Libertarian vs. Liberal

[Bottomfeeder 244]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-arch.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard16.html

‘This idea of conscience, that men carry about with them the knowledge of good and evil, is the very root of revolution, for it destroys the sanctity of the past... "Liberalism is essentially revolutionary," Acton observed. "Facts must yield to ideas. Peaceably and patiently if possible. Violently if not."

In England, the classical liberals began their shift from radicalism to quasi-conservatism in the early nineteenth century; a touchstone of this shift was the general British liberal attitude toward the national liberation struggle in Ireland. This struggle was twofold: against British political imperialism, and against feudal landlordism which had been imposed by that imperialism.

Only in the United States, the great home of radical liberalism (where feudalism had never been able to take root outside the South), did natural rights and higher law theory, and consequent radical liberal movements, continue in prominence until the mid-nineteenth century. In their different ways, the Jacksonian and Abolitionist movements were the last powerful radical libertarian movements in American life. [3]

http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch89.asp

“When businessmen talk of "fair trade" or "fair competition," it means that they are pressuring the government to use coercion to cartelize their industry, to restrict production, raise prices, and allow the flourishing of inefficient and uncompetitive practices.”

‘In business, the other guy, your competitor, if he is efficient and is successfully cutting into your business, is by definition engaging in ‘unfair competition’ and ‘unfair trading practices.’"

BUSH ONE:

“The Bush Commerce Department decided that a dozen countries, Mexico plus mainly European nations, were "unfairly" subsidizing their own steel industries, and that the tariffs against them must rise to offset this advantage. The fact that the U.S. steel companies are themselves heavily subsidized by the government (e.g. with special loans, development grants, and pension guarantees), did not of course enter into the equation. Tariffs on various forms of steel must now rise up to 90%. The result will be higher costs, restricted production, and higher prices imposed on a myriad of American steel-using industries, notably appliances, automobiles, and construction, which will harm the American consumer and hurt the competitiveness of American industry at home and abroad.” Sound familiar?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/tmb.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard20.html

http://www.mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/2_1/2_1_2.pdf

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard28.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard29.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard37.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace100.html

[DKW 86 7,431]

Dude, how hard did you look at the Von Mises' Institute? I ususally agree 100% with them. Your past posts look as if you are misquoting them here. They advocate free-trade 100%. To do otherwise is a violation of Free Trade and bad ultimately for society. Bush imposed temporary tarrifs to ward off the unfair practices of others.

What exactly are your views? Libertarian or Conservative? The World Wonders...

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I'm not a Keynesian, I am A Libertarian.

When the government imposes inflation and dictates money supply and demand, it advocates oppression upon those near and far. If the Federal Reserve never existed there would be no need to regulate currency policy, because gold backed currency self-regulates. Governmental involvement in a free market environment causes undue interference of the systematic governance that a free market offers. Real conservatism and libertarian policies go hand in hand. But, in these days, it is increasingly difficult to define conservatism. Problems arise from greedy corporate control and corruption of the social elite, namely Rothschild, Rockefeller and Weyerhaeuser, just to name a few of the robber barons of the earlier years. Currency manipulation in China has hindered the free trade agreement between the U.S. and China, thus, allowing unfair prices that favor China. Multinational corporations have much influence on China's monetary policy, which keeps America "over a barrel" when competing. Notice that Von Mises uses the phrase "free market and not "free trade." There is a difference. Free trade is a governmentally negotiated trade agreement that is supposed to help the receiving country, but instead exploits conditions of cheap labor and lack workers' rights. Moreover, free trade reduces real wages at home through unfair competition, which affects all people living in a constitutional republic, by reducing the demand for goods and services produce here. Another thing this does is increase the demand for public services, thus expanding government. You understand?

Free trade and capitalism don't mix.

"In particular, the case for free trade is squarely based on the fact that it makes all parties better off than they would have been without free trade."

"Notice the nuance in the message. The point is not that free trade necessarily makes people better off than they have been so far. Rather, it makes them better off than they would be if trade were to be henceforth obstructed by government interventions, or by other violations of property rights."

