Why is the libertarian ideology so popular among otherwise reasonable people?

[LennStar]

Communism argues workers own all

Yes

(and that everyone should be a worker).

Not really

They 100% discount the role of capital

Not at all.
I am not even sure what you mean here. The role of capital is the root reason for communistic revolutions, after all. And even in communism you have capital. Even private capital.
The difference is that most of it is owned by a multitude of people. You know, like stocks, just that stock owners are generally NOT the one working in what they own partly, while in communism those groups would be the same.

[J Boogie]

You only get to eat what you kill if you also put your capital on the line. A McD worker can't expect to keep all of the marginal profits he makes because he doesn't invest in the business or its assets. He also bears no risk (besides his own wage) if he does his job poorly - he's not exposed to any marginal losses that come from lawsuits, breakdowns or other problems at work.

>> You only get to eat what you kill if you also put your capital on the line.

Why? What is so very absolutely special about capital that it completely displaces labor in importance?

Why isn't "putting labor on the line" the same thing? If I work somewhere for 10 years - shouldn't I have some vested interest?

Communism argues workers own all (and that everyone should be a worker). They 100% discount the role of capital and the risk associated with it. The current form of "libertarian" capitalism ("crony capitalism" in my view) you subscribe to takes the diametrically opposite stance. Zombies on both sides decry theirs to be the *only* possible solution.
But why?

>> A McD worker can't expect to keep all of the marginal profits he makes because he doesn't invest in the business or its assets.

He/she absolutely invests in the business.

After 10 years of working at a McD - do you think he/she has built up relationships, skills etc appropriate for that specific business and brand? Do you think he/she has designed his life around the corporate processes and policies?

Heck, it is formally recognized for my line of work. I expect to get a nice little severance package that increases with every year of service I put in if I get laid off or fired "for no cause". I even qualify for 5 extra days of  paid vacation days in another 4 months. In some places, your "company contribution" to retirement plans also "vest" with a certain schedule. Layoffs everywhere typically recognize it to varying degree as well.

Why do you assert otherwise with 100% absolute certainty (as is the wont of all libertarian crony capitalists)?

>> He also bears no risk (besides his own wage) if he does his job poorly

You mean it is risk-free for him if McD goes under due to mismanagement?

I have neighbors who used to work at GE. Some of their lives are upended coming from the mismanagement by Jack Welch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric). Leave aside the consideration they they are white collar workers and probably own GE stock in their 401k. Do you mean to say they took no risk, and wasn't impacted by the risk of Jack Welch taking tens and hundreds of millions and hollowing out the company? If you take the average/typical GE investor who invests via some index fund in 401k (like your's truly), then they probably lost a lot more. Losing a job in your 50s is a *huge* amount of risk.

Just to clarify, I never said workers should "expect to keep all of the marginal profits he makes". I doubt anyone (but a communist) will argue the "all" part of it with 100% certainty.
All I say is that labor should not be completely displaced by capital like it seems to have been now! Perhaps a fair - 50/50 arrangement is in order?

When you're investing your time as an employee, you're investing a day's work and you stand to lose nothing but the opportunity to do it again tomorrow should your company go bankrupt.

When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend, and you stand to lose everything if your company(s) go bankrupt.

You can spend 10 years at a company as a total zombie, mailing it in.  Investors don't mail it in because they're not just investing the day's efforts, they're investing every previous day's efforts as well.

[Wrenchturner]

You only get to eat what you kill if you also put your capital on the line. A McD worker can't expect to keep all of the marginal profits he makes because he doesn't invest in the business or its assets. He also bears no risk (besides his own wage) if he does his job poorly - he's not exposed to any marginal losses that come from lawsuits, breakdowns or other problems at work.

>> You only get to eat what you kill if you also put your capital on the line.

Why? What is so very absolutely special about capital that it completely displaces labor in importance?

Why isn't "putting labor on the line" the same thing? If I work somewhere for 10 years - shouldn't I have some vested interest?

Communism argues workers own all (and that everyone should be a worker). They 100% discount the role of capital and the risk associated with it. The current form of "libertarian" capitalism ("crony capitalism" in my view) you subscribe to takes the diametrically opposite stance. Zombies on both sides decry theirs to be the *only* possible solution.
But why?

>> A McD worker can't expect to keep all of the marginal profits he makes because he doesn't invest in the business or its assets.

He/she absolutely invests in the business.

After 10 years of working at a McD - do you think he/she has built up relationships, skills etc appropriate for that specific business and brand? Do you think he/she has designed his life around the corporate processes and policies?

Heck, it is formally recognized for my line of work. I expect to get a nice little severance package that increases with every year of service I put in if I get laid off or fired "for no cause". I even qualify for 5 extra days of  paid vacation days in another 4 months. In some places, your "company contribution" to retirement plans also "vest" with a certain schedule. Layoffs everywhere typically recognize it to varying degree as well.

Why do you assert otherwise with 100% absolute certainty (as is the wont of all libertarian crony capitalists)?

>> He also bears no risk (besides his own wage) if he does his job poorly

You mean it is risk-free for him if McD goes under due to mismanagement?

I have neighbors who used to work at GE. Some of their lives are upended coming from the mismanagement by Jack Welch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric). Leave aside the consideration they they are white collar workers and probably own GE stock in their 401k. Do you mean to say they took no risk, and wasn't impacted by the risk of Jack Welch taking tens and hundreds of millions and hollowing out the company? If you take the average/typical GE investor who invests via some index fund in 401k (like your's truly), then they probably lost a lot more. Losing a job in your 50s is a *huge* amount of risk.

Just to clarify, I never said workers should "expect to keep all of the marginal profits he makes". I doubt anyone (but a communist) will argue the "all" part of it with 100% certainty.
All I say is that labor should not be completely displaced by capital like it seems to have been now! Perhaps a fair - 50/50 arrangement is in order?

When you're investing your time as an employee, you're investing a day's work and you stand to lose nothing but the opportunity to do it again tomorrow should your company go bankrupt.

When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend, and you stand to lose everything if your company(s) go bankrupt.

You can spend 10 years at a company as a total zombie, mailing it in.  Investors don't mail it in because they're not just investing the day's efforts, they're investing every previous day's efforts as well.

Employees can also cause five or six figures of damage in a day and they still get paid.  I've seen it happen!

[ctuser1]

When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend, and you stand to lose everything if your company(s) go bankrupt.

That is not how finance works!!

There is a Cost of Capital (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_funds_index). It happens to be extremely low today - I (and many other actual economists far better informed than I) suspect because so many old fogey's are chasing yield.

When you are investing capital - your ONLY cost is the < 5% cost of funding and usually your personal wealth is protected in case of business bankruptcy. Ask our president how!!

The above is how the "owners of capital" who have siphoned off most of the benefits of the economic boom since 1980 invest. The kind of people (small mom and pop businesses) who invest in the manner you mentioned are precisely the ones who have been on the receiving end of the inequality.

