Republicans: still conservatives or just theo-fascists?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm as outspoken a defender of civil liberties as anyone, but for the life of me, I can't see now the creation of a (quasi) central bank in any way diminishes my personal freedom. Countries have a sovereign right to set their own monetary policy, at least those that haven't surrendered it (like the Euro countries). Whatever one thinks of laissez-faire monetary/fiscal/economic policy, these have nothing to do with the state of civil liberties in our country. One should never make the mistake of conflating civil liberties with laissez-faire capitalism.

Whoever can print the money can ruin you and buy you out. There can be no pretense of liberty without property, and no pretense of property under such conditions.

But don't take my word for it. You will see for yourself.

Still not seeing the connection here. We would be much worse off if governments didn't have the ability to set monetary policy. In a modern economy it's absolutely necessary for a government to have this power. And yes, sometimes it is good policy to "print money" - such as economic downturns or when credit markets seize. But that has nothing to do with my PERSONAL LIBERTY.

As for the second statement, this points to the major problem I have with Randism/libertarianism: if our personal liberty is considered to derive from a property right, then it would follow that one who has no property has no rights. Or that one's rights are simply a function of one's wealth. Or that property rights are considered to be absolute & to trump all other rights. This is basically the argument of those who oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A pretty reactionary concept, in my opinion.

Both points are absurd.

1) I don't know how to address this without making a book recommendation or pasting the complete contents. Suffice it to say, printing money is the absolute WORST thing you can do in a recession. The Japanese have been doing that non-stop since the 80s and they still haven't recovered. What your peddling sounds like Keynesian or monetarist aggregate demand clap trap.

2) I'm not a Randist, and you don't have a clue what rights are. Rand was a monist. As a methodological dualist I'm about as diametrically opposed as one can get to Rand. As for rights, they aren't granted for or derived from property. They exist as a condition of property, including self-ownership. If you have no right to do as you will or a right to the fruits of your labor, you have no property. Period. It's like saying you have a one-sided coin.

Finally there are no rights-trumping. Either you have the right of way, or you run afoul of another man's rights. The point I made is if you do not respect property rights, you do not have civil rights. You have no right to use YOUR computer for free speech. You have no right from search and seizure without due process. You have no right to associate with whomever you like. You have no right to privacy as you have no affects to keep private. You have none of the rights acknowledged by the Bill of Rights nor any found by common case law.

Finally, what is reactionary is saying the state should determine rights, as they have the divine right to rewrite all the rules at a whim. Making it a democratic whim makes it no less reactionary IMO!

^First, I'm not immersed in the Austrian school, so I can't out-argue you on that. Suffice to say that it isn't what I believe in.

Second, in citing Randism I was trying to make reference to political ideology, rather than philosphy per se.

Third, what I was trying to say is that, while property rights do matter, individual rights such as freedom of speech & assembly, privacy, freedom from arbitrary arrest & police scrutiny, etc., I think are better understood under the rubric of "liberty" rather than "property". And my earlier point before we got on this tangent was this: these rights are precious & absolutely worth defending, but the state of liberty in a given country has nothing to do with that country's monetary policy.

As for the charge of Keynesianism, I guess you could call it that, & I'm safe in assuming that you're against it. It may be somewhat out of political fashion these days but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Peace, brother.

I love how libertarians and anarchists love property so much.

To think that we invented the state explicitly to make property possible.

Keynesianism worked for 50 years. It probably would have been able to prevent the recession too.

Except it hasn't. Keeping interest rates artificially low for an extended amount of time, inflating the money supply, and running the government heavily on debt (all strategies taken directly from the Keynesian playbook) have done little, if anything, to stave off the current state our economy is in. However, if you want to keep your head in the sand and take everything Paul Krugman says as gospel, you're certainly more than welcome to.

Personally, I think it's about time that Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrian Economists sat down together and started taking each other seriously. Maybe, just maybe, they should begin listening to each others' constructive criticism so that everyone can benefit.

The practical problem with the debt bit is that it is easy to argue Keynes and run at deficit in times of crisis, but less so to cut expenses afterward and actually pay the debt accumulated. Politically messy. Not good for votes.

Because heaven forfend that people who've benefitted while running the government at a deficit should have to sacrifice in equal shares during economic booms.

Those policies have done much to stave off a far worse calamity. Let's take a brief look at the recent recession, widely considered to be the most severe downturn since the Great Depression. The United States government went, more or less, with a Keynesian approach - economic stimulus, deficit spending, expansionary monetary policy, auto industry bailouts, etc. (For my part, I believe that much more should have been done - especially in the areas of employment & the housing crisis.) Contrast this with Europe, which decided on austerity (forced austerity on many countries), severe spending cuts & hard money policies. The United States has returned to growth, while Europe remains in a severe recession, which shows no signs of ending soon. Add to this the overall level of suffering that people have experienced, & the U.S. has fared much better thanks to the policies it enacted. Granted that there are many differences between the United States & Europe, but overall it amounts to a vindication of Keynesian economics. The Federal Reserve has done its job. Even the European Central Bank has had to shed its orthodox monetarist policies & do what has to be done to address the sovereign debt crisis.

I do agree that the way that countries have run up debt under Keynesianism is shortsighted and unwise. Stimulus funding needs to go down during booms. Social services I'd like to see kept constant, but perhaps higher taxes would be needed during booms to help pay off any debt. These would then be reduced once the debt is paid off. I know less about monetary policy, but I do feel that it is a nation's right to be able to adjust this if they want. But Keynesian-style regulation would have been very helpful in preventing the recession. In Canada we didn't quite get the chance to throw out the last of our regulation of the financial sector, and the recession was much milder here as a result.

And I'm a socialist, so I don't worship Keynesian economics. Keynes' policies were built around the idea of the welfare state, which I hardly view as the ideal state for society--merely better than lassez-faire capitalism.

And what do you base your claims of "prosperity" on? Just curious, because there's more to do with it than just the stock market. As you've correctly stated, unemployment still remains at levels higher than when the current president took office despite those numbers inching back somewhat, the projected debt to GDP ratio for the United States is 102% and shows no signs of decreasing, and there hasn't been a drastic increase in consumer spending despite low interest rates which were supposed to "loosen" credit. I hardly consider that an "improvement."

I'm glad we've found some common ground. I'm sure you'd agree that the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act was a bad, bad move and proved to be even worse in conjunction with the Clinton administration's well intentioned but ultimately disastrous attempts to combat "mortgage discrimination," which in the absence of Glass-Steagal created perverse incentives for banks to target minorities and the poor with predatory lending practices.

Like Canada, the majority of America's government spending is reserved for social programs (in our case, Medicare and Social Security), so trying to scale back the debt without cutting into those is quite a challenge unless you increase tax revenues.

The real solution to this mess:

Last time someone suggested me a book to solve all my problems he was a cleric.

Also, I still find it utter Hilarious that WP.net's version of phpbb still believes question signs in image URLs are a security threat.