The fundamental flaw in libertarian ideology
The fundamental flaw in libertarian ideology is the belief that a naturally and inherently competitive predatory economic system consistening of various groups with various economic influence would result in the best economic situation for all of society if the most populous but least influential group were to have less influence.
True
Side Score: 13
|
 |
False
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Democratic government tend to give the greatest political influence to the majority. A capitalist economy gives the greatest individual economic influence to the wealthy. The wealthy tends to be a small group. The majority tends to be poorer. Political influence is economic influence. The invisible hand is the net effect of all individuals economic influence minus the economic influence done though political influence. All is well with the invisible hand as long as every body has roughly equal economic influence, however once a group begins to gain more then the others this group will begin to exploit the others for their benefit, the smaller this group(of a particular economic influence) the less representative it is of society. The only way for the more populous and more representative group(s) to gain enough economic influence to counter their exploitation is though political influence. This Economic influence will manifest itself as Regulations, minimum wage laws and other such things. Side: True
Democratic government tend to give the greatest political influence to the majority. Hence why us Libertarians are for democratically elected officals and not unelected bureaucrats... which something Democrats support. A capitalist economy gives the greatest individual economic influence to the wealthy. No, it gives the greatest economic influence to the best and brightest entrepreneurs. The best are determined by whether the free market that is driven by the consumer wants the product being offered and as a result entrepreneurs become wealthy while the costumer gets what they want. The wealthy tends to be a small group. Depends on what you consider to be "wealthy". But just because there is one group with a lot of wealth does not mean that the middle class is not well off. The majority tends to be poorer. Actually, capitalism has allowed for mass production of goods and wealth. People are better off now because of it. Political influence is economic influence. Which is why we need to keep government from controlling too much of the economy. The invisible hand is the net effect of all individuals economic influence minus the economic influence done though political influence. Huh? The invisible hand is how companies survive or don't based on how vauled they are to the people who they do business with. If the product or service is in high demand the company will survive, but if the product or service is not in demand then the company will be faded out. All is well with the invisible hand as long as every body has roughly equal economic influence, however once a group begins to gain more then the others this group will begin to exploit the others for their benefit, the smaller this group(of a particular economic influence) the less representative it is of society. If by "exploit" you mean expand their services and invest more in their business as well as others then yes... they "exploit" other. As for the "less" representation bit, a person recieves a vote in a Libertarian society regardless of their economic status. The only way for the more populous and more representative group(s) to gain enough economic influence to counter their exploitation is though political influence. This Economic influence will manifest itself as Regulations, minimum wage laws and other such things. It's hard to consider it "exploitation" when both parties are better off. Sure, some regulations are needed, Libertarians tend to follow the Austrian School of Economics which is against fraud and even Adam Smith admitted that some services(road making) are better off left to the government. However, too much regulation will lead to companies leaving the country and businesses suffering. As for minimum wage, all that does is causes high unemployment and ships jobs over seas. Side: False
Hence why us Libertarians are for democratically elected officals and not unelected bureaucrats... which something Democrats support. Those bureaucrats oversee businesses so that they play by the rules. What good is demanding clean food, fair labour, no insider trading, etc. if the rules are not enforced? No, it gives the greatest economic influence to the best and brightest entrepreneurs. The best are determined by whether the free market that is driven by the consumer wants the product being offered and as a result entrepreneurs become wealthy while the costumer gets what they want. You restated what casper said with positive emphasis upon the wealthy. This is called spin. Depends on what you consider to be "wealthy". But just because there is one group with a lot of wealth does not mean that the middle class is not well off. Money is a zero sum gain. If a small group has a lot of wealth, then that is money which the middle and lower classes do not have. Actually, capitalism has allowed for mass production of goods and wealth. People are better off now because of it. Capitalism didn't invent mass production. Modern capitalism is worlds different from the period of capitalism which saw the