And oh by the way - just because bankruptcy wiped out the jobs does not mean the losses incurred during the process were lost. They are valuable for tax write offs. So our "owner of capital" gets to use those same losses from the bankrupted entities for future year tax write offs.
https://fortune.com/2019/05/15/trump-tax-losses/


Workers typically have a lot more at stake than the "owners" in the Crony Capitalistic setups that seem to have taken over the western world.

[J Boogie]

When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend, and you stand to lose everything if your company(s) go bankrupt.

That is not how finance works!!

There is a Cost of Capital (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_funds_index). It happens to be extremely low today - I (and many other actual economists far better informed than I) suspect because so many old fogey's are chasing yield.

When you are investing capital - your ONLY cost is the < 5% cost of funding and usually your personal wealth is protected in case of business bankruptcy. Ask our president how!!

The above is how the "owners of capital" who have siphoned off most of the benefits of the economic boom since 1980 invest. The kind of people (small mom and pop businesses) who invest in the manner you mentioned are precisely the ones who have been on the receiving end of the inequality.

And oh by the way - just because bankruptcy wiped out the jobs does not mean the losses incurred during the process were lost. They are valuable for tax write offs. So our "owner of capital" gets to use those same losses from the bankrupted entities for future year tax write offs.
https://fortune.com/2019/05/15/trump-tax-losses/


Workers typically have a lot more at stake than the "owners" in the Crony Capitalistic setups that seem to have taken over the western world.

Your beef seems to be with the shady use of loopholes, not libertarian style capitalism.

I know how low cost debt and business bankruptcy work; I meant that you stand to lose your entire investment of past wages, not your unrelated assets (unless you pledged them as collateral).

The only reason workers might have "more at stake" (ie end up in a worse position) is because their job is their only asset.

[ctuser1]

Your beef seems to be with the shady use of loopholes, not libertarian style capitalism.

I know how low cost debt and business bankruptcy work; I meant that you stand to lose your entire investment of past wages, not your unrelated assets (unless you pledged them as collateral).

The only reason workers might have "more at stake" (ie end up in a worse position) is because their job is their only asset.

My beef is very much with "libertarian style capitalism"!! I don't define "libertarian style capitalism" by what it says, but what it does!!

i.e. vast majority of self proclaimed libertarians (e.g. Kochs) do something, and of course say something else. What they *do* *IS* how I define "libertarian style capitalism".

The kind of capitalism (where a retiree invests his savings over decades for yield, or a mom and pop opens a store) is an insignificant rounding error compared to the "libertarian style capitalism" that Koch's engage in.

Just look up the leverage they carry on their businesses!!

The reason the "real savings" are such a rounding error is because a vast majority of that flow into the "libertarian style capitalism"'s world of high finance quite quickly, and then leverage builds up on it, once it gets invested somewhere.

The capitalism you described is irrelevant for the discussion - because it is so small. The capitalism I described is what matters - because it is so much bigger.

So can we come back to the question of why you think "capital" deserves to stand at such a high pedestal compared to labor - any real reason other than your libertarian ideological preferences, of course?

[J Boogie]

My beef is very much with "libertarian style capitalism"!! I don't define "libertarian style capitalism" by what it says, but what it does!!

i.e. vast majority of self proclaimed libertarians (e.g. Kochs) do something, and of course say something else. What they *do* *IS* how I define "libertarian style capitalism".

The kind of capitalism (where a retiree invests his savings over decades for yield, or a mom and pop opens a store) is an insignificant rounding error compared to the "libertarian style capitalism" that Koch's engage in.

Just look up the leverage they carry on their businesses!!

The reason the "real savings" are such a rounding error is because a vast majority of that flow into the "libertarian style capitalism"'s world of high finance quite quickly, and then leverage builds up on it, once it gets invested somewhere.

The capitalism you described is irrelevant for the discussion - because it is so small. The capitalism I described is what matters - because it is so much bigger.

So can we come back to the question of why you think "capital" deserves to stand at such a high pedestal compared to labor - any real reason other than your libertarian ideological preferences, of course?

My libertarian ideological preferences don't run that deep. For example I think (responsible) central banking is probably a net positive, whereas libertarians are generally anti central banking and would prefer commodity backed currencies or cryptocurrencies.

The low interest rates you suggest are due to old fogies chasing yield ignores the central bank elephants in the room. Central banks target a certain interest rate and then buy up govt bonds and govt backed mortgage bonds to achieve it. Borrowing is cheap and old fogies are chasing yields because central banks believe it will create a healthier economy than if the free market were allowed to determine interest rates.

However, I think your fundamental confusion is regarding the size and relevance of middle class wealth. You dismiss it as irrelevant, for reasons such as the top 1% now own a greater share of wealth than the middle class in the US. This is a staggering statistic, but to write off middle class capital (21% of all US wealth vs 29% owned by the top 1%) as irrelevant is absurd.

The middle class is about half of the US. The median US middle class net worth is roughly 80k - some cash, some home equity, some investments.

These are people who are transforming their labor into capital so they can enjoy a better life.  They are trading their labor for someone else's capital. These capitalists collectively own an amount pretty close to the 1%, so why is their capital irrelevant?

The capital vs labor debate might not be the right framing of this discussion, because you don't really invest labor unless you're working for free or or for company stock in lie of wages. You get paid for labor, you invest capital.

Perhaps a better question would be why do you believe someone like Bill Gates (as opposed to less ethical billionaires) does or does not deserve to own his capital? I believe with Microsoft he created value for the world and rightfully earned his 100 billion.  I think it's a faulty premise that some people are just too rich. This is an emotional appeal with no logical basis. How should their wealth be distributed? While I think wealth inequality can be very bad, I don't think redistribution is the solution - just as a bucket is not a solution for your basement flooding.

[ctuser1]

However, I think your fundamental confusion is regarding the size and relevance of middle class wealth. You dismiss it as irrelevant, for reasons such as the top 1% now own a greater share of wealth than the middle class in the US. This is a staggering statistic, but to write off middle class capital (21% of all US wealth vs 29% owned by the top 1%) as irrelevant is absurd.

Once you understand how the concept of leverage applies your confusion should be over.

Middle class does not apply leverage to their capital. Top 1% does.

Middle class capital, once into the system of high finance (you invest in index funds -> cash pile of AAPL) is no longer "middle class capital".

Total these two, and it is several orders of magnitude higher than the "middle class capital".
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052715/how-big-derivatives-market.asp

How much of that leveraged exposure of $1.2 quadrillion (i.e. 10 times world's GDP) is controlled by your capitalists - you think?

[J Boogie]

Once you understand how the concept of leverage applies your confusion should be over.

Middle class does not apply leverage to their capital. Top 1% does.

