![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribMy 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 02:47 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 03:11 pm (UTC)Well, we CAN, but that would require them to stop hyperventilating. Not likely.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 05:29 pm (UTC)They suggested you could save several hundred billion by eliminating long range strategic bombers which, they argued, were the least remotely useful of the nuclear deterants and had been for several decades.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 07:43 pm (UTC)Do you realize that only the "with money" part follows logically from your argument regarding the "libertarian" aspects of the 19th century? While it is true that, in 19th-century English-descended countries, it was better to be "white" or "Anglo-Saxon" or "male" than to be "non-white" or "not Anglo-Saxon" or "female," this bigotry had absolutely nothing to do with liberty, and indeed it was the spread of liberties in the Victorian Era that ultimately moved our societies toward being less racist, less ethnocentric and less sexist.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 07:47 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 07:48 pm (UTC)In other words, you'd be pushing the problem toward the future. Not always a bad strategy, but you should at least acknowledge that the problem doesn't go away just because we stop paying attention to it.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 07:50 pm (UTC)However, the long-range strategic bombers are dual-use weapons systems -- they not only can also be used in conventional warfare, but have been in every medium-sized war (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, War on Terror) that we've fought since 1945. Hence the proposed savings are illusory, as you would then have to make up the lost conventional bombardment capability with other platforms.
But then, I know that you are ignorant of military affairs, and have previously stated that you were glad not to know the details of such stuff. Thank you for continuing to prove your ignorance. It's why you're so much fun to laugh at.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 07:53 pm (UTC)The problem is when people adopt sitting on said social safety nets as deliberate lifetime careers, such as happened a lot more in America before welfare reform, and as is currently happening all too frequently in Europe.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:06 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:08 pm (UTC)You're capacity to revel in war is one of the reasons we find you so deeply unpleasant.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:12 pm (UTC)- dealing with Islamist terrorism on a global basis?
- dealing with the fallout of the Afghanistan problem?
- dealing with the pointless and ill-advised invasion of Iraq?
- handling the rats nest of political nightmares in the Pakistan border regions?
- another "war" I've left off?
History has shown us over and over and over and over again that pretending that terrorist situations are wars and fighting them accordingly is doomed.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:12 pm (UTC)Right, back to office admin. At least that makes some sense...
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:20 pm (UTC)Explaining the Laffer Curve
Date: 2010-11-01 08:25 pm (UTC)The Laffer Curve results from the fact that there is clearly a point beyond which increased taxes will produce decreased sustainable revenues.
Its truth is provable by the simple thought experiment of imaginging a government which imposes 0 percent taxes, and then one which imposes 100 percent taxes. Obviously, the first government will collect zero (*) revenues. What is less obvious is that the second government will also collect zero revenues (because people won't work if all their income is taken by the State).
Since we see in the real world governments, who impose tax rates greater than 0 but less than 100 percent, and do collect sustainable revenues well above zero, it is obvious that the point of maximum tax revenues for any given economy lies at some rate above 0 and below 100. If one is at that tax rate, either increasing or reducing tax rates will reduce tax revenues.
Q.E.D. -- at least it is if you understand anything about economics, which admittedly I'm not sure that you actually do.
===
(*) Or close to zero. Some altruists will donate money to either kind of government, but such income is hardly to be counted upon.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:32 pm (UTC)By your decree, which of course immediately alters reality and supersedes mere mundane logic? Yes, but let's pretend that we're having a sane discussion, ok?
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 decade.
Changing the term from "war" to "police action" doesn't change the reality that we might win, we might lose, and that if we lose we will probably have to fight again, in the future, on a larger scale, against the now-victorious foe, who will have waxed more powerful from his victory. Also, claiming that our enemy is merely a "terrorist group" does not magically cause the Terrorist States of Iran, Syria, North Korea to vanish in obedience to your incantation. Nor does it eliminate the danger of Pakistan coming under Terrorist Rule.
But let's start with eliminating Nuclear Strategic Long Range Bombers and made do with SSNs and ICBMs...
Calling them "Nuclear Strategic Long Range Bombers" does not magically cause their conventional bombardment capability, which we have used in every medium-sized war since Korea and are using right now, to vanish. Nor does it change the reality that, if you get rid of those aircraft, you will have to then replace the lost conventional bombardment capability with something else.
In fact, it would make more sense to reduce ICBM and SSBM strength than manned bomber strength, if this made sense at all, for cost savings. This is because the ICBM's and SSBM's are less useful for conventional bombardment than are the manned bombers.
But that doesn't even make sense for cost savings purposes. Know why? Because our nuclear forces are relatively cheap compared to the capabilities they provide. Most of the cost of running our Armed Forces comes from logistics (supplying forces), salaries and pensions. Cutting costs isn't as easy as you imagine.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:32 pm (UTC)- dealing with Islamist terrorism on a global basis?
- dealing with the fallout of the Afghanistan problem?
- dealing with the pointless and ill-advised invasion of Iraq?
- handling the rats nest of political nightmares in the Pakistan border regions?
- another "war" I've left off?
It's all different campaigns in the same war.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:34 pm (UTC)Pointing out logical flaws in your arguments, then laughing at you when you try to claim that you're somehow above having to address logical flaws in your arguments, because you're such a Very Special Person?
Yes, I enjoy making you look stupid. You provide me with entertainment. :)
Not sure why you cooperate with this, but maybe you're just an intellectual masochist?
(*cracks whip*)
Shall we do the hurt-comfort part of it later :D
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:40 pm (UTC)We could at least reduce their numbers, though it won't save us much money, because the ICBM's aren't all that expensive to maintain compared to other force elements.
Or have we been using them recently too?
Yes, we have. For deterrence. If you don't know why "deterrence" is important, let's just say that if it failed we would be "using" them in the sense of burning up enemy cities, and because the enemy would have been burning up ours. Incidentally, having our cities burned up might cost us a bit more than the money we saved by ditching the ICBM's. I think.
Thank you for this extra funny comment. I said
But then, I know that you are ignorant of military affairs, and have previously stated that you were glad not to know the details of such stuff. Thank you for continuing to prove your ignorance. It's why you're so much fun to laugh at.
and your response was
Your capacity to revel in war is one of the reasons we find you so deeply unpleasant.
showing that you imagine that understanding war means that one is "revelling" in it, and that therefore one should refuse to understand it to demonstrate one's superior virtue.
Now, there are plenty of people who believe that if they shut their eyes really tight a bad thing will go away. In the case of the smarter and more realistic people, they stop believing this at around age 10.
You are in the select and honorable company of people who keep on believing it as adults.
Congratulations. And the icing on the cake is that you think that not knowing very much about military affairs is no reason not to hold deep opinions regarding them.
Oh, and the use of the royal "we" is hilarious. Shall I now call you "King Davon?"
Having Fun Making Dave Look Dumb
Date: 2010-11-01 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 08:59 pm (UTC)No, it happened about the time you were calling for nuclear attacks on innocent civilian populations on rasff back in 2001.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 09:01 pm (UTC)As Charlie Stross often says: Mr Dunning, Mr Kruger, call for you on the white courtesy phone!
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 09:03 pm (UTC)History has shown us over and over and over and over again that pretending that terrorist situations are wars and fighting them accordingly is doomed.