Understanding Libertarianism and Free Markets

[Harriet]

Please understand that this is meant to be a summation of a large body
of works that have been written throughout the ages, such as Adam
Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Frederick Bastiat’s The Law, a multitude of
works by Ludwig Von Mises, Thomas Jefferson and Paine, and the entire
list is to voluminous to enumerate in this writing. All authors of
liberty, in my opinion have one thing in common, they believed that
government for the most is an unethical tool of corruption by those
that want to rule over others and that the majority is better off
allowing the free markets through voluntary individual participation
to provide those services governments tries to accomplish. They do
not buy the concept that people outside government will not provide
certain services, therefore individuals within government must.
The definition of Liberty, being slightly different than freedom, is
something that some think we have, yet many are under some
misconceptions as to how it affects our everyday lives.
Liberty, I describe, as the ability to go out in the world and do
those things that you believe are necessary for one to achieve life
and happiness, as long as you do not harm others or their property,
and very important to the issue, without having to get approval or
permission from a governing authority or body. It is only logical to
expect that we all must be able to go out in the world and do those
things that we must do to survive, prosper and gain some happiness.
The proverbial Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is the heart
of what was supposed to be the American dream and we were supposed to
be able to do these things without getting a license, permit or make
some other type of payment to government to get permission.
The problem starts when someone’s happiness or means of survival
affects others. For instance if some gay guys at the beach are having
sex out in the open, there are many people that would want them to
stop, so that they could enjoy the day at the beach without having to
watch or more importantly have their children watch them having sex.
Understand that I personally would not like to go to a beach and see
gay guys having sex nor would I want my children to see them having
sex but they theoretically could have that right in a libertarian free
market society to do so. However don’t fret; there are ways to
alleviate the problem.
The libertarian would say, first of all, that no governing body should
be involved in the affairs of people as it pertains to personal or
economic activities, that do not harm others and there should not be
regulations pertaining to the personal and economic affairs of
individuals unless it can be proven that harm occurs. Humans have been
fighting legally over the personal and economic affairs of individuals
since recorded history and everyone has their own perception as to
what is or is not acceptable behavior. The gay beach sex activity is
just one issue as it pertains to personal affairs, then there are the
economic affairs of individuals and everyone seems to have their own
perspectives based on a variety of beliefs. Libertarians do not
believe that people in government are any better suited at solving
social problems, that there are free market methods to solve free
market problems and that the need for government to be involved is
vastly overrated. When people do things, their activities may be
obnoxious to others but that doesn’t mean they should go to jail nor
does it mean that it shouldn’t be stopped in some manner. So how do
we live harmoniously in a society where there are so many diverse
opinions on how human beings should or should not behave in both their
personal and economic affairs?
First, you must understand that democracy is an allusion, as it is
seldom that there is a real majority involved in any determination.
Secondly the majority is often wrong, as they do not understand socio-
economics well enough to make educated decisions, Thirdly, individuals
vote predominantly for their own best interest rather than what is in
the best interest of the majority and this greatly affect both the
negative ramifications and unintended consequences of government
interventions into the marketplace and fourthly, people manipulate the
system by fraud, corruption and graft. A greater analysis titled “The
Democratic Capitalist Illusion”, can be read at:
http://groups.google.com/group/HarrietRobbins/browse_thread/thread/8010706446a338c0?hl=en
Libertarians contend that because of the inability of the majority to
positively affect what is in the best interest of the majority, the
democratic system cannot possible provide a positive outcome and
history has shown this to be the case. Not once has democracy been
shown to have a positive outcome over the long term, as all have
imploded for various reasons. If it is going to work, it should work
over very long periods of time. The divisiveness that democracy is
supposed to solve, creates additional problems and unintended
consequences that continue to plague our world. However, what are the
alternatives?
It is not known specifically who stated this but Henry David Thoreau's
Civil Disobedience (1849) is often identified as the real source of
this quotation, but there may be an even earlier source. Respectfully
Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations points to The United States
Magazine and Democratic Review, whose editor wrote in 1837, "The best
government is that which governs least. Thomas Jefferson stated “A
wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate
their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take
from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of
good government.” Obviously both quotes insinuate limited
government.
History has surely not proven that a Constitutional Republic can or
will ever provide for the good or will of the people. Quite to the
contrary, history, time and time again, has shown that the ruling
elites use all forms of government as a tool to redistribute wealth
from the lower classes to themselves with each generation believing
that they will solve this forever existing problem. Sadly
Jefferson’s, Adam’s, Franklin’s, Washington’s and many who fought for
the visions of liberty were soon overpowered by the corruptive nature
of those in political power that used government to manipulate the
marketplace. I think that most people of that era miscalculated the
ability to limit government and it is perhaps as many libertarians
believe impossible to limit governments, as they say, if you give
government an inch of your property, it will take your entire
yard.