Actually, real estate is the main asset of middle class wealth and it is leveraged probably 99% of the time.

[J Boogie]

Middle class capital, once into the system of high finance (you invest in index funds -> cash pile of AAPL) is no longer "middle class capital".

I'm middle class, I invest in stocks, and yet the capital is still mine to direct as I please. It's middle class capital regardless of what asset class its invested in.

[J Boogie]

Middle class capital, once into the system of high finance (you invest in index funds -> cash pile of AAPL) is no longer "middle class capital".

Total these two, and it is several orders of magnitude higher than the "middle class capital".
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052715/how-big-derivatives-market.asp

How much of that leveraged exposure of $1.2 quadrillion (i.e. 10 times world's GDP) is controlled by your capitalists - you think?

It's greater than top 1% capital too. Because it's not capital. Derivatives are basically side bets on the price movement of underlying assets. If you own a share of apple, your ownership is not compromised by the various puts and calls on apple.

[Panly]

Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.

Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.

It's always been a mystery to me why the libertarians who really believe that, haven't moved to east-Congo yet.

There is no central government, no central bank, ... in fact nobody to mess with the libertarian ideals.

[ctuser1]

Middle class capital, once into the system of high finance (you invest in index funds -> cash pile of AAPL) is no longer "middle class capital".

Total these two, and it is several orders of magnitude higher than the "middle class capital".
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052715/how-big-derivatives-market.asp

How much of that leveraged exposure of $1.2 quadrillion (i.e. 10 times world's GDP) is controlled by your capitalists - you think?

It's greater than top 1% capital too. Because it's not capital. Derivatives are basically side bets on the price movement of underlying assets. If you own a share of apple, your ownership is not compromised by the various puts and calls on apple.

"Exposure" = Capital.

You don't have the capital to invest, so you go borrow and invest, does not make it "not capital".

[ctuser1]

Once you understand how the concept of leverage applies your confusion should be over.

Middle class does not apply leverage to their capital. Top 1% does.

Actually, real estate is the main asset of middle class wealth and it is leveraged probably 99% of the time.

Indeed. By 5x or so.

And then it gets leveraged another whatever-X as CDO's when it enters the realm of finance.

1 X 5 = $5 middle class capital.
$5 X 5 = $25 - the capital of CDOs and such.

Which one is bigger?

[J Boogie]

Middle class capital, once into the system of high finance (you invest in index funds -> cash pile of AAPL) is no longer "middle class capital".

Total these two, and it is several orders of magnitude higher than the "middle class capital".
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052715/how-big-derivatives-market.asp

How much of that leveraged exposure of $1.2 quadrillion (i.e. 10 times world's GDP) is controlled by your capitalists - you think?

It's greater than top 1% capital too. Because it's not capital. Derivatives are basically side bets on the price movement of underlying assets. If you own a share of apple, your ownership is not compromised by the various puts and calls on apple.

"Exposure" = Capital.

You don't have the capital to invest, so you go borrow and invest, does not make it "not capital".

Exposure does not equal capital.

Securities purchased with borrowed funds are not derivatives.

[J Boogie]

Once you understand how the concept of leverage applies your confusion should be over.

Middle class does not apply leverage to their capital. Top 1% does.

Actually, real estate is the main asset of middle class wealth and it is leveraged probably 99% of the time.

Indeed. By 5x or so.

And then it gets leveraged another whatever-X as CDO's when it enters the realm of finance.

1 X 5 = $5 middle class capital.
$5 X 5 = $25 - the capital of CDOs and such.

Which one is bigger?

Wall street might make bets on the underlying asset and loan performance of the middle class, but it does not mean that my 250k house translates to over 1m worth of capital for some trader.

[J Boogie]

Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.

Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.

It's always been a mystery to me why the libertarians who really believe that, haven't moved to east-Congo yet.

There is no central government, no central bank, ... in fact nobody to mess with the libertarian ideals.

You're thinking of anarcho-libertarians.

I believe mainstream libertarians consider it the legitimate role of government to protect the rights and property of its citizens from those who would enfringe upon them (ie criminals).

[Panly]

Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.

Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.

It's always been a mystery to me why the libertarians who really believe that, haven't moved to east-Congo yet.

There is no central government, no central bank, ... in fact nobody to mess with the libertarian ideals.

You're thinking of anarcho-libertarians.

I believe mainstream libertarians consider it the legitimate role of government to protect the rights and property of its citizens from those who would enfringe upon them (ie criminals).

oh, have those anarcho-libertarians moved to Congo then? 


On a side note, how would the mainstream libertarians fund all those legitimate government activities? 

[GuitarStv]

Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.

Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.

It's always been a mystery to me why the libertarians who really believe that, haven't moved to east-Congo yet.

There is no central government, no central bank, ... in fact nobody to mess with the libertarian ideals.

You're thinking of anarcho-libertarians.

I believe mainstream libertarians consider it the legitimate role of government to protect the rights and property of its citizens from those who would enfringe upon them (ie criminals).

I've heard an awful lot of argument that there shouldn't be environmental protection (or that the protections we do enjoy should be vastly curtailed) from self-described Libertarians.  Not sure how that squares away with protecting rights and property of citizens.

[J Boogie]

Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.

Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.

It's always been a mystery to me why the libertarians who really believe that, haven't moved to east-Congo yet.

There is no central government, no central bank, ... in fact nobody to mess with the libertarian ideals.

You're thinking of anarcho-libertarians.

I believe mainstream libertarians consider it the legitimate role of government to protect the rights and property of its citizens from those who would enfringe upon them (ie criminals).

oh, have those anarcho-libertarians moved to Congo then? 


On a side note, how would the mainstream libertarians fund all those legitimate government activities?

I believe they favor use-based taxes, ie using gas taxes/tolls to pay for road maintenance. I'm guessing they would want something like a tax bill your local govt sends you for police, fire, etc that is not linked to your income.

[ctuser1]

Once you understand how the concept of leverage applies your confusion should be over.

Middle class does not apply leverage to their capital. Top 1% does.

Actually, real estate is the main asset of middle class wealth and it is leveraged probably 99% of the time.

Indeed. By 5x or so.

And then it gets leveraged another whatever-X as CDO's when it enters the realm of finance.

1 X 5 = $5 middle class capital.
$5 X 5 = $25 - the capital of CDOs and such.

Which one is bigger?

Wall street might make bets on the underlying asset and loan performance of the middle class, but it does not mean that my 250k house translates to over 1m worth of capital for some trader.

I get that you think the 2008 recession was all a fairy tale.

On a serious note, there is a lot of ways securities can and do get recycled into capital.

VaR based margining, securities lending are the two most obvious I remember.

Do you know how fidelity/Schwann can give you free trades? They lend the securities out!!

[GuitarStv]

Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.

Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.

It's always been a mystery to me why the libertarians who really believe that, haven't moved to east-Congo yet.

