown in the early 1900's is a good thing. Nationalized unions in a situation where they can act to adjust legislation to favor themselves is a bad thing.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

How is it fucking people over for a buck, if it's a voluntary transaction between two people?

Because greed leads to bad shit, look at the cases where companies illegally dumped and poisoned ground water and kids got all kinds of cancer.. Sure, the parents could get a monetary settlement, but does that bring back their kids, get rid of their cancer, etc? No.

They did it to save a buck and boost their profits.. Obviously people want to make money, and that's a health desire, but when it's the ONLY thing someone cares about (as people feel libertarians do) instead of in combination with a public good (which a lot of libertarians deny exists), you can see why the philosophy isn't more popular despite so many people really agreeing with parts of it (ie personal freedoms)

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

Because greed leads to bad shit, look at the cases where companies illegally dumped and poisoned ground water and kids got all kinds of cancer.. Sure, the parents could get a monetary settlement, but does that bring back their kids, get rid of their cancer, etc? No.

They did it to save a buck and boost their profits.. Obviously people want to make money, and that's a health desire, but when it's the ONLY thing someone cares about (as people feel libertarians do) instead of in combination with a public good (which a lot of libertarians deny exists), you can see why the philosophy isn't more popular despite so many people really agreeing with parts of it (ie personal freedoms)

There is no place for irresponsible actions (such as dumping carcinogens) in a free society, and each state should protect their people.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I had a feeling you were referring to Pinochet in a different post (think it was earlier in this thread).

If you actually read a little about Friedman, his stance was that a free market would lead to a freer people, and as such he lectured in socialist countries such as china, chile, and a few others that I don't remember and offered advice.

He did not have "free reign" that I'm aware of in Chile, and was never an advisor to Pinochet according to wikipedia (not the best source, I know - sorry)

Also, I wonder about the truth of saying that he couldn't implement these solutions except through these human rights abuses. The man was a dictator, and was before he went free market, and after he went free market. Hardly a true free market when you have to worry about such things, it seems to me

Chile was not a socialist country before Pinochet. It was a model democracy for other third world countries along with Argentina and Brazil. Friedman met PERSONALLY with Pinochet and advised him directly and also through his Chicago School minions.

Pinochet was using free market principles from DAY 1. All of the South American coups had Friedman-backed economic guidebooks at the onset of their power grabs. Each economy collapsed under these reforms and to this day they still don't have the economy they did at the start of the 1970s but rather one with a shunted middle class.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

How many times do we have to say "unions are a free market answer to a disparity between an employers expectations of its workers and the workers expectations of its employer." Localized unions, as shown in the early 1900's is a good thing. Nationalized unions in a situation where they can act to adjust legislation to favor themselves is a bad thing.

Agreed, completely. It's a way for workers to say "nope, we're not selling you our services if you don't work with us".

The only time it becomes wrong in my view is when they pass legislation that forces a company to engage in a non voluntary transaction (paying them more than the company wants, etc). The same applies when a company has enough pull to pass legislation that says workers can't strike, like on the current railroad unions. That's not right either.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by bheld

Chile was not a socialist country before Pinochet. It was a model democracy for other third world countries along with Argentina and Brazil. Friedman met PERSONALLY with Pinochet and advised him directly and also through his Chicago School minions.

Pinochet was using free market principles from DAY 1. All of the South American coups had Friedman-backed economic guidebooks at the onset of their power grabs. Each economy collapsed under these reforms and to this day they still don't have the economy they did at the start of the 1970s but rather one with a shunted middle class.

Care to provide some sources? Because the information I have suggests otherwise.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

There is no place for irresponsible actions (such as dumping carcinogens) in a free society, and each state should protect their people.

Which is why I believe regulation in some form is needed. I don't think it has to be taken to an extreme, but I also don't think the libertarian philosophy should be taken to an extreme either.

I think a combination is the best solution, pure systems have proven not to work well in the past.

I don't understand why the Libertarians don't all get together and move to some non-populated area and start running the place how they want. If it works great, then they have a model to show the rest of the country instead of "keep the faith, it'll work, y0!" when it's never really been tested in today's society.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

There is no place for irresponsible actions (such as dumping carcinogens) in a free society, and each state should protect their people.

How? By regulating business?