Libertarianism. Is it more than just selfishness?
One commentator:
To me, the sense of each word is slightly different. Contempt would be an active negative feeling for someone (usually a person); it implies the person is or has done something disgusting. Disdain is more passive, and not so often directed towards a person. To feel contempt implies a very negative judgement whereas disdain means to feel something is unworthy. I might have contempt for a pro-Nazi work of art, but disdain for a poorly rendered work of art.
Scorn is closer to contempt but less serious. I scorn your attempt to apologize for being late for the eighth time this year.
Column by Krugman today about the Texas electrical grid debacle. Would be interested in the Libertarian response.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/opinion/texas-electricity-storm.html?referringSource=articleShare
“Second, electricity is supplied by a system — and precautionary investment by one player in the system does no good if the other players fail to do the same. Even if the owner of a gas-fired power plant insulates and winterizes its turbines, it can’t function if the gas pipeline that supplies its fuel, or the wellhead that provides the gas, freeze up.”
jimmurphy said:
Column by Krugman today about the Texas electrical grid debacle. Would be interested in the Libertarian response.
Personal generators and mutual aid societies? That sounds like a much more unequal, overall poorer society to me, though that's my practical objection to libertarianism in general.
jimmurphy said:
Column by Krugman today about the Texas electrical grid debacle. Would be interested in the Libertarian response.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/opinion/texas-electricity-storm.html?referringSource=articleShare
“Second, electricity is supplied by a system — and precautionary investment by one player in the system does no good if the other players fail to do the same. Even if the owner of a gas-fired power plant insulates and winterizes its turbines, it can’t function if the gas pipeline that supplies its fuel, or the wellhead that provides the gas, freeze up.”
What I've seen a lot of is people taking this crisis and making political points with it. People call it "Libertarianism gone wrong" and what have you. But this is a recent crisis. There have been other crisises in places that are far less libertarian like California. I'm old enough to remember a storm knocking out my power for > 2 weeks right here in New Jersey. It took quite a while to get the trains running again. Complex systems break when unexpected events take place. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes it happens spectacularly.
Regarding the price spikes, I honestly don't know the specifics of this situation, but it has happened elsewhere in very highly regulated states(see Enron California). In a crisis where certain goods are scarce it does make sense for prices to rise, as it ensures those goods are only used for the most important purposes. In addition, it will cause those goods to move towards the crisis where they are needed. In this case, where we are dealing with public utilities that have priveledges and should aim for the public good, it gets a bit more complex and honestly don't know specifically why they have seen such dramatic price increases.
jeebus.
Sandy was unexpected. To say the least. And our water systems didn't collapse like they did in Texas.
Also, when we have power failures in NJ, it's almost always do to trees breaking lines - it's not a system wide failure of the grid.
Texas had almost the same exact problem in 2011, they were warned to weatherize their systems, and they didn't. So there they are again.
Yet again, you have failed to analogize correctly.
And I'm pretty sure the Enron debacle was not a problem of over-regulation.
And you think it makes sense for the grid to fail, and then the utility charges thousands of dollars because electricity was scarce due to the failure?
You can keep that world, thank you very much.
JimMurphy,
First, I want to thank you for what seems like an earnest attempt to discuss and understand. It is very difficult to keep up w/ the posts on this thread. Most of which are attacks on libertarians, liberty, Republicans, or even Texans.
I will summarize some thoughts as I'm not going to reference every post on this this thread. Before I do that, I want to make something clear. There are various schools of thought that fall within the libertarian umbrella and its really a prism. There are minachrists, there are anarchocapatalists, there are classical liberals, there are even left libertarians, etc. There are differences, but for the most part, they agree that given where we are as a nation right now, we should strive for greater liberty from government.
I do not think that this should be a very controversial opinion. We are living in a period where government has run amok. We have been in forever wars for a generation. There is no discussion about this. It is just accepted. Government spending is out of control. It is at its highest level since WWII. The Federal Reserve has been running an increasingly radical monetary policy for about 2 generations causing an extreme financial bubbles that the rich profit from and the middle class and the poor pay for when the bubble ultimately bursts. We have seen small businesses crushed by policies enacted due to the government reaction to the pandemic. The government can't agree how to help the people affected by this, but they have time for a political show trial and the defense contractors get their $$, etc.