There is no central government, no central bank, ... in fact nobody to mess with the libertarian ideals.

You're thinking of anarcho-libertarians.

I believe mainstream libertarians consider it the legitimate role of government to protect the rights and property of its citizens from those who would enfringe upon them (ie criminals).

oh, have those anarcho-libertarians moved to Congo then? 


On a side note, how would the mainstream libertarians fund all those legitimate government activities?

I believe they favor use-based taxes, ie using gas taxes/tolls to pay for road maintenance. I'm guessing they would want something like a tax bill your local govt sends you for police, fire, etc that is not linked to your income.

Kinda an offensive idea.  The rich get to buy fancy stuff like security from being attacked on the street, and protect their houses from burning down.  The poor have no money, so no protection . . . making it harder for them to escape poverty.

[Panly]

Libertarinaism at it's best always seemed to be a philosophy that was coming from a place of wanting to expand the freedoms of individuals.  If a government is extremely large and has controls over every aspect of a person's life, this certainly limits freedom.  But when there isn't enough government to protect and care for it's people . . . this also limits freedom.  It's this latter half that is always forgotten or overlooked by your typical modern Libertarian.  Which is really a shame.

Libertarians don't believe the government should care for its people.

It's always been a mystery to me why the libertarians who really believe that, haven't moved to east-Congo yet.

There is no central government, no central bank, ... in fact nobody to mess with the libertarian ideals.

You're thinking of anarcho-libertarians.

I believe mainstream libertarians consider it the legitimate role of government to protect the rights and property of its citizens from those who would enfringe upon them (ie criminals).

oh, have those anarcho-libertarians moved to Congo then? 


On a side note, how would the mainstream libertarians fund all those legitimate government activities?

I believe they favor use-based taxes, ie using gas taxes/tolls to pay for road maintenance. I'm guessing they would want something like a tax bill your local govt sends you for police, fire, etc that is not linked to your income.

Kinda an offensive idea.  The rich get to buy fancy stuff like security from being attacked on the street, and protect their houses from burning down.  The poor have no money, so no protection . . . making it harder for them to escape poverty.

My observation might not be first hand, but that sounds a lot like the present situation in the DRC to me. 


I didn't know that regressive taxes would fund the legitimate government functions in a mainstream libertarian state. 

What do the mainstream libertarians think of the Sacklers,  who peddled heroin as "safe" to the medical establishment and now hide in Chapter 11 in order to keep the billions of profit without being held accountable for the problems (aka 400.000+ dying US citizens) they caused?


Would it be a "legitimate" task of the libertarian government to prosecute them as "criminals"?
 
Or would the mainstream libertarians praise them for being so smart and shrewd in the (FDA-) free world?

I can imagine abolishing the FDA is pretty high on the libertarian agenda, isn't it? 




 
 

[ctuser1]

I'm going to lightly wade into this thread....as what I'd call a former libertarian.

My observation is the problem with both communism and libertarians is one believes the government is moral/noble/does no wrong and the other believes that business is moral/noble/does no wrong.  (or lightly dismisses their "wrong" as just a one off/bad apple/side effect).    Humans are actors in the world either way and humans are flawed and make mistakes....some of which are substantial and destructive mistakes.  The thought leaders of both movements personally saw the worse of the other side which created their views.

I prefer to have a healthy skepticism of both government and business after twenty years of following this stuff. 

Ultimately I end up supporting local and national not for profits that support and encourage policies to keep our economic mobility.  My personal opinion is I think the greatest thing about the US compared to any other country in the world is that our "rich" cycle up every generation, with some reports saying up to 80% of millionaires are first generation wealth in their family.   This avoids the class/generational wealth system that infects the rest of the developed world crony systems that keep the rich rich and poor poor.

The crux of your argument is exactly what jives with me. Both Communism and Libertarianism are pretty evil if taken to the extreme. We are staring at the libertarian version of it today in the US (ask any uninsured sick people who die sooner), and have seen the communist version of it in other places at other times.

I'd nitpick with your hopeful tone, however:
You seem to express a very high degree of hope in the income mobility. Per the data/reports I have seen, that seems to have declined a lot since the 1960s.

This above trend does not correlate neatly with the libertarian takeover of the US policy-making (starting with the Reagan years) like the other big problems facing the US do (healthcare/income-inequality/stagnant wages), and hence is probably more complex in origin and reason.

Would you still sound a hopeful tone given this? I, personally, am pretty alarmed and worried for the future generations.

[Scandium]

What do the mainstream libertarians think of the Sacklers,  who peddled heroin as "safe" to the medical establishment and now hide in Chapter 11 in order to keep the billions of profit without being held accountable for the problems (aka 400.000+ dying US citizens) they caused?

Would it be a "legitimate" task of the libertarian government to prosecute them as "criminals"?
 
Or would the mainstream libertarians praise them for being so smart and shrewd in the (FDA-) free world?

I can imagine abolishing the FDA is pretty high on the libertarian agenda, isn't it?

I'm confused, what you say as the "libertarian scenario" is exactly what is happening in our real world! :S The drug-pushers are getting away with it, just like the bankers who crashed the economy got away with it, and BP execs got away with polluting the gulf for generations, and coal companies strip mined WV and left it's people to die and took their wages etc etc..

See a pattern? Libertarians only problem seems to be that businesses don't get away with enough

[Scandium]

Ultimately I end up supporting local and national not for profits that support and encourage policies to keep our economic mobility.  My personal opinion is I think the greatest thing about the US compared to any other country in the world is that our "rich" cycle up every generation, with some reports saying up to 80% of millionaires are first generation wealth in their family.   This avoids the class/generational wealth system that infects the rest of the developed world crony systems that keep the rich rich and poor poor.

what?
Forbes (that liberal rag) - The U.S. Does Poorly On Yet Another Metric of Economic Mobility  https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2018/07/16/the-u-s-does-poorly-on-yet-another-metric-of-economic-mobility/#1775d7b26a7b
U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

[J Boogie]

Once you understand how the concept of leverage applies your confusion should be over.

Middle class does not apply leverage to their capital. Top 1% does.

Actually, real estate is the main asset of middle class wealth and it is leveraged probably 99% of the time.

Indeed. By 5x or so.

And then it gets leveraged another whatever-X as CDO's when it enters the realm of finance.

1 X 5 = $5 middle class capital.
$5 X 5 = $25 - the capital of CDOs and such.

Which one is bigger?

Wall street might make bets on the underlying asset and loan performance of the middle class, but it does not mean that my 250k house translates to over 1m worth of capital for some trader.

I get that you think the 2008 recession was all a fairy tale.

On a serious note, there is a lot of ways securities can and do get recycled into capital.

VaR based margining, securities lending are the two most obvious I remember.

Do you know how fidelity/Schwann can give you free trades? They lend the securities out!!