rise of mass production. Modern capitalism moved all mass production jobs overseas. Which is why we need to keep government from controlling too much of the economy. Two general scenarios happen. If you leave the economy to itself, the wealthy absorb the majority of wealth at the expense of everyone else, and there is instability in the market due to insider trading and collapsing big businesses. If you impose government, you see a stable economy with a more balanced income distribution. If by "exploit" you mean expand their services and invest more in their business as well as others then yes... they "exploit" other. As for the "less" representation bit, a person recieves a vote in a Libertarian society regardless of their economic status. I'll clarify what he said since it appears you did not understand it. In a completely equal distribution of wealth, I.E. everyone has the same amount of money, everyone will have an equal say in that society. When people start to have significantly more wealth than others, then they have a greater say in that society, further because they are a minority what happens is that the minority has a greater influence on society than everyone else. In this way democracy fails to approach a compromise of what everyone wants. It's hard to consider it "exploitation" when both parties are better off. Sure, some regulations are needed, Libertarians tend to follow the Austrian School of Economics which is against fraud and even Adam Smith admitted that some services(road making) are better off left to the government. However, too much regulation will lead to companies leaving the country and businesses suffering. As for minimum wage, all that does is causes high unemployment and ships jobs over seas. Except both parties are not better off. One is living in luxury while the other toils for severely reduced pay. This is what characterised the industrial revolution. Workers were a replaceable commodity with no position to demand better wages and safe conditions. Of course the business overlords of today fund think tanks like Mises in order to spin history, because it isn't in the business owner's interest that you receive a wage, working conditions, and hours conducive to healthy and comfortable living. Side: False
|
The flaw comes from the belief that we can somehow be isolationists. As for a competitive market being better than a regulated market... no so much of a flaw. We find that the competition in the free market is what got the market so far ahead. Complete unregulation is Anarchy. arguing that in order to be Libertarian you MUST be against all regulation including environmental and human rights is like arguing that in order to be Libertarian you MUST be against the criminalization of murder. Economical issues are not the same as Socio-political issues. They just sometimes overlap. Market regulation, however, has more to do with wage earning, distribution of power within a firm, distribution of wealth among classes, etc. What I'm basically pointing out is that you can have reasonable environmental and human rights regulations and still live in a Capitalist, free market. Side: False
1
point
2
points
1
point
Yea, generally isolationism is bad. Regulation and competition are not mutually exclusive, regulation can be used to ensure there is competition. I'm not arguing that libertarians are anarchists. If there are environmental and human rights regulations then is it a free market? Side: True
While I agree with casper that the majority can drive change that undermines the simple libertarian view on economics, I think there is a much more obvious and more detrimental flaw to libertarianism. Specifically, it reduces an extremely complicated problem that spans environmental, social, political, religious and economic spheres (essentially the totality of that which shapes life in a state) into a purely economic solution that specifies that the best solution for politics, social ills, environment, religious life, etc. must be what is most profitable. You can see this whenever they say that social problem X or political problem Y wouldn't exist in the free market because market pressure from restless people would solve it, thus reducing X and Y into economic incentives to change. It rarely works that simply. Side: False
There is no flaw in the Libertarian ideolagy. The free market is a system of voluntary exchange, the mixed market is a system of involuntary exchange. Democracy itself is a system that gives the majority the power to impose its will on the minority. The constitution of the United States was designed to stop this, but because it gave some power to a collective majority , the collective majority was impowered to believe it should have more power, and inevitably it found a way to bend the rules so it could do have more power. This power complex is what created the ideolagy of anarchy. Anarchy would not work though, because the people do not have the recources to police themselves. What anarchy would ultimatly produce is corperate owned cities with their own brand of justice. A better solution to this complex would be a Government governed by a unchangeable set of laws against things that are wrong within themselves (like theft, murder, and fraud). I conclude that, Libertarianism has no flaws, there is absolutly nothing wrong with leaving the power to individuals to govern their lives. But what is wrong is leaving that power to collective majorities. Side: False
|