Hence the belief systems by libertarians that limited government
(miniarchism) or even perhaps no government (anarchism), are the
predominant factions within their Austrian Economic Movement. At
libertarian meeting, they generally argue about how to successfully
limit government manipulation and graft and the eventual corruption of
the free markets.
If a Democracy doesn’t work and a Constitutional Republic using
democratic decision making hasn’t worked nor appears capable of
working, than there are no other known governmental organization left
to try out. All other governmental structures have even provided
worse results. Hence the belief that using free enterprise to
accomplish those things that government cannot do cost effectively.
Free enterprise does not require government. It is government that
requires Free Enterprise to create profits, so that taxes can be
skimmed off the top. Paying their fair share is an erroneous concept
for government employees as they are just giving some of the money
back that was stolen from those in the private sector that earned the
profit. Government doesn’t produce profit and is really just an
expense and a huge unnecessary one at that.
I sometimes think about the possibility of having what I call a
“voluntary government” and as I will go into later on, has some
interesting possibilities as it eliminates the use of police power and
this appears to be the primary divisive element that makes governments
implode and despised by their Citizens.
Due to the all encompassing nature of the human existence,
understanding how free markets work is quite extensive, so if I seem
to get off the subject, I am, but I will get back to the various
aspects as we go along.
Force is the element of police power that provides those in political
power with the ability to maintain control over others. Slave owners
used force to keep their slaves in line and governments use the force
of the police and military to keep their citizens in line. It is
interesting how often those in power use excessive force and there are
pretty good statistics that have been put together showing that
governments have killed and imprisoned more of their own citizens than
have died in their foreign wars, even in the 20th Century. To think
that in America it couldn’t happen, is a very big mistake, as we have
already seen tons of police violence against innocent or unarmed
civilians on a constant basis. As the economic conditions of a society
decline from the overburden of excessive government costs, the
totalitarian effects start to rear their ugly heads as individuals in
government finds it more and more difficult to obtain revenue to pay
for their existence.
Hence that is why libertarians are opposed to the use of governmental
force, but do not be confused as to the ability of acting in self
defense. I wrote of being able to pursue ones happiness and if
someone tries to stop you, by force or the threat of force, from doing
activities that do not harm others, than you have the right to protect
yourself. Hence the phrases, “don’t tread on me” and “live and let
live”.
Understand that an individual’s rightfully acquired property,
including money falls under the same protections as the individual
themselves. That is why libertarians believe in less taxes. They find
great offence in the redistribution of wealth that allows governments
to steal or coerce money and property from individuals who it
rightfully belongs to and give it to those that it doesn’t rightfully
belong to. To believe that a system based on the fundamental premise
that the redistribution of wealth can or will provide for an ethical
society is seriously flawed and irrational concept and history
provides additional evidence of the negative ramifications and
unintended consequences of a force based system.
So how do we stop the gay guys from having sex on the beach unless we
have cops to call and haul them off. Understanding the free market is
not that difficult. Think of a car. People get together voluntarily,
not by force, and exchange good and services and try to sell them to
others whom voluntarily buy what is being produced. All actions done
on a voluntary basis. Can you imagine if governments made all the
cars in the world how that would turn out? Instead governments
overtaxes the companies like GM, that make the cars, put them and
their distributors out of business and end up owning the company
during its bankruptcy and giving them control which is a great way to
place undesirable business liabilities on the backs of the taxpayers.
Just over tax them until they are no longer profitably or are forced
to go somewhere else where taxes are tolerable or none existent.
Sounds like a good plan, doesn’t it?
So the same aspects of how an automobile is achieved can also be
applied to services. I was a real estate appraiser and received
compensation for my services from those who were willing to pay for
them. The same can apply to every service including police. Private
security is prevalent in our society for which I can only assume, the
public/government police cannot or will not provide the services that
many are desiring. Our government system is set up so that the police
are the front line individuals that help to collect the taxes and
therefore the incentive to go out and catch the bad guys is more
keeping up the publicity level high enough to make the Citizens
believe that there is adequate police protection. The U.S. has the
highest incarceration rates in the world (mostly drug offenses) and
yet crime is still rampant. The Cops are obviously busy giving
traffic tickets, picking up prostitutes, people who have expired
licenses and license tags or have not paid their prior tickets, and
crack and pot smokers. Don’t you feel much safer.
