You should check out Hit and Run when you get a chance. You won’t agree with or care about some of the posts, but I think you’ll be surprised by how many things you do agree with.

With YouTube links to the Rezillos, Mekons and Joy Division, I completely give the music nod to S,N.

Take care,

mccleary

I would have to consider the late 1800’s as the dark side of capitalism. The formation of trusts and the significant capture of wealth by a very few individuals managed to offset tremendous productivity gains, as well as extending horrendous working conditions for labor. In 1882 we saw the creation of the first trust, as well as the Supreme Court claiming that sweatshops were not unconstitutional. 1886 saw the granting of 14th Amendment protections to businesses, as well. One would remember that the government at the time was very much in the Libertarian mold, with an offical policy of ‘laissez-faire’ allowing businesses to work mostly unregulated – which led directly to the economic conditions of the day.

The late 1800′s still pale in comparison to the crimes of the Politoburo when they throw dissidents into the asylums for “insanity”, brutally crush/Russify the minorities, threatened world peace with nukes and general discord of a Communist insurgency, maintained a permanent gulag system with systematic torture, and still had the gall to destroy any ability for entreprenurial success with their terrible economic system. And all this was going under Brezhnev, think about the absolute horror of Stalin and Lennin and the brutality of the late 1800′s pales…

Can I defend the terrible conditions at that time, no and I am thankful that I do not live at that time either.
I think there are many things outside of government that could prevent the worst abuses from happnening today, such as the lightening ability to transmit worker/wage information and to create networks for support. Also, the fact that large numbers of low-skilled/low-educated/low-connected immigrants then and now does depress wages, are are more easily exploited by buisnesses, and that their current wages in the US in the late 1800′s and now are signifigantly higher than back in the motherland (explaining the large remittances then and now) are all signifigant factors when understanding why the conditions then could be so bad.

I would like to debate some more on this issue, but unfortunatley I got my Step 1 exam in a week (I was just using this to release some pressure), so it looks like you’re going to win the debate by default :)
Have fun…

We should remember however, that the big corporations often welcomed government intervention. America in the late 19th century may have been less regulated but was hardly laissez faire. Most of the railroads were built with government money (not to mention the government and the railroads colluded to destroy the plains indians) and were essentially scams. The one exception was the Great Northern which wasn’t as ruthless as the other railroads in chasing off the indians or as corrupt. And the big corporations themselves welcomed anti-trust legislation. The big myth is that America has been laissez faire and a open and free society. Closer to the truth is that it’s been a corporate/state society, with some allowances for personal freedoms.

Having said that, safety regulations and other protections for workers were long overdue in the 19th century. Unfortunately, this also led to the rise of the FDA which probably has done more damage than good. I think the FDA should be restricted to an advisory body, not a legal gatekeeping one. The whole insane drug war, the prohibition against alternative treatments, etc. can be linked back to them, or their antecedents.

“As I noted above, those who espouse ‘libertarian’ philosophies polled out 57-40 for Bush in 2004. That shows a distinct bias towards conservatism.�

Could you back up this statistic? I’m pretty skeptical. First of all, who was getting polled? Voters? I find it hard to believe that 3% or fewer of voting libertarians voted for the Libertarian or other third parties. Second, if voters were getting polled, that leaves out the substantial number of libertarians who don’t vote. I’ll bet you good money that a majority of libertarians didn’t vote for Bush in 2004.

“That’s also doubly damning, since as has been pointed out earlier, Kerry on several points proves to be much less liberal than the classic image of ‘the left’.�

This doesn’t make sense to me. If Kerry’s not very far left, i.e., he’s not terribly different from Bush (which sounds accurate to me), then how is it “damning� that libertarians would choose Bush over him? Wouldn’t it be more “damning� if libertarians chose the Right when they had a viable Left alternative?

To your first question: Link.

Secondly, if you were to argue that ‘Libertarianism’ was not a conservative political system, one would argue that the choice between a candidate with a more socially liberal bent (considering both Bush and Kerry are claimed to be perceived by Libertarians as big-government pols) would do better if social liberalism was a large component in Libertarian thought. Real world evidence shows that’s not the case.

What/where is this example of “free-markets� run as bad as the Soviet politoburo?
I think the consigning of having 1/2 of Europe consigned to a 50 year drab dystopia with millions sent to the gulag is VERY different from Rockerfella and JP Morgan hobnobbing with President McKinley while anarchists can publish rather freely. If you mean some of the “capitalism� practiced in the developing world, in say South America, I can rightly criticize that as mercantilism since not only does much of the developing world has laws that thwart and destroy any buiness instinct and rewards the cronies of the ruling party/class.
In order to better understand your position, I need a concrete example of a major foul-up where capitalism was as/more worse than the communism.

