Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

Two issues here:

1) Redistribution of any kind: Currently, one's resources depend enormously on past gov't programs and policies and one's future resources will depend on future ones; for example, on corporate welfare, or state provided education, etc. So given that that a huge ammount of property is "stolen" directly or indirectly (by indirectly, I mean, for example, one has the abilities they have because of tax funded education, and use those abilities to accumulate wealth), and we know others will continue to "steal again", why is the best response to this to just freeze the arbitrary status quo? Example: the poor. If the poor are poor because of past gov't policies, and the rich will continue to use the state to redistribute income to themselves (far more is spent each year in the U.S. on corporate welfare than individual welfare), why should they not demand compensation for the negative effects of past injustice or even actively try to get something for themselves now via state policy, knowing that others will successfully do so?

2) Campaign finance reform and similar policies: Libertarians say they oppose mercantilism, corporate subsidies to companies, etc. However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability; they are out of a job if they don't do what specific wealthy people/groups want them to. Yet, libertarians tend to oppose campaign finance reform and related policies. To me this smacks of dishonesty; if they really cared that much about ending the system of private reward, public risk that mercantilism (etc.) bring in, they would have to advocate large changes in campaign finance rules and advertising.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) Redistribution of any kind: Currently, one's resources depend enormously on past gov't programs and policies and one's future resources will depend on future ones; for example, on corporate welfare, or state provided education, etc. So given that that a huge ammount of property is "stolen" directly or indirectly (by indirectly, I mean, for example, one has the abilities they have because of tax funded education, and use those abilities to accumulate wealth), and we know others will continue to "steal again", why is the best response to this to just freeze the arbitrary status quo? Example: the poor. If the poor are poor because of past gov't policies, and the rich will continue to use the state to redistribute income to themselves (far more is spent each year in the U.S. on corporate welfare than individual welfare), why should they not demand compensation for the negative effects of past injustice or even actively try to get something for themselves now via state policy, knowing that others will successfully do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most libertarians are too quick to dismiss redistribution since it smacks of government intervention and socialism. I obviously oppose complete redistribution, but I don't think things should be frozen at the status quo, either. In his most radical phase, Rothbard argued that corporations that get more than 50% of their revenue from govt (either directly thru subsidies or indirectly thru regulation, etc) should be turned over to the rightful owners (the workers). I tend to agree with this, and think that redistribution of supposed government-owned land, businesses, etc., as well as government-enabled corporations, ought to be turned over to the people.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Campaign finance reform and similar policies: Libertarians say they oppose mercantilism, corporate subsidies to companies, etc. However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability; they are out of a job if they don't do what specific wealthy people/groups want them to. Yet, libertarians tend to oppose campaign finance reform and related policies. To me this smacks of dishonesty; if they really cared that much about ending the system of private reward, public risk that mercantilism (etc.) bring in, they would have to advocate large changes in campaign finance rules and advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have very little opinion on this--perhaps you are right, in which case you are probably speaking of right-leaning minarchists. Most anarchists I know don't care too much about campaign finance stuff since they pretty much hate the entire voting process.

In any case, I think examples like this can show the danger in partial, moderate reform--it certainly isn't the only case in which a baby step in the libertarian direction can lead to unlibertarian results. Which is why I argue for sweeping, radical changes, not just minor modifications of the existing system.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

Why shouldn't you have the liberty to donate as much as you want to a cause you support, even if that cause is getting someone elected? Why shouldn't those in opposition to my cause have the liberty to broadcast their disagreements within X days of an election? I don't see how supporting these liberties conflicts with libertarianism.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
In his most radical phase, Rothbard argued that corporations that get more than 50% of their revenue from govt (either directly thru subsidies or indirectly thru regulation, etc) should be turned over to the rightful owners (the workers). I tend to agree with this, and think that redistribution of supposed government-owned land, businesses, etc., as well as government-enabled corporations, ought to be turned over to the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much all corporations above small size.

I tend to agree as well.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability; they are out of a job if they don't do what specific wealthy people/groups want them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence do you have to back up this? For a member of Congress to be defeated, they have to be caught with a dead woman or live boy. Sometimes that won't even get them defeated. Why do you think members of Congress vote for all these campaign finance restrictions? To help or hurt their opponents?

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

this isn't really a full answer, but wrt to #2, any self respecting ACist or libertarian probably wouldn't have any faith in a government imposed solution to the problem. not only would it not work, it would unintended consequences, etc. actually this probably applies to #1in some way as well. Even if ACists completely wanted to move from point A to point B there is still the question of getting there, and you would have to find a legitimate way of getting there without causing more problems than the one you are trying to solve.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]


2) Campaign finance reform and similar policies: ... However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability;

[/ QUOTE ]

Even that won't work because the rent-seekers will find a way. You have it all wrong. The only way for all this nonsense to end is for the rent-seekers to have no rent to seek. And the only way for this to happen is if the leaders who are giving away the rents can no longer do so. Congress (and state governments) must be stripped of the authority to *spend* most of the revenues they collect. They should have a very narrow scope of what they can spend money on.

natedogg

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even that won't work because the rent-seekers will find a way.

[/ QUOTE ] Pure assertion.

[ QUOTE ]
Congress (and state governments) must be stripped of the authority to *spend* most of the revenues they collect. They should have a very narrow scope of what they can spend money on.

[/ QUOTE ] How in the world do we make this happen? Who enforces it? Essentially, how do we institutionalize it?

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

That is perhaps the most self-contradictory post I have ever seen.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

Ok...just change it to: campaign finance reform is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition ending 'all of this nonsense'.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

If you are using self-contradictory in the sense of 'seemingly contradictory but nonetheless possibly true' I agree. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

No, I meant in the self-contradictory sense of self-contradictory.