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1433

Maybe you might want to read the entire library and come back to post your findings. I met Lew Rockwell and Joseph Stromberg, a couple of weeks ago while at Auburn. Very cool place to hang out and read. The library is split up and on two different floors. Out back they have a little pavilion where the have films at night in the open air. It's so cool.

Have you taken a tour yet?

I have found that union representation to be the only chance for a shot at fair wages in a capitalist system of economics. I know Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises hated unions, but they didn't have to deal directly with capitalists either.

In a capitalist system, absent the free market, unions are the only hope for fair wages and protections that come naturally from a "free market" economy. "Property Rights" have much to do with our problems today.

BF[2004]

[DKW 86 7,431]

OK, Knowing that the rest if the boiard could care less....

Free trade and capitalism don't mix.

What else do you think will mix? I understand that you are straining over the Free Market vs Free Trade analogy. But I have many problems with what you state. I believe that Capitalism has a sub-obvious outcome. It translates all that is bad in human kind; the greed, the laziness, etc. into common goods.

Churchill states that "Capitalism is the worst economic system.....except for all the others." On a intellectual side I agree with you, I guess, that capitalism is not a good idea nor philosophy. It is just too easily corrupted. But in the4 real world, it works by far the best, completely outstripping every other form of economic system. There is just no cpomparison in the real world. Every 'managed' systemm seems to be more productive intellectually, BUT, in the real world, fails miserably. Whether it is in the production of goods, or services or quality of life, they all just fail.

The US went form an agrarian based economy in the late 1880s to defacto World Leader by 1945, disregarding weapons, simply economics here. With the Truman initiated Second Wave of govt "massaging" of the Economy we eliminated the Depression Era problems. We also moved evermore away from the gold standard. We have achieved a standard of living for our people that is equaled nowhere in the world. Problem, we have forever more sacrificed the self regulating economy.

While we agree on many things, evidently, (I am probably far more Libertarian than anyone else on this board, although I do not support the brain dead Libertarian Party policies ) I see no reform that would allow us back to the gold standard. Is there enough Gold in the World to cover M1 M2 and M3? I doubt it.

As far as Unions go, I am definitely appreciative of their PAST contributions. However, I see no real need for them in the US now. They interfere with the necessary speed of the business cycle and in my business are really a hindrance to full employment. They have arcane and often ridiculous work rules, etc. All that impedes the speed and efficiency of business today. I live this in the real world, not in some academic environment.

Unions could easily do real good work in the emerging economies in China, Mexico, Korea, Malaysia, Central and South America. They could benefit the peoples of the whole world and even up the wage rates so that our folks could save jobs and still get decent pay too. But where are they? You cannot find them anywhere doing any of this work.

I propose that the Unions need to get rid of their fatcat leaders and start the hard work of Unionizing foreign countries. Stay here to keep the US honest, but they need to move off shore and help everyone out.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

OK, Knowing that the rest if the boiard could care less...

We have achieved a standard of living for our people that is equaled nowhere in the world. Problem, we have forever more sacrificed the self regulating economy.

While I agreed with everything else you said, there is one part I disagree with, that being the higher standard of living. If we look at the numbers our pseudo standard of living is due to indebtedness. This is the crux of the argument. While most other countries have real savings and investment, those same foreign central banks own the majority of our debt. The bonds to which these foreign savings have purchased, which generate economic activity here, are promissory notes issued by our Federal Reserve, and are completely and utterly worthless.

Our net worth here is estimated to around $50 trillion dollars, and that‘s everything. Our present debt can become a sticky issue , for our children, when they have to deal with foreign owners. This may occur before we leave this planet.

"Fiat money is currency drawing its value exclusively from its use as a medium of exchange. Backed by nothing but the smiling faces of the Arthur Burnses and Paul Volckers and Alan Greenspans, it is otherwise worthless." [1]

Our net worth here is estimated to around $50 Trillion dollars. Our present debt is around This can become sticky, for our children, after we are gone; maybe even before.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates91.html

The Coming Financial Train Wreck

(A Tale of Peters and Pauls)

by Steven Yates

"Congressman Paul concluded, "The end may come when foreign central banks realize the dollars they receive are worthless, or when they find other places to turn for income. When that day comes, interest rates will rise, perhaps dramatically. At that point not even Mr. Greenspan will be able to save the economy from the painful correction necessitated by his easy credit, easy money policies." We can probably expect this to occur during the 2010 decade, although if a new national emergency comes along (e.g., another catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil, possibly in retaliation for our government’s ill-advised invasion of Iraq) it could come sooner."

"Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the will to fix this mess. That much is clear. Democrats are having a field day blaming Bush the Younger for job losses these past three years – something that isn’t his doing, except in the extended sense that like all recent chief executives he has done nothing to cut the size and reach of the federal government. (Critics of "outsourcing" say that the "exporting" of jobs overseas is liable to turn the U.S. into a third world nation before it runs its course. But could it be that one reason jobs are being "outsourced" to countries such as India is that our false prosperity – which doesn’t exist in those places – conceals our already having become a third world nation, measured in terms of real wealth as opposed to false prosperity based on borrowing?)"

" I’ve encountered more than one statistic on America’s total indebtedness – the combined statistic for federal, state and local governments along with corporations and consumers. One source places our total indebtedness at $34 trillion – and rising rapidly. Another places it at $45 trillion – and rising rapidly. I wonder if anyone knows the exact figure!"

[DKW 86 7,431]

I dont like debt at all. My wife and me are working very dilgently at being entirely debt free. I hear everyday how many more are foregoing the debt lifestyle. I wish the entire country would. But are you advocating that all debt be curtailed till we are at some debt level or completely out of debt as citizens?

Are you advocating balanced budgets or balanced books?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Mind you, I was in Illinois at this time, near the DOE's Argonne Lab.

Don't be fooled by the market's bounce today.

OK, Knowing that the rest if the boiard could care less....

Free trade and capitalism don't mix.

What else do you think will mix? I understand that you are straining over the Free Market vs Free Trade analogy. But I have many problems with what you state. I believe that Capitalism has a sub-obvious outcome. It translates all that is bad in human kind; the greed, the laziness, etc. into common goods.

Churchill states that "Capitalism is the worst economic system.....except for all the others." On a intellectual side I agree with you, I guess, that capitalism is not a good idea nor philosophy. It is just too easily corrupted. But in the4 real world, it works by far the best, completely outstripping every other form of economic system. There is just no cpomparison in the real world. Every 'managed' systemm seems to be more productive intellectually, BUT, in the real world, fails miserably. Whether it is in the production of goods, or services or quality of life, they all just fail.

The US went form an agrarian based economy in the late 1880s to defacto World Leader by 1945, disregarding weapons, simply economics here. With the Truman initiated Second Wave of govt "massaging" of the Economy we eliminated the Depression Era problems. We also moved evermore away from the gold standard. We have achieved a standard of living for our people that is equaled nowhere in the world. Problem, we have forever more sacrificed the self regulating economy.

While we agree on many things, evidently, (I am probably far more Libertarian than anyone else on this board, although I do not support the brain dead Libertarian Party policies ) I see no reform that would allow us back to the gold standard. Is there enough Gold in the World to cover M1 M2 and M3? I doubt it.

As far as Unions go, I am definitely appreciative of their PAST contributions. However, I see no real need for them in the US now. They interfere with the necessary speed of the business cycle and in my business are really a hindrance to full employment. They have arcane and often ridiculous work rules, etc. All that impedes the speed and efficiency of business today. I live this in the real world, not in some academic environment.

Unions could easily do real good work in the emerging economies in China, Mexico, Korea, Malaysia, Central and South America. They could benefit the peoples of the whole world and even up the wage rates so that our folks could save jobs and still get decent pay too. But where are they? You cannot find them anywhere doing any of this work.

I propose that the Unions need to get rid of their fatcat leaders and start the hard work of Unionizing foreign countries. Stay here to keep the US honest, but they need to move off shore and help everyone out.

57395[/snapback]

I guess the academic crowd is a bit isolated from reality. It is a different world on the inside. As far as the gold standard goes, it is the only way I know to limit government spending. The standard, along with ridding ourselves of the fractional reserve banking system and all banking interest including the Federal Reserve and the IRS. There are many other interests I would like to see gone forever, and erased from history books to save us the embarrassment of what we let our government do to us.