America, not currently though. We had very free markets overall in the past, and it's what built this nation and caused very rapid growth for a while, until government grew too large and destroyed it. The closest we have now are places like Singapore, Hong Kong, etc., but they aren't all that free, and definitely Somalia and Liberia aren't even on the radar. Where do you guys come up with this shit? Seriously. Liberia information on economic freedom | Facts, data, analysis, charts and more Are the statists really so lacking in evidence and arguments that you just make up things and claim places are free in the hopes that someone will just believe you? It's really sad. Liberia is one of the least free places on the entire globe.
You can't be a Democratic Socialist and a libertarian, unless you are a Constitutionalist. Even then, you would be a Constitutional Democrat, not so much a libertarian (but you'd be closer than many). And no, I think most people probably think many socialists are mostly well intentioned (otherwise they are attempting to increase their self-interest, usually from the lowest or the highest pole, through indirect violence). Most obviously don't want an Orwellian nightmare; they just don't understand why that would occur when you put a large amount of power in the hands of a few. Btw, I believe you mean "big-business" not "corporation", because a corporation is an entity created by the state to have extra rights. Also, you can't limit what a business (basically the owner) can and can't do with their money without limiting the freedoms of individuals (as the business owner is an individual). One more thing. Libertarianism can in no way lead to Fascism because Libertarianism is a restriction or the total eradication of government. Any deviation in the other direction would not be libertarianism. Fascism is on the exact opposite scale of libertarianism. If anything Socialism more closely leads to Fascism (even then they don't have to be connected) because there is a very fine line between the two.
I believe that "free market" was tested in chile back in the 70's -80's. It was all freeman economics at the purest ever tried. It did not go so well. Anyone have an example of this WORKING?? Chile: the laboratory test "Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals. The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy. The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses. Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story. In 1982, Milton Friedman enthusiastically praised General Pinochet (the Chilean dictator) because he "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle." (1) However, the statistics below show this to be untrue. Chile is a tragic failure of right-wing economics, and its people are still paying the price for it today. " Chile: the laboratory test
If a " benevolent dictator" is organizing society, rather than society Itself, then how can you say it was a free economy? Upon reading the article, it seems the IMF really exploited the high interest rates and when an INTERNATIONAL depression hit, chile far worse off for taking those loans. Also, I'm curious how free the market actually was, I have as raking suspicion pinochete was advertising a free market on the surface, and then silently influencing the market via violent oppression.
why do you Libertarian drones go all "troll" on people when they have a different opinion than you? Kind of a drone response? just wondering
The POO is apparently speechless. He hasn't been able to work the FED into this thread yet either! damn! This post of yours would be the first post in this thread that is off topic, oh tiny brown bit of Xmas excrement. I am completely on topic. (well except for this response to your unprovoked attack)
Or our great-great-great-great grandparents time. Like it or not, the state sector has been heavily involved in the American economy from Hamilton's era to the present. Shit, the American System basically calls for the state to be involved in the economy. Really, the only countries that I can think of having a "free-market" would be third-world banana republics, which were pushed by the IMF/World Bank (Read US Treasury) to do so.
What you are describig is Lenninism, which is a pretty totalitarian offshoot of Marxism; Lennin was laughed at by most mainstream European Marxists for extreme authoritarian view (the party vanguard). Lenin has done as much to stop Communism as Woodrow Wilson and Joe McCarthy; he and Trotsky infamously shut down the decentralized soviets (workers' councils) and effectively concentrated power in the Supreme Soviet (AKA Politburo). The biggest point of Marxism and most schools of Socialism is autogestion, which is the complete opposite of what ol' Vlad and Uncle Joe Stalin did. Proudhon, Henry George and Bakunin were probably right when they criticized Marx's "dictatorship of the proleteriat" as slippery slope, but even Marx would be astonished at Leninism's authoritarianism. Futhermore, there have been much better examples of socialistic societies in Spain and the reclaimed factories in Argentina, which are very decentralized. For reference, read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.