I would have to consider the late 1800′s as the dark side of capitalism. The formation of trusts and the significant capture of wealth by a very few individuals managed to offset tremendous productivity gains, as well as extending horrendous working conditions for labor. In 1882 we saw the creation of the first trust, as well as the Supreme Court claiming that sweatshops were not unconstitutional. 1886 saw the granting of 14th Amendment protections to businesses, as well. One would remember that the government at the time was very much in the Libertarian mold, with an offical policy of ‘laissez-faire’ allowing businesses to work mostly unregulated – which led directly to the economic conditions of the day.

Anyone have the cliff notes?

“As I noted above, those who espouse ‘libertarian’ philosophies polled out 57-40 for Bush in 2004. That shows a distinct bias towards conservatism.”

Could you back up this statistic? I’m pretty skeptical. First of all, who was getting polled? Voters? I find it hard to believe that 3% or fewer of voting libertarians voted for the Libertarian or other third parties. Second, if voters were getting polled, that leaves out the substantial number of libertarians who don’t vote. I’ll bet you good money that a majority of libertarians didn’t vote for Bush in 2004.

“That’s also doubly damning, since as has been pointed out earlier, Kerry on several points proves to be much less liberal than the classic image of ‘the left’.”

This doesn’t make sense to me. If Kerry’s not very far left, i.e., he’s not terribly different from Bush (which sounds accurate to me), then how is it “damning” that libertarians would choose Bush over him? Wouldn’t it be more “damning” if libertarians chose the Right when they had a viable Left alternative?

However, a large number of actual/potential consumers CAN make a huge difference.
Jesse Jackson alone made Big Motor drop to their knees with his threat of the African-American community boycott.
While he did hold a lot of political heft as a real threa, Jesse Jackson (before his sex scandel) was a rather fearsome opponent via his ability to form boycotts for any company that seemed to show discrimination against African-Americans.

Boycotting is rather difficult, but it can be done and it can be successful.

No, not necessarily. I’m against most laws that criminalize consensual vices such as drug use, prostitution, and gambling. Those choices don’t infringe on my own basic rights and I have no interest in any of those choices. Well, okay, if heroin were available at very very small potency levels that could be interesting. Might be good for headaches. I oppose the anti-smoking laws in restaurants and other private spaces even though I hate smoking. I might prefer that large German men not wear those tiny little string bikini bottoms but I wouldn’t press for any law against that. I don’t own a gun, don’t like hunting, but I’m not against people owning powerful enough weapons to protect themselves against larger attackers. So, no, actually, I have a problem with the nanny state too. But the history of racial discrimination in this country is so long, ugly, and pernicious, that at the very least steps to prevent people from not allowing people to eat, use the toilet, get a decent night’s rest, or go to the hospital seemed long overdue. I don’t if I would classify these as rights, but they definitely are basic human needs.

I do not readily trust either. However, that’s a false choice. What’s been proven by untrammeled free market capitalism is that those who have concentrated wealth have an outsized effect on the government, with the ability to ignore the ‘natural rights’ of others in degrees not seen since the Politburo ran things. Ironically, the Politburo is the best example of self serving pols run amok, except for the fact that they also were the ones with the most concentrated wealth in an imperfect political system. The ’self serving consumer’ has little to no power in either the economic system of the real-world (as opposed to ideal) free market or the political system of the unelected leader.

Yes, wealth can majorly affect the way government is run, but a question:

What/where is this example of “free-markets” run as bad as the Soviet politoburo?
I think the consigning of having 1/2 of Europe consigned to a 50 year drab dystopia with millions sent to the gulag is VERY different from Rockerfella and JP Morgan hobnobbing with President McKinley while anarchists can publish rather freely. If you mean some of the “capitalism” practiced in the developing world, in say South America, I can rightly criticize that as mercantilism since not only does much of the developing world has laws that thwart and destroy any buiness instinct and rewards the cronies of the ruling party/class.
In order to better understand your position, I need a concrete example of a major foul-up where capitalism was as/more worse than the communism.

As for big buisnesses creating monopolies and controlling the market, that’s easier said than done. JK Galbraith talked about how Big Motor of Ford and GM were so big and successful that they no longer had to worry about profits, that seems to be a clear example of market domination via monopoly/oligopoly power. However, since Big Motor keeps on making cars no one wants to buy and can’t even pay it’s pensioners, oth are facing collapse while Honda and Toyota are beating the crap out of them on the market.
How did this happen? Big Motor WAS America. It was our symbol of the 20th century industrial prowess and innovation, and now these giants are hemorrhaging by the day.
This is at least one example of the myriad of corporations that were at the top of their field in monopoly/oligopoly power and now are facing/in ruin.
What will keep them alive, however, is the response that, “We can’t let these companies close because too many jobs would be lost/it hurts our economy/it hurts our prestige/etc.” and so they’ll probably get bailed out like Chrysler was in the 80s or the Savings-and-Loan industry in the early 90s.