More specific to this thread, we are pretty far from the scenarios discussed here. Who knows how power might be generated and distributed if it was done in another framework. As a nation, we have bought into the model where the government regulates everything. What I was proposing was that under private ownership, owners would be more likely to take care of the asset as it would bring wealth to them and their family and yes, ultimately their children. Some of our most prominent institutions have worked exactly this way(The oft quoted NY Times works this way). I propose that disputes between factories, owners of public lands be settelled in the courts. Someone is going to say 'Aha! Government! See terp is pretty dang stoopid at that end of the day.' But Ron Paul, perhaps the most successful defender of liberty in my lifetime, is not an anarchocapitatalist. The anarchocapitalist would say that there should be privatized courts. So, the rabbit hole goes pretty deep.
I want to get on the bus that goes in the direction of more liberty. Do I think its possible I might not like certain manifestations of it and may think that it could go too far? Absolutely. The important thing to consider is that there are other ways the world could operate. The current order, to say the least, is imperfect.
Libertarians are offering alternatives. For the most part, nobody expects to live in an anarchocapitalist society any time soon. However, we would like to move the needle towards individual freedom as much as possible. We think that individuals know what is best for themselves far better than any politician or career beaurocrat could.
Thanks for listening,
terp
drummerboy said:
And you think it makes sense for the grid to fail, and then the utility charges thousands of dollars because electricity was scarce due to the failure?
You can keep that world, thank you very much.
Did I really say that?
terp said:
drummerboy said:
And you think it makes sense for the grid to fail, and then the utility charges thousands of dollars because electricity was scarce due to the failure?
You can keep that world, thank you very much.
Did I really say that?
well, you didn't have much problem in thinking the price increases made sense, did you? and the price increases were because of grid failure. so the utilities that were partly responsible for the grid failure then asked for exorbitant rates.
Any time you need me to explain to you what you really meant, don't hesitate to ask.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
And you think it makes sense for the grid to fail, and then the utility charges thousands of dollars because electricity was scarce due to the failure?
You can keep that world, thank you very much.
Did I really say that?
well, you didn't have much problem in thinking the price increases made sense, did you? and the price increases were because of grid failure. so the utilities that were partly responsible for the grid failure then asked for exorbitant rates.
Any time you need me to explain to you what you really meant, don't hesitate to ask.
Ha. I was speaking about general situations and then specifically about the Texas crisis.
terp said:
jimmurphy said:
Column by Krugman today about the Texas electrical grid debacle. Would be interested in the Libertarian response.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/opinion/texas-electricity-storm.html?referringSource=articleShare
“Second, electricity is supplied by a system — and precautionary investment by one player in the system does no good if the other players fail to do the same. Even if the owner of a gas-fired power plant insulates and winterizes its turbines, it can’t function if the gas pipeline that supplies its fuel, or the wellhead that provides the gas, freeze up.”
What I've seen a lot of is people taking this crisis and making political points with it. People call it "Libertarianism gone wrong" and what have you. But this is a recent crisis. There have been other crisises in places that are far less libertarian like California. I'm old enough to remember a storm knocking out my power for > 2 weeks right here in New Jersey. It took quite a while to get the trains running again. Complex systems break when unexpected events take place. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes it happens spectacularly.
What happened in Texas was different, from when a storm knocks down the physical power lines. In the case of downed lines, the electricity is available, but the way to deliver it has to be repaired. In Texas, the electricity wasn't available - because of how Texas planned its system.
terp said:
Regarding the price spikes, I honestly don't know the specifics of this situation, but it has happened elsewhere in very highly regulated states(see Enron California). In a crisis where certain goods are scarce it does make sense for prices to rise, as it ensures those goods are only used for the most important purposes. In addition, it will cause those goods to move towards the crisis where they are needed. In this case, where we are dealing with public utilities that have priveledges and should aim for the public good, it gets a bit more complex and honestly don't know specifically why they have seen such dramatic price increases.
The facts about the reason why are available, and important for the forming an opinion of the situation. Texas politicians have been deceptive in blaming factors that are not relevant, but which are their political targets. The reason for the price spikes was - not enough electricity was available. And that was due to how the market in Texas works.
Yes, when there's a scarcity in a good, the prices rise. However, there did not have to be that scarcity in Texas.
And when the scarcity is caused by the incompetence of the utilities, it's crazy to allow them to charge whatever they want.
Good piece on the perfidy of the TX utilities
Welcome back terp -- and I appreciate that you're returning with a measured tone rather than rhetorical guns out and blazing -- your response to jimmurphy was nicely put.