2008 happened. But wall street bets aren't what inflated home prices. They played a starring role in popping the bubble in a catastrophic way, but ultimately there would have been nothing to pop if the middle class hadn't taken out loans that were beyond their willingness/ability to perform on and regular everyday local middle class loan officers wouldn't have signed off on outrageous loans with teaser rates.  Wall street found creative and unethical ways to hide the worst loans and sell them to other banks as if they were fine. That doesn't make the middle class pawns in their game of high finance chess.

My point isn't that we should let the wall street con men off the hook. My point is that we shouldn't downplay the role of the middle class when it comes to bubbles that pop. We don't individually have much power but collectively we are a major player in the game of capitalism. We are not simply victims and in some cases our downfalls are due to our own greed and foolishness. And just the same, our successes are often due to our restraint and wisdom. I think the appeal of the libertarian argument comes down to this principle of self determination, the idea that you alone are responsible for making your life better and that you are not waiting on a politician to soak the rich so you can finally be happy. I think that's a reasonable position.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I believe mainstream libertarians consider it the legitimate role of government to protect the rights and property of its citizens from those who would enfringe upon them (ie criminals).

Budd v. New York (1892)

"The paternal theory of government is to me odious. The utmost possible liberty to the individual, and the fullest possible protection to him and his property, is both the limitation and duty of government." MR. JUSTICE BREWER

[LennStar]

if the middle class hadn't taken out loans that were beyond their willingness/ability to perform on

Um... the problem was not (primarily) the middle class, but the poorer pople who where told and "forced" by extremely aggressive marketing to sign loans they could not serve.
And of course the removing of the rules that existed to prevent that a few years earlier. Because, you know, regulation is bad and we should leave it to the Free Market.

[ctuser1]

2008 happened. But wall street bets aren't what inflated home prices. They played a starring role in popping the bubble in a catastrophic way, but ultimately there would have been nothing to pop if the middle class hadn't taken out loans that were beyond their willingness/ability to perform on and regular everyday local middle class loan officers wouldn't have signed off on outrageous loans with teaser rates.  Wall street found creative and unethical ways to hide the worst loans and sell them to other banks as if they were fine. That doesn't make the middle class pawns in their game of high finance chess.

My point isn't that we should let the wall street con men off the hook. My point is that we shouldn't downplay the role of the middle class when it comes to bubbles that pop. We don't individually have much power but collectively we are a major player in the game of capitalism. We are not simply victims and in some cases our downfalls are due to our own greed and foolishness. And just the same, our successes are often due to our restraint and wisdom. I think the appeal of the libertarian argument comes down to this principle of self determination, the idea that you alone are responsible for making your life better and that you are not waiting on a politician to soak the rich so you can finally be happy. I think that's a reasonable position.

I bet you think libertarian ideals had nothing to do with that role "they" played!

Did you miss Ayn Rand disciple Greenspan's mea culpa:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/business/worldbusiness/23iht-24greenspan.17202367.html

Who knew markets can't regulate themselves?

The theory of the principle of self determination is perfectly fine and dandy. People sometimes need simplistic models - I guess!! That's not what an ideology is defined by, however!!  Rather, what that ideology does when it encounters practical roadblocks is what identifies it. Basically the devil is in the details like everything else. Communism seems to go authoritarian when it encounters those roadblocks. Your libertarians seem to go full on freeloader when faced with such practical roadblocks (like many examples I have pointed out in my original post of this thread).

I suspect (i.e. I think, but not substantiated by any peer reviewed economic research) that when you prioritize one component of a free market at the expense of everything else - like libertarians idolize capital and "self determination" taken to its logical extremes - then such imbalances have a habit of popping up to be bigger than absolutely necessary for the normal "survival of the fittest" process required for efficient markets. Normal and necessary recessions go to systemic crisis only when our friendly libertarians mess with it (like Greenspan, with help from others).

[J Boogie]

if the middle class hadn't taken out loans that were beyond their willingness/ability to perform on

Um... the problem was not (primarily) the middle class, but the poorer pople who where told and "forced" by extremely aggressive marketing to sign loans they could not serve.
And of course the removing of the rules that existed to prevent that a few years earlier. Because, you know, regulation is bad and we should leave it to the Free Market.

I think you are mistaken.

If you're talking about Glass Steagall being partially repealed by Clinton, well, that is unrelated to mortgage lending standards. It's a bit more complex than this, but Glass Steagall sought to eliminate the conflict of interest of risk averse mortgage lenders and risk prone investment banks.

I am not aware of any rules that were removed regarding responsible lending.

The only force I can think of that would push home loans on marginal borrowers would be the HUD's aggressive affordable housing goals.

Regardless of whether we're talking about bad behavior by the govt or by shady lenders, I take issue with your use the word forced, even in quotations, when what you really mean to say is not forced or even coerced but rather pressured, mislead or deceived. Forced means that they were compelled to do something against their will by force. Concept creep rant over.

Also, in addition to the lower income segment you're referring to getting tricked into bad loans they would struggle to cover, there were plenty of true middle class households keeping up with the joneses tricking themselves into financial irresponsibility with the mantra of "real estate always goes up" and "it's a good investment".

[J Boogie]

2008 happened. But wall street bets aren't what inflated home prices. They played a starring role in popping the bubble in a catastrophic way, but ultimately there would have been nothing to pop if the middle class hadn't taken out loans that were beyond their willingness/ability to perform on and regular everyday local middle class loan officers wouldn't have signed off on outrageous loans with teaser rates.  Wall street found creative and unethical ways to hide the worst loans and sell them to other banks as if they were fine. That doesn't make the middle class pawns in their game of high finance chess.

My point isn't that we should let the wall street con men off the hook. My point is that we shouldn't downplay the role of the middle class when it comes to bubbles that pop. We don't individually have much power but collectively we are a major player in the game of capitalism. We are not simply victims and in some cases our downfalls are due to our own greed and foolishness. And just the same, our successes are often due to our restraint and wisdom. I think the appeal of the libertarian argument comes down to this principle of self determination, the idea that you alone are responsible for making your life better and that you are not waiting on a politician to soak the rich so you can finally be happy. I think that's a reasonable position.

I bet you think libertarian ideals had nothing to do with that role "they" played!

Did you miss Ayn Rand disciple Greenspan's mea culpa:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/business/worldbusiness/23iht-24greenspan.17202367.html

Who knew markets can't regulate themselves?

The theory of the principle of self determination is perfectly fine and dandy. People sometimes need simplistic models - I guess!! That's not what an ideology is defined by, however!!  Rather, what that ideology does when it encounters practical roadblocks is what identifies it. Basically the devil is in the details like everything else. Communism seems to go authoritarian when it encounters those roadblocks. Your libertarians seem to go full on freeloader when faced with such practical roadblocks (like many examples I have pointed out in my original post of this thread).