So, without government intervention of bailouts, many GIANTS OF INDUSTRY! would probably destroy themselves in the market because of their own laziness/hubris/own bad luck.

The left is not so clearly the best route for “social liberalism”/civil liberties. Who tends to supports the Second Amendment better? (That would be the right.) And which side is leading the fight to restrict our right to eat, smoke, and associate freely as we choose? (That would be the left.) Or we could discuss affirmative action, a complicated issue but one which for many people seems to be perpetuating a lack of colorblindness, another degradation of civil liberties led by the left.

Actually, though, I think there was a recent Reason article about how the right is really starting to employ identity politics … here it is: http://www.reason.com/links/links050806.shtml. Hey, what do you know, another Reason article that doesn’t kowtow to Bush or the right… hmm, don’t let any of the people from the 1st two thirds of this thread see that — they might have to make some bad puns and then complain that my post wasn’t witty enough to be worth its space on the server.

But as that article and the behavior of the GOP in recent years has shown, the GOP seems to have every intention of shedding as much libertarian liberty from its policies as it can, not least with regards to economics. So, libertarian-leftists, I would be optimistic, because it may soon enough be that libertarians as a group find themselves more sympathetic to the Democrats than Republicans (a shift greatly aided by this administration and congress, I would imagine).

If we’re going to discriminate we should discriminate against people for more rational reasons. Like, I don’t know, grown women who keep too many stuffed animals in their cars, or people who make little dresses for cats….

I do not readily trust either. However, that’s a false choice. What’s been proven by untrammeled free market capitalism is that those who have concentrated wealth have an outsized effect on the government, with the ability to ignore the ‘natural rights’ of others in degrees not seen since the Politburo ran things. Ironically, the Politburo is the best example of self serving pols run amok, except for the fact that they also were the ones with the most concentrated wealth in an imperfect political system. The ‘self serving consumer’ has little to no power in either the economic system of the real-world (as opposed to ideal) free market or the political system of the unelected leader.

scarletwoman, NobodySpecial,

OK you trust self-serving politicans more than you trust self-serving consumers.

But will you at least acknowlege that libertarians are not consevatives?
And that saying we carry water for Bush is bullshit?

I will not. As I noted above, those who espouse ‘libertarian’ philosophies polled out 57-40 for Bush in 2004. That shows a distinct bias towards conservatism. That’s also doubly damning, since as has been pointed out earlier, Kerry on several points proves to be much less liberal than the classic image of ‘the left’.

As far as ‘carrying water for Bush’, the practical effect of voting for him was endorsing his policies – even the ones you claim to disagree with. In this case, as in many before, the conservative candidate was supported at about a 3:2 ratio among those who did not vote Libertarian. This points out, to me and others, that in the ‘Libertarian’ viewpoint, the economic conservatism trumps the social liberalism – a point borne out by the discussion here and other discussions I’ve had with other self proclaimed ‘Libertarians’, many of whom were supportive of the President even in cases where they should have been much more conflicted. I’m thinking here of the confirmation of Alito as one example, given his track record. Sure, a lot of ‘Libertarians’ are piling on now that his approval rating is below freezing, but damned few were vocally opposed like a Roberts or a Paul.

When you used the term ‘blue stater’ did you mean to suggest you’re a ‘red stater’? I thought you had just suggested that none of you were in support of G.W.? I I hope not anyway. I hope we can at least agree to turn our collective rage against this First Menace in office.

Cain’t nobody answer the questions I asked earlier about the right of the worker to be safe trumping the right of the factory owner to do what he pleases, and other prisoner’s dilemna questions I asked, as well as the problem of free riders when it comes to voluntary charity being supposedly enough to handle social problems? Well, okay, I guess the thread is kind of dying out anyway.

I second Warren’s reccomendation to check out H&R. Most regulars are not as radical as I, of course, but the discussion is always superb.

Also, if you’re interested in a more left-libertarian discussion (and judging by your 3:02 AM post I think you might be) I would recommend checking out Kevin Carson’s mutualist blog at:

http://mutualist.blogspot.com

and Roderick Long’s blog at:

http://praxeology.net/unblog.htm

I read them both regularly, and I think you might especially be interested in Kevin Carson’s blog.

Regards,

Matt

You may call me whatever you want. I chose my online name many years ago for quite esoteric reasons having nothing to do with politics — in any case, as a woman of a certain age, I well remember when the Left was ALWAYS associated with “RED” — as in “better dead than red”.

The whole “blue state/red state” thing is quite a recent phenomenon, after all. As an middle wave (born 4 years post-WWII) baby-boomer, the Cold War/Red Scare made up the better part of my life until my late 30s. That I find myself on a “blue” team in my mid 50s is merely due to a media contrivance.

I am still heartily derided as a “commie-pinko” by right wingers in any case. A charming throwback to the days of my youth. :P

As for asshattery, each must be responsible for their own behavior, I am not their judge.

sw