chris_gerrib | Marxist?

My favorite libertarian posted on Friday an article to the effect of anything not libertarian is Marxist. "Anything" as in "minimum wage" or a progressive tax code. Needless to say, I disagree with this theory. It took me a while - basically the time to drive downstate to my parents house - to figure out how to coherently express my disagreement. My objection to Rand’s article is that it's is historically illiterate. See, Marx didn’t develop his ideas in a vacuum.

When Marx was doing his thinking, he was living in an era with no minimum wage, no income tax, no old-age pension, no real labor laws and poorhouses for the bankrupt. It was, in short, exactly the sort of libertarian world Rand wants. Unless one was a white Anglo-Saxon male with money, life was less than good.

Now, Rand may say “but that’s corporatism" or some other abuse of libertarianism. That’s like a Marxist saying “but that’s Stalinism!” Corporatism is what happens when libertarians get control of government, just like Stalinism always follows Marxism. And corporatism sucks so badly that all sorts of mass movements, from anarchists to communists, rise up against it, frequently violently.

So while Marx was coming up with his ideas, other people were coming up with theirs, which included a lot of the progressive ideas like minimum wage, etc. Ideas that didn't involve a key aspect of Marxist thought, namely seizing private property and giving it to the workers. Ideas that, in short, supported capitalism, freedom and the idea that people shouldn't be treated like dogs. Ideas that were even mentioned in the comments to Rand's article, such as bankruptcy laws and requiring people to be paid in legal tender.

See, these are progressive ideas. After all, bankruptcy is by definition theft – the defaulter steals value from the creditor(s). Requiring people to be paid in real money is interfering with the free market. After all, why shouldn’t two people be allowed to agree on an alternative means of payment or a “trade” of labor for services?

Progressives, looking at the problems of industrialized, urbanized life, discovered that setting a floor or a “safety net” on society meant that the poor wouldn’t rise up and kill the rich. This was considered beneficial to all concerned. We can argue about the size and parameters of the safety net, but arguing that the net is “Marxist” is simply wrong.

Current Mood: contemplative

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

daveon.livejournal.com

Heh. You had me at Rand's historically illiterate.

In all of this the questions I continue to see not answered are what are the actual REAL alternatives? That bunch of mud flinging monkeys over there say that spending must be reduced, but suggest REAL cuts and they cry like stuck pigs because it will mean important stuff I.e. The stuff they care about gets hit.

The solution to most of this is simple. Increase taxes back to Reagan/Bush I levels and reduce military spending and spend even more on the US infratructure. Voilà! The economy is fixed.

From:

jordan179.livejournal.com

The solution to most of this is simple. Increase taxes back to Reagan/Bush I levels ...

You are clearly assuming that we are already below the sweet spot on the Laffer Curve, such that increasing taxes will increase revenues. What is your evidence for this, especially given that we are clearly in a recession?

... and reduce military spending ...

Military spending is around 11-25 percent of budget (depending on what one counts as "military."). This will therefore at best merely reduce government expenses marginally. Also, since we'd be doing this in the middle of a war, this could cause us to lose the war, meaning bigger and more expensive wars down the line.

... and spend even more on the US infratructure.

While spending on infrastructure is inherently good, this will presumably more than gobble up any savings from reductions in the military budget.

Voilà! The economy is fixed.

Unless, of course, your proposed tax increases choke off any recovery, reducing actual revenues because you push tax rates beyond the Laffer Point. In which case, the economy would be in deeper doo-doo.

From:

daveon.livejournal.com

I am making the assumption that in the future we're probably going to find the Laffer Curve as important/accurate/as what-ever-you-want-to-think as we find the Phillips Curve or the M1/M0 numbers.

I am making the statement of fact that tax rates on the extremely well off are far too low, and I'm hardly in poor company with that one. When I read that Megan McArdle is suggesting that income from Capital Gains should be treated as income for tax purposes then I have to have a giggle.

As for the military: anything you say on this subject is pretty worthless at this point. We're not in a "war" - we're in the middle of an extended police action against a terrorist group that we're going to be in for decades. We're also trying to clear up the mess left from US political decisions made over the last 30 years. But let's start with eliminating Nuclear Strategic Long Range Bombers and made do with SSNs and ICBMs...

I'm prepared to bet that returning to Bush 1 level tax rates won't make anything like as much of an impact on the economic recovery than chocking spending on the lower paid and middle classes at the moment.

Spending on infrastructure isn't so much good, as essential. It astounds me that the people of the USA are prepared to drive around on roads that make parts of the richest nation on the planet look like the little hill town in Mexico where I just spent the week.