Since you're back, I still would be interested in your addressing my question regarding inheritance. It seems a contradiction to both allow for inheritance AND to also claim that property is the fruit of one's labors; how does libertarianism resolve this?
As for Texas (looks like we're moving on from the Cuyahoga - may it roll untroubled into Lake Erie), the proximate cause of the failure here was that the owners of the relevant infrastructure decided not to winterize. Now it seems to me that it then follows that the solution should be that they be required to winterize their infrastructure, and I have a hard time seeing how anything short of a governmental entity can enforce that. The idea that private owners will just do it because its in their best interests seems directly contradicted by the fact that, after experiencing similar failures a decade ago, they chose not to winterize. Absent government pressure (whether formal or informal), I see no reason to expect they'll winterize now.
So I'd be curious as to the counter take -- do you disagree that the energy infrastructure owners should be required to winterize, and if you don't disagree, who should have the authority to enforce this requirement?
Interestingly, the WSJ found that "Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation"
Texas’s deregulated electricity market, which was supposed to provide reliable power at a lower price, left millions in the dark last week. For two decades, its customers have paid more for electricity than state residents who are served by traditional utilities, a Wall Street Journal analysis has found.
Nearly 20 years ago, Texas shifted from using full-service regulated utilities to generate power and deliver it to consumers. The state deregulated power generation, creating the system that failed last week. And it required nearly 60% of consumers to buy their electricity from one of many retail power companies, rather than a local utility.
Those deregulated Texas residential consumers paid $28 billion more for their power since 2004 than they would have paid at the rates charged to the customers of the state’s traditional utilities, according to the Journal’s analysis of data from the federal Energy Information Administration.
The crisis last week was driven by the power producers. Now that power has largely been restored, attention has turned to retail electric companies, a few of which are hitting consumers with steep bills. Power prices surged to the market price cap of $9,000 a megawatt hour for several days during the crisis, a feature of the state’s system designed to incentivize power plants to supply more juice. Some consumers who chose variable rate power plans from retail power companies are seeing the big bills.
None of this was supposed to happen under deregulation. Backers of competition in the electricity-supply business promised it would lower prices for consumers who could shop around for the best deals, just as they do for cellphone service. The system would be an improvement over monopoly utilities, which have little incentive to innovate and provide better service to customers, supporters of deregulation said.
“If all consumers don’t benefit from this, we will have wasted our time and failed our constituency,” then-state Sen. David Sibley, a key author of the bill to deregulate the market, said when the switch was first unveiled in 1999. “Competition in the electric industry will benefit Texans by reducing monthly rates,” then-Gov. George W. Bush said later that year.
The EIA data shows how much electricity each utility or retail provider sold to residents in a given year and how much customers paid for it. The Journal calculated separate annual statewide rates for utilities and retailers by adding up all of the revenue each type of provider received and dividing it by the kilowatt-hours of electricity it sold.
From 2004 through 2019, the annual rate for electricity from Texas’s traditional utilities was 8% lower, on average, than the nationwide average rate, while the rates of retail providers averaged 13% higher than the nationwide rate, according to the Journal’s analysis.
The Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, a group that buys electricity for local government use, produced similar findings in a study of the state’s power markets and concluded that high statewide prices relative to the national average “must be attributed to the deregulated sector of Texas.”
In other states that allow retail competition for electricity, customers have the option of getting their power from a regulated utility. The absence of an incumbent utility in parts of Texas that allow retail competition makes it difficult for consumers to know if they are paying too much for power, critics say.
The push to deregulate the electricity-supply market in Texas and elsewhere in the U.S. began in the 1990s amid similar efforts in airlines, natural gas and phone services. Leading the charge was Enron, the Houston energy company and champion of free markets that went bankrupt in 2001 amid revelations of widespread fraud.
[continued at site]
terp said:
The anarchocapitalist would say that there should be privatized courts.
As in aside, that idea sounds pretty horrifying to me. We already have a lite version of this, with the proliferation of mandatory arbitration clauses shielding corporations from consumers and workers. I want to see less of that, not more.
most of what we're discussing here, whether it's polluted rivers or the Texas electricity market, doesn't have anything to do with individual "freedom" or "liberty". FWIW, most of us are probably very much in favor of less surveillance and tracking of individual people, and more freedom from intrusive governments and corporations. But what's being discussed here is about businesses demanding the unfettered ability to do whatever they want to maximize profit, the public good be damned. It goes back to what I wrote earlier about the abuse of the principles of libertarianism by people who don't even understand its theoretical basis. It's being used as a justification for greed and abuse.