I suspect (i.e. I think, but not substantiated by any peer reviewed economic research) that when you prioritize one component of a free market at the expense of everything else - like libertarians idolize capital and "self determination" taken to its logical extremes - then such imbalances have a habit of popping up to be bigger than absolutely necessary for the normal "survival of the fittest" process required for efficient markets. Normal and necessary recessions go to systemic crisis only when our friendly libertarians mess with it (like Greenspan, with help from others).

Actually, the definition of ideology is in fact, a set of ideas which form the basis of a political/economic theory.

You are attempting to change the definition of ideology to mean something more like flaw. If you identify everything according to its weakness or failure mode, you are being reductive. For example the founder of this blog has a few flaws but overall we are inspired by his example.

You can find absurdity taking anything to its logical extreme. My point is that many of the fundamental priciples of the libertarian ideology are logically sound and many reasonable find inspiration in these principles to draw upon their own strength to improve their lives.

I'm now loafing too much and owe more of my time to my corporate overlords. Wishing you peace but mostly prosperity ;)

[ctuser1]

... but ultimately there would have been nothing to pop if the middle class hadn't taken out loans that were beyond their willingness/ability to perform on and regular everyday local middle class loan officers wouldn't have signed off on outrageous loans with teaser rates....

Duh, I forgot to address this brand new libertarian fantasy! Who knew libertarian ideology has the power to prevent bubbles and recessions.

Let me just say that your logic attribution process needs some tuning.

Bubble and recessions are as natural to any economic system as wetness is to water. They are necessary to keep the economy going. Recessions are necessary to kill non-competitive businesses and make the competitive ones stronger. Bubbles are also necessary give fuel to the surviving strong businesses to make profit.

Bubbles and recessions will always stay there, and *should* stay there to keep the free market going.

The libertarian fuel causing the bubbles to pop higher and becoming systemic crisis is, however, entirely preventable.

Actually, the definition of ideology is in fact, a set of ideas which form the basis of a political/economic theory.

The french dude who coined the term "ideology" would like to disagree with you.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoine-Louis-Claude-Comte-Destutt-de-Tracy

He used the phrase "science of ideas". You know of a science that is not subject to the mathematical principle of diagonalization?
Did you happen to know diagonalization is literally taking something to logical extreme and looking if it holds or not?

[Scandium]

Ultimately I end up supporting local and national not for profits that support and encourage policies to keep our economic mobility.  My personal opinion is I think the greatest thing about the US compared to any other country in the world is that our "rich" cycle up every generation, with some reports saying up to 80% of millionaires are first generation wealth in their family.   This avoids the class/generational wealth system that infects the rest of the developed world crony systems that keep the rich rich and poor poor.

what?
Forbes (that liberal rag) - The U.S. Does Poorly On Yet Another Metric of Economic Mobility  https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2018/07/16/the-u-s-does-poorly-on-yet-another-metric-of-economic-mobility/#1775d7b26a7b
U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

The metric is related to education and income relative to parents vs. the rest of the world.   Its a difficult stat to rely on when the poverty level in the US already put someone in the top 5% of the world.

Isn't economic mobility also part of the FIRE movement?  I can chose to not have an "exploding volcano of wastefulness" in my expenses and earn an above average income and accrue some significant assets.  Its pretty cool

Those stats aren't compared to "rest of the world", mainly just rich/OECD countries. And the US lags behind most of them, on most measures. I would think the US would want to compare itself, and do as well as or better than other rich world countries? Or maybe not?
If you think plummeting social mobility and growing inequality is nothing to be concerned about, because the US is still better than East Timor, then ok I guess. At least with low standards it's hard to be disappointed..

And you're second FIRE point? Oh, so the old line that poor people are poor because they "waste it", or make bad choices? ugh..

[J Boogie]

... but ultimately there would have been nothing to pop if the middle class hadn't taken out loans that were beyond their willingness/ability to perform on and regular everyday local middle class loan officers wouldn't have signed off on outrageous loans with teaser rates....

Duh, I forgot to address this brand new libertarian fantasy! Who knew libertarian ideology has the power to prevent bubbles and recessions.

Let me just say that your logic attribution process needs some tuning.

Bubble and recessions are as natural to any economic system as wetness is to water. They are necessary to keep the economy going. Recessions are necessary to kill non-competitive businesses and make the competitive ones stronger. Bubbles are also necessary give fuel to the surviving strong businesses to make profit.

Bubbles and recessions will always stay there, and *should* stay there to keep the free market going.

The libertarian fuel causing the bubbles to pop higher and becoming systemic crisis is, however, entirely preventable.

Actually, the definition of ideology is in fact, a set of ideas which form the basis of a political/economic theory.

The french dude who coined the term "ideology" would like to disagree with you.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoine-Louis-Claude-Comte-Destutt-de-Tracy

He used the phrase "science of ideas". You know of a science that is not subject to the mathematical principle of diagonalization?
Did you happen to know diagonalization is literally taking something to logical extreme and looking if it holds or not?

Coming out of a loaf free hour of work to take back my wish for your prosperity. You do not deserve it. You are a bad faith debater who rejects dictionary definitions in shoehorns things to fit your tortured and absurd logic which you deliver, strangely enough, in a patronizing way. As though it is obvious that one should associate the word ideology with the scientific process.

You shoehorn my statement as though I have made the absurd claim that libertarianism prevents bubbles.

You have stated that you "bet I think libertarian ideals had nothing to do with (the subprime crisis)!" and that you know "I think the 2008 recession was a fairy tale"

No, I don't, and you're writing as if I do because it's easier for you to dunk on me that way.

This is known as straw manning, and it is a logical fallacy.

[Bloop Bloop]

In my view social immobility that arises from inequity in education is bad - it points to a lack of opportunity. That's why I think we should spend more on education vouchers, free lunches at schools, early childhood intervention programs, etc. But social immobility that arises either from differing genes or differing parenting standards ( some parents just don't take good care of their children) is a neutral thing in my opinion. You can't do anything about shit parents. You can't stop them to stop having children.

It may be that the lack of social mobility is due to neutral factors such as assortative mating and the rise of women in the workforce. It used to be that men married women so the latter could be housewives. Thus the level of education and workforce participation of the woman was less salient. This would have been a factor militating against assortative mating. It meant that couples' income and also couples' combined level of education tended towards the mean. Now that both men and women work, and now that dating is more transparent than ever (with apps), you will have more high-education, high-income men shacking up with the same type of women. Hence, more room for different outcomes in their children, even if opportunity otherwise remains the same.

So what I am saying is, a rise in social immobility doesn't necessarily mean that society is getting less full of opportunity. It may just come down to structural factors among mate selection.

[Scandium]

@Scandium - We'll have to agree to disagree.  I think there's a difference in opinion, I'm an advocate for equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

Choices have consequences in life, then we're fortunate to have a safety net in the US where the combined benefits (SNAP, Section 8, Medicaid) that put someone in the top 5% or so in income in the world even if they are physically disabled, mentally disabled, or don't work because they make different choices.