We can nicely ask the gay guys to stop having sex on the beach. If
that doesn’t work we can leave. In a true free market society someone
would own the beach so we could ask them to remove the gay guys and
since that is the owners private property rights, he may or may not
want to have the gay guys removed. He may want to cater to the gay
community and therefore we may have to leave or tolerate the sex on
the beach. You could of course buy the beach with some other friends
or by yourself and do with the beach, than as you see fit. I’m sure
there would be sex beaches, family beaches, nude beaches, over 55+
beaches, dog beaches, etc. and perhaps if you’re a real beach person
you could own your favorite beach. We’re now stuck with beaches that
are predominantly government run with limited activities that are
decided by elected representatives through the democracy process where
a woman going topless on the beach is quickly escorted off by the
local police. Our creativity to enhance the human experience is
embroiled in a constant power struggle over rules, regulations,
taxation, fines, penalties, mandatory incarceration periods, etc. etc.
ad nausium and we have bankrupted our nation trying to regulate and
control everything from herbs to human behavior itself.
There are free market methods of doing everything, even military
defense. For instance privateers were private groups of individuals
that would furnish warships and crews during the Revolutionary War and
fought the British Navy. What was cool is that when a privateer
captures a British ship, they got to keep it and all the stuff on
board. Historians acknowledge that without the privateers, it is
highly unlikely that the Colonies would have won the war. Private
Citizens Militias, as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, also played a
major role in that war as well both without the control or regulations
of government. It was private independent militia groups which first
took up arms in self defense against the British government which
obviously pissed off King George to a great extent and I thank you
guys for those that had the courage to have risked their lives,
liberties and fortunes for real liberty.
Believing that individuals, without government controls and the
necessary enforcement, are incapable of providing all aspects of the
human experience, is just plain ignorance and historically incorrect.
A fallacy perpetrated by the ruling class, as they desire to primarily
control the means of production through government regulations and
taxation.
Almost everything that we cherish in our lives is made by free
enterprise and most of the things we despise involves government, yet
we cannot unburden our lives, trust our neighbors, forgive and
tolerate their behaviors, enjoy their individualism, understand that
we seldom would have to use force to accomplish a civil society and
most the force used would be in self-defense.
The Voluntary Government concept previously mentioned is simply a
structure set up in which citizens can get together to effect change.
Consensus building I like to call it, where people with similar
desires can get together and voluntarily associate and accomplish
those things they desire. For instance the President, as he now does
would be Commander and Chief. Except he would have to get people like
Bill Gates and other wealthier individuals, as well as anybody else
for that matter to voluntarily give to his military defense programs
and the guy that has the best ideas, would generate the greatest
contributions and therefore most likely would be the President. The
force of taxation is eliminated and that would eliminate most of the
corruptive elements and graft within our current system.
Everybody knows we need military defense and the wealthier are much
more interested in protecting their property because they have more of
it. Those with the greatest vested interest will of course have a
greater desire to protect their interest. Thomas Jefferson was
extremely acute at understanding the human nature and ethics of
individuals and the relationship with economic activities and if I
were to suggest a study of any single individual’s belief system, it
would be his. We have put much effect in the structural elements of
our government, yet it fails to perform as desired, obviously because
the use of force is the basis of funding the foundation of the
system. The structure is already set up for us. All we need to do is
switch off the forced redistribution of wealth and make it a voluntary
system. All the scum in the system will float to the bottom rather
than what it does today, floats to the top and we would return to be
the greatest nation that has ever existed again.
Our only other alternative is to allow government to continue what
they’re doing until we end up in some type of civil war via a total
monetary collapse. Our system has gone through a large portion of
what is referred to as the Bell Curve, by some economists as each
nation state, as countries are referred to, go through a cycle of
prosperity, economic collapse, civil unrest/war and back to prosperity
that all nation states go through every two or three hundred years.
That is what governments have produced and in contrast those societies
which embrace large levels if Free Market economic activities,
experience peace and prosperity, until such time as the government
through police power intervene, manipulate and corrupt the activities
of individuals and groups operating in the free markets. Once again,
not that free markets are perfect, it is that government is not the
solution and attempting to use government to correct problems is an
extremely dangerous option that has historically proven hazardous to
the welfare of the majority. Using free market solutions to free
market problems does work and that doesn’t mean that it is not
necessarily be easy or will allows be successful, as there is no
utopia. You may have to find another beach to go to or go to the park
instead but what libertarians can explain and prove beyond a shadow of
a doubt, you do not want people to have the option of calling the
government police because at some point in history the government
police will be shooting at you and rounding you up for Auschwitz.
Will it be the Christians, Muslims, Chinese or Americans next
time?