Why do trolls go all "why do you Libertarian drones go all "troll" on people when they have a different opinion than you? Kind of a drone response?"? Kind of like a drone response? just wondering
Okay. Let's keep this mature and stop with the ad hominem. It's unnecessary. Give me an example of socialism in history. My guess would be that you misunderstand the ideology, and thus misunderstand what the term means. This is a common misconception. You also claim communism is better than socialism; in what ways do you mean? Using isms such as these require specificity so we know we're on the same page. Your using the word Orwellian. Like I said in the original post, this term comes from a socialist. True socialists, who follow the ideology closely have always despised totalitarianism. Libertarianism (the traditional definition, not the new (fake) definition) doesn't refer to the economy. The economy is a complex system which has terms of its own, but libertarian simply refers to the freedoms of every day people. (By the way, libertarian socialism was a term long before this neoliberal school of thought was ever conceived.) Regulation of businesses protects individuals from entities that are more powerful than them. Businesses are calculated machines with aims at increasing wealth and defeating competition. Without regulation, this can lead to exploitation.
With regulations, big business utilizes big government to stifle competitors. It's been going on for a very long time as well. With no state intervention treating one company favorably versus others, you have to provide the best product, price, & customer service to get the most customers. No point in sending lobbyists to DC either if there are no benefits to lobby for. Much easier for big business to maintain a power grip on commerce and industry by buying off one regulating entity versus 50 individual entities, cheaper on the corporations too.
Interesting point. But I don't think eliminating regulation stops this desire they have for control. In fact, this opens up new possibilities. If the government is for individuals over businesses, then the businesses wouldn't have a chance to gain control. They will always have a desire to acquire more power whether regulation exists or not. They seek power by their very nature.
They seek profits. What better way to maintain profits then to undermine your competitors, enabling you to give out crappy products that people don't like, but it doesn't matter because you ran the competitors out of business with regulations that your company is exempt from. And if the competitors don't go out business, you've still managed to raise the cost of doing business on their part by so much that they cannot compete with the company that is exempt. You should be protected from fraud, theft, and breach of contract. By those 3 alone we wouldn't have schmucks like Jon Corzine stealing $1.2 billion from his clients, then claiming he has "no idea" where the clients funds went to. The problem is they've already weaseled their way into industry through private public collusion and bought off the legislators in question, so no conviction for Mr. Corzine (Former Goldman Sachs, Gov. of New Jersey, CEO MF Global, you get the picture). By removing these regulations that the corporations have lobbied for, you remove their underhanded grasp on industry, because now they actually have to do what they hate the most, satisfy the customer. No regulation is written without a direct beneficiary at the expense of others. Otherwise Congress would spend time on more important matters like making Pizza a vegetable and reaffirming the US motto "In God We Trust" The collusion between government and corporations is so extensive at this point (revolving door), that attempting to impose any more regulations is only going to blow up in the consumer's face. Because you have to consider who is the one crafting the legislation, implementing it into law, and where their profit motive lies.
1. You never answered me on how you reconcile being a libertarian, with believing in mixed economies. Libertarian philosophy neccesarily rejects this type of coercive behavior. 2. Dalars was the screen name that mentioned chile, which I partially responded to. Posting on two accounts to cheerlead for yourself?
1. I addressed this in my last post. I'm using the traditional meaning of libertarianism, not the new neoliberal version. 2. I mentioned Chile first. He mentioned it second. I'm waiting for a direct response. And no, I am not Dalars. Like I said, personal attacks are unnecessary for a civilized debate.
Pinochet pegged the Chilean currency to the value of the USD. As the USD began to lose tremendous value in the 70s, so did their own currency. Yet another example of tinkering with the monetary basis, the value of your currency. A market cannot be free if it's medium of currency is tinkered with by quasi-banking and government officials. By it's very nature you are tinkering with the price of your own currency, a form of price controls. http://web.archive.org/web/20080224...s_Releases_2004/04.100+the+one+in+Spanish.htm Babelfish translation: The national banking system is out of control because it's being juiced by cheap credit from the IMF.
You did not address your reasoning for being able to combine the two without contradiction, you simply stated your not speaking of the libertarian philosophy, rather the libertarian party, something you assumed we were not aware of. Libertarian philosophy ( not party affiliation) is rampant here. You did not say was how when you believe that an individual should be free to interact in society without coercion, while also believing that it's okay to use coercion when it comes to economy. I'll make it easier. If its fundamentally wrong to use violence against a person, how can you say it's suddenly okay to use force when it comes to the economy. I also did not see where you mentioned chile, I wrote that after reading through the pages a few time and only seeing dalars post it, but I have no computer right now and relying on my phone, so forgive me if I missed it. Even so, no personal attack was involved, I simply was mistaken.