I believe in the Freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights. I have two little booklet copies of the Constitution on my desk. One was published by the Libertarian Cato Institute, the other by the ACLU. They are identical!
The Freedoms and Rights I favor are for all people, equally; Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to trial by Jury. The Right to an attorney.
Libertarians believe in certain "Rights" that can only be exercised by a certain segment. "Property rights" are of no use to those without property. "Freedom" from government regulation does not help and potentially hurts all but owners of certain businesses.
You cannot enact certain Rights on a society with an existing substantial disparity. To have the type of Freedom advocated by Libertarianism you would have to start society from scratch.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France
In a Libertarian society the opposite would be true. The Law would allow those things for both the rich and the poor.(Well maybe not stealing).
STANV said:
I believe in the Freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights. I have two little booklet copies of the Constitution on my desk. One was published by the Libertarian Cato Institute, the other by the ACLU. They are identical!
The Freedoms and Rights I favor are for all people, equally; Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to trial by Jury. The Right to an attorney.
Libertarians believe in certain "Rights" that can only be exercised by a certain segment. "Property rights" are of no use to those without property. "Freedom" from government regulation does not help and potentially hurts all but owners of certain businesses.
You cannot enact certain Rights on a society with an existing substantial disparity. To have the type of Freedom advocated by Libertarianism you would have to start society from scratch.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France
In a Libertarian society the opposite would be true. The Law would allow those things for both the rich and the poor.(Well maybe not stealing).
My thumbnail sketch history of American liberalism is that it's about expanding the circle of who qualifies for all of the rights and protections of the constitution. IOW, it's about asking the question "Who is America" and trying to include more people in the answer.
PVW said:
STANV said:
I believe in the Freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights. I have two little booklet copies of the Constitution on my desk. One was published by the Libertarian Cato Institute, the other by the ACLU. They are identical!
The Freedoms and Rights I favor are for all people, equally; Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to trial by Jury. The Right to an attorney.
Libertarians believe in certain "Rights" that can only be exercised by a certain segment. "Property rights" are of no use to those without property. "Freedom" from government regulation does not help and potentially hurts all but owners of certain businesses.
You cannot enact certain Rights on a society with an existing substantial disparity. To have the type of Freedom advocated by Libertarianism you would have to start society from scratch.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France
In a Libertarian society the opposite would be true. The Law would allow those things for both the rich and the poor.(Well maybe not stealing).
My thumbnail sketch history of American liberalism is that it's about expanding the circle of who qualifies for all of the rights and protections of the constitution. IOW, it's about asking the question "Who is America" and trying to include more people in the answer.
which is of course sarcastically referred to by our libertarian friends as being a "woke" "SJW."
ml1 said:
PVW said:
STANV said:
I believe in the Freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights. I have two little booklet copies of the Constitution on my desk. One was published by the Libertarian Cato Institute, the other by the ACLU. They are identical!
The Freedoms and Rights I favor are for all people, equally; Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to trial by Jury. The Right to an attorney.
Libertarians believe in certain "Rights" that can only be exercised by a certain segment. "Property rights" are of no use to those without property. "Freedom" from government regulation does not help and potentially hurts all but owners of certain businesses.
You cannot enact certain Rights on a society with an existing substantial disparity. To have the type of Freedom advocated by Libertarianism you would have to start society from scratch.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France
In a Libertarian society the opposite would be true. The Law would allow those things for both the rich and the poor.(Well maybe not stealing).
My thumbnail sketch history of American liberalism is that it's about expanding the circle of who qualifies for all of the rights and protections of the constitution. IOW, it's about asking the question "Who is America" and trying to include more people in the answer.
which is of course sarcastically referred to by our libertarian friends as being a "woke" "SJW."
Who are we talking about here? Don't be coy. Explain this.
STANV said:
I believe in the Freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights. I have two little booklet copies of the Constitution on my desk. One was published by the Libertarian Cato Institute, the other by the ACLU. They are identical!
The Freedoms and Rights I favor are for all people, equally; Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to trial by Jury. The Right to an attorney.
Libertarians believe in certain "Rights" that can only be exercised by a certain segment. "Property rights" are of no use to those without property. "Freedom" from government regulation does not help and potentially hurts all but