Stop putting words in my mouth there dr peterson. Nobody's arguing for "equal outcomes", that's a silly straw man. The point is there isn't "equal opportunity".

I used to be a heartless jerk as well, thinking that everyone else who didn't works as hard as I did to be born white, rich and healthy in the richest country in the world just needed to apply themselves more! Then I grew up..

Great that those lucky poors in the US are top 5% in the world! The US also has one of the worst social safety nets in the rich world, and the lowest social mobility, highest inequality, highest infant mortality, shorter life expectancy, lower happiness, worse health.. But hey, we're better than Burkina Faso! go USA!

[Bloop Bloop]

Thing is though, as I said, even if we try to improve opportunity, most opportunity comes from, or doesn't come from, one's parents - and what can you do about shit parenting? It's fine to blame structural problems and to try to alleviate them with some of the strategies I outlined - I would also be fine with a wealth tax to draw more revenue for this - but not every problem that circumscribes opportunity is a structural problem. Sometimes it just comes down to bad parents.

[ctuser1]

... but ultimately there would have been nothing to pop if the middle class hadn't taken out loans that were beyond their willingness/ability to perform on and regular everyday local middle class loan officers wouldn't have signed off on outrageous loans with teaser rates....

Duh, I forgot to address this brand new libertarian fantasy! Who knew libertarian ideology has the power to prevent bubbles and recessions.

Let me just say that your logic attribution process needs some tuning.

Bubble and recessions are as natural to any economic system as wetness is to water. They are necessary to keep the economy going. Recessions are necessary to kill non-competitive businesses and make the competitive ones stronger. Bubbles are also necessary give fuel to the surviving strong businesses to make profit.

Bubbles and recessions will always stay there, and *should* stay there to keep the free market going.

The libertarian fuel causing the bubbles to pop higher and becoming systemic crisis is, however, entirely preventable.

Actually, the definition of ideology is in fact, a set of ideas which form the basis of a political/economic theory.

The french dude who coined the term "ideology" would like to disagree with you.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoine-Louis-Claude-Comte-Destutt-de-Tracy

He used the phrase "science of ideas". You know of a science that is not subject to the mathematical principle of diagonalization?
Did you happen to know diagonalization is literally taking something to logical extreme and looking if it holds or not?

Coming out of a loaf free hour of work to take back my wish for your prosperity. You do not deserve it. You are a bad faith debater who rejects dictionary definitions in shoehorns things to fit your tortured and absurd logic which you deliver, strangely enough, in a patronizing way. As though it is obvious that one should associate the word ideology with the scientific process.

You shoehorn my statement as though I have made the absurd claim that libertarianism prevents bubbles.

You have stated that you "bet I think libertarian ideals had nothing to do with (the subprime crisis)!" and that you know "I think the 2008 recession was a fairy tale"

No, I don't, and you're writing as if I do because it's easier for you to dunk on me that way.

This is known as straw manning, and it is a logical fallacy.

When I am presented with bad faith arguments I return the favor.

I discuss very politely when that is appropriate. I'd say it was good fun for me to ruffle your feathers after you started presenting bad-faith arguments.

I know I shouldn't deviate from "respectful discussion" on threads I post. But heck, it is too much fun to make fun of pontificating ideologues for me to resist!!

[LennStar]

Regardless of whether we're talking about bad behavior by the govt or by shady lenders, I take issue with your use the word forced, even in quotations, when what you really mean to say is not forced or even coerced but rather pressured, mislead or deceived. Forced means that they were compelled to do something against their will by force. Concept creep rant over.

Also, in addition to the lower income segment you're referring to getting tricked into bad loans they would struggle to cover, there were plenty of true middle class households keeping up with the joneses tricking themselves into financial irresponsibility with the mantra of "real estate always goes up" and "it's a good investment".

First part: You are fully right. You can put it up to me not finding the right word in a foreign language at that moment.

Second: Yes, that is also true, but that was true in the years before, too. What was different, and what caused the collateral debt obligations to crumble was the fact that many poor people got credits they would not have gotten a few years earlier. They were the weakest part of the chain and when they lost the ability to pay, the whole "mixing" math of those debt papers imploded on itself, resulting in the famous bankruptcys.

So what I am saying is, a rise in social immobility doesn't necessarily mean that society is getting less full of opportunity. It may just come down to structural factors among mate selection.

That could be true. Fortunately we don't have only the US to look at, but also the richer EU states, where the same happened in the last half century.
And nearly all of them, especially where that happened the most, offer more social mobility. Especially the most "socialistic" countries in the North, where women working is indeed now normal. (Interesting to note that in the Eastern Block working women were also the norm, but seldom got into leading positions of their field. Not much different from capitalistic countries.)

[Bloop Bloop]

It would be useful if we could have some  studies to see if social immobility has been due to lack of opportunity or whether it arises from mate selection (assortative mating), but it seems that (despite scientific consensus) we can't even get people to agree that some basic factors like intelligence are largely heritable, so there will be gaps in our social understanding for a long time.

[LennStar]

It would be useful if we could have some  studies to see if social immobility has been due to lack of opportunity or whether it arises from mate selection (assortative mating), but it seems that (despite scientific consensus) we can't even get people to agree that some basic factors like intelligence are largely heritable, so there will be gaps in our social understanding for a long time.

You mean like the studies that show that the IQ is very flexible and depends for a large chunk what the child does and how much help it gets?
Of course there is a genetic factor, but depending on the learning environment that can be easily 10 or even 20 points difference. around your genetic anchor point.
And being 107 or 95 is a HUGE difference, personally, economically and politically. Even the 3 points difference that seem to be caused by pesticide usage amount to tens of thousands of dollar earned during a life, for example. (I like that example because of the "eco freaks cost us too much!!" crowd).

[jojoguy]

I`m not looking to debate or even defend my position further. Obviously, most of you guys are smarter than me, and I hate debating because of the division and the anxiety it gives me. I guess I am what you would call a libertarian based on one simple principal: Freedom. I leave people alone that I personally disagree with, and want the same courtesy extended to me, government or not. Have a common ground with people and build upon that.

[GuitarStv]

I`m not looking to debate or even defend my position further. Obviously, most of you guys are smarter than me, and I hate debating because of the division and the anxiety it gives me. I guess I am what you would call a libertarian based on one simple principal: Freedom. I leave people alone that I personally disagree with, and want the same courtesy extended to me, government or not. Have a common ground with people and build upon that.

I've often heard similar arguments made from Libertairians leaning people.  It has always seemed to me like this forgets the irrevocable interconnectedness of life in a society of people.