In the same post where you condescendingly call the claim that self-interested rent seekers will always seek rents "pure assertion", you (correctly) ask how we are supposed to get self-interested politicians to constrain themselves from handing out rents.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

By making it not in there self-interest to hand out rents, by changing the rules of the game and hence the incentive structure. One necessary, although not necessarily sufficient, condition of doing so is campaign finance reform.

BTW-look up self-contradictory. I correctly identified one of the meanings of the term.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
By making it not in there self-interest to hand out rents, by changing the rules of the game and hence the incentive structure. One necessary, although not necessarily sufficient, condition of doing so is campaign finance reform

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing you were scoffing at Nate about?

"How in the world do we make this happen? Who enforces it? Essentially, how do we institutionalize it?"

Every time we have had "campaign finance reform" in the past it has really turned out to actually be "incumbant protection."

In fact, every time you here Congress talking about "reform" you can pretty much assume that you are about to be [censored].

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

I wasn't scoffing at Nate that was a serious question and am hoping for a serious answer.

Politicians do favor 'incumbent protection' but not all reforms work towards that; and even if that was true in the U.S. it isn't true worldwide...many systems are far less favorable to incumbents than the U.S. system simply because the rules of the game are far different.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW-look up self-contradictory. I correctly identified one of the meanings of the term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but that's a dumb definition. That would be seemingly self contradictory, not self contradictory.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't scoffing at Nate that was a serious question and am hoping for a serious answer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I was reading a tone that wasn't there. My apologies.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) Campaign finance reform and similar policies: Libertarians say they oppose mercantilism, corporate subsidies to companies, etc. However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability; they are out of a job if they don't do what specific wealthy people/groups want them to. Yet, libertarians tend to oppose campaign finance reform and related policies. To me this smacks of dishonesty; if they really cared that much about ending the system of private reward, public risk that mercantilism (etc.) bring in, they would have to advocate large changes in campaign finance rules and advertising.


[/ QUOTE ]

Campaign finance reforms can only be reimplemented by those who have already been elected. Do you expect them to intentionally rewrite the laws so its easier for their opponents to win? Its a catch 22, if campaign finance reform is necessary then those who could possibly author them can't be trusted to author them, so we need laws to get good people into office to write laws allowing good people to get into office.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

Yet, rules that make it difficult for incumbents to be re-elected have in fact been implemented in many countries.

In fact, the U.S. incumbent re-election rate is an outlier amongst democracies...in almost all other counties it is far, far lower.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

2) Campaign finance reform and similar policies: Libertarians say they oppose mercantilism, corporate subsidies to companies, etc. However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability; they are out of a job if they don't do what specific wealthy people/groups want them to. Yet, libertarians tend to oppose campaign finance reform and related policies. To me this smacks of dishonesty; if they really cared that much about ending the system of private reward, public risk that mercantilism (etc.) bring in, they would have to advocate large changes in campaign finance rules and advertising.


If the US Govt. budget was $0 and they did not have the power to meddle in the private sector, how much money do you think corporations or individuals would donate to politicians' campaign funds? The right answer is $0 or a whole lot less than current contributions.

The only way to stop government overspending and "ending the system of private reward, public risk that mercantilism (etc.) bring in" is to take away the money and power from politicians. Campaign finance reform will never be more than an item of rhetoric during campaign debates with out drastically reducing the size and scope of government.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, rules that make it difficult for incumbents to be re-elected have in fact been implemented in many countries.

In fact, the U.S. incumbent re-election rate is an outlier amongst democracies...in almost all other counties it is far, far lower.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was tongue in cheek, if consequences and outcomes were so predictable then life (and central planning) would be a lot easier.

Lower incumbent reelection rates are not in and of themselves a good thing, there are many ways that the status quo could remain the same or even worsen after laws are passed which attempt to limit them. The issue gets passed and 10 years later people start noting new problems, new incentives that need to be fixed, so more legislation is passed which itself will need to be fixed. The solution to problems for a government is always more government, new government. This is against the libertarian philosophy, skip the whole "government is fixing itself" charade and move on to the real solution. Minimizing its overall influence.

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even that won't work because the rent-seekers will find a way.

[/ QUOTE ] Pure assertion.



[/ QUOTE ]

If the money is being collected and getting spent, special interests will *always* find a way to funnel that money in their direction. How could it be otherwise? You are putting people in charge of the distribution and then expecting impartiality?

Think about it this way: who determines what and how to spend the money impartially? Everyone has a different definition of what is the proper use of the public revenues.


[ QUOTE ]
Congress (and state governments) must be stripped of the authority to *spend* most of the revenues they collect. They should have a very narrow scope of what they can spend money on.

[/ QUOTE ] How in the world do we make this happen? Who enforces it? Essentially, how do we institutionalize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest we start by interpreting the Commerce Clause correctly again. Then we follow up with a consitutional amendment severely limiting the scope of what the Congress can spend money on.

natedogg

Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory
 

BTW, I'm not necessarily opposed to redistribution either, as a hard and fast principle.

In fact, the compromise solution that I advocate actually solves both the problems you listed.

We utterly eliminate the government's ability to *spend* money. The only thing the government can do with its revenues is redistribute them equally amongst all citizens. Everyone gets a check for the same amount.

This solves the #1 complaint of socialists about the right wing, namely that the poor need financial help from the rich. Unless you are an elitist paternalist who fears that the poor are too stupid and irresponsible to use the money you give them to buy the things you know they need, then there really can't be an objection to a cash handout.

Secondly, Congress's shenanigans get nearly eliminated since no special interests can benefit. The only question to congress is how much will you redistribute? There is a balance here as even the rich generally favor some kind of welfare and public schooling, so you can expect the redistribution to be on the order of about 15k is my guess.

natedogg