Here's an example:

Freedom from death imposed by others is about as basic a freedom as we can discuss.  There are hundreds of thousands of people every year who die due to respiratory illness directly related to the exhaust and particulates given off by personal use vehicle internal combustion engines.  (I can dig up several studies proving this if you don't want to take my word here.)

As a Libertarian who values freedom highly, you should therefore logically be demanding regulation to prevent personal automobiles.  But I've never heard this argument from the Libertarian camp.  We live in a complex society where freedoms conflict all the time.  The freedom to drive a car conflicts with the freedom to live life for a minority of people.

There's great utility in driving a car, but I've never heard a Libertairian argument that freedom should be denied for the few to make life easier for the good of the many.  In fact that's the sort of reasoning so prevalent in Communism that Libertarians rail against.

This seems to point to a bit of a problem with the fundamental concepts of the philosophy, doesn't it?

[LennStar]

As a Libertarian who values freedom highly, you should therefore logically be demanding regulation to prevent personal automobiles. [...]

There's great utility in driving a car, but I've never heard a Libertairian argument that freedom should be denied for the few to make life easier for the good of the many.  In fact that's the sort of reasoning so prevalent in Communism that Libertarians rail against.

More precise socialism (rules to that effect), because in communism people would have a communistic personality = deciding on their own to do that what is good for all and not drive cars if preventable.

Which, if you look around, seems to be the reason why there will never be communism. And for that same reason libertarianism. You would need people that are so much better as they are today...
And since they aren't, both ideologies result in stupid self-interest of those who have the means, and the masses can suck it up.

[Bloop Bloop]

As a libertarian I'm quite happy for cars to be exposed to punitive carbon taxes. I'm happy for all such consumption to be exposed.

But then it's still not enough. Even though income tax is already progressive and therefore already ameliorates the true nature of wage inequality, people still call for a progressive consumption tax on cars (or any other consumption). This makes no sense. It basically gives low-income people a free "out" when it comes to their own consumption which contributes to global warming. They want them to have their cake and eat it too.

In my state buying a car is progressively taxed (on a $20,000 car you'd pay about $1,800 in Federal taxes and $1,000 in state taxes; on a $100,000 car you'd pay about $20,000 in Federal taxes and $7,000 in state taxes; on a $200,000 car you'd pay about $63,000 in Federal taxes and $18,000 in state taxes) which to me has absolutely no justification. It's hitting people at both ends when their income has already been smoothed out via progressive taxation.

[GuitarStv]

In my state buying a car is progressively taxed (on a $20,000 car you'd pay about $1,800 in Federal taxes and $1,000 in state taxes; on a $100,000 car you'd pay about $20,000 in Federal taxes and $7,000 in state taxes; on a $200,000 car you'd pay about $63,000 in Federal taxes and $18,000 in state taxes) which to me has absolutely no justification. It's hitting people at both ends when their income has already been smoothed out via progressive taxation.

I feel like you're looking at the taxes as being solely for pollution (in which case, I'd agree with you - all cars should be taxed at a flat rate).

Paying more taxes on things that cost more seems like a pretty sensible way to approach taxation.  Freedom of choice is entirely up to the user.  People aren't hit at 'both ends' as you claim.  If you don't want to pay the taxes for a 200,000$ car, nobody's forcing you to.  Buy a 20,000$ car.  But this type of taxation does reduce the burden on the poorest in society who often have no choice but to buy the cheaper car (as sadly, we've designed a lot of our infrastructure to be very car dependent) without imposing any limits on the freedom of the richest.

This allows the poor to better themselves more easily . . . which is what we want, right?  We want to limit barriers to the success of the poor so they stop being poor.  Progressive taxation reduces the taxes on the cheapest models of car, so makes it a little bit easier for the poorest to get ahead . . . which makes it that much more likely that they'll manage to claw their way up to middle class, rather than depending on state hand outs.  That seems like a pretty good justification to me.  Why do you think it's a bad one?

[PKFFW]

As a libertarian I'm quite happy for cars to be exposed to punitive carbon taxes. I'm happy for all such consumption to be exposed.

But then it's still not enough. Even though income tax is already progressive and therefore already ameliorates the true nature of wage inequality, people still call for a progressive consumption tax on cars (or any other consumption). This makes no sense. It basically gives low-income people a free "out" when it comes to their own consumption which contributes to global warming. They want them to have their cake and eat it too.

In my state buying a car is progressively taxed (on a $20,000 car you'd pay about $1,800 in Federal taxes and $1,000 in state taxes; on a $100,000 car you'd pay about $20,000 in Federal taxes and $7,000 in state taxes; on a $200,000 car you'd pay about $63,000 in Federal taxes and $18,000 in state taxes) which to me has absolutely no justification. It's hitting people at both ends when their income has already been smoothed out via progressive taxation.

The argument was that the right to life should trump the right to convenience.

Are you arguing that if someone can pay enough in taxes their right to convenience should trump the right to not die from exhaust fumes of other people?

Is that really the crux of the Libertarian philosophy?  So long as you can pay enough you can trump everyone else's rights?

[Bloop Bloop]

"Are you arguing that if someone can pay enough in taxes their right to convenience should trump the right to not die from exhaust fumes of other people?

Is that really the crux of the Libertarian philosophy?  So long as you can pay enough you can trump everyone else's rights?"

How are you trumping anyone else's rights? You'd pay a carbon tax for X amount of emissions same as anyone else would pay a carbon tax for X amount of emissions. So to the extent you're trumping anyone else's rights, anyone who buys a car is doing the same.

Guitarstv - because those aims (progressive taxation aims generally) are achieved by the progressive income tax and the redistributive welfare that it entails. You can say that expensive cars aren't a need - but for that matter, neither is having a holiday, or a television, or anything that's recreational - yet they aren't hit.

It's not just cars that are progressively taxed in my state - so is land. The vast majority of homeowners don't have to pay any land tax, but if you own more than one property you usually do, and the percentage scales up with the land-holding.

[PKFFW]

How are you trumping anyone else's rights? You'd pay a carbon tax for X amount of emissions same as anyone else would pay a carbon tax for X amount of emissions. So to the extent you're trumping anyone else's rights, anyone who buys a car is doing the same.

Believe it or not, a tax doesn't actually remove the particulates from the air.  It doesn't actually do anything to reduce the hazard to other people's right to life.

As a Libertarian who values freedom highly, you should therefore logically be demanding regulation to prevent personal automobiles.

The point was being made that automobiles should be prevented to avoid infringing upon another person's right to life without being killed by another person.  It was not that those who can pay enough tax should be able to infringe upon anyone's right to life without being killed by someone because they are rich enough to pay for the convenience of having a pollution causing car.

Or is it the Libertarian viewpoint that convenience provided by a pollution causing car is ok so long as someone can pay the tax associated and to heck with the freedom to live without breathing in cancer causing particulates?

It sort of seems the Libertarian viewpoint is those with the means can afford the right to do as they please and those without the means can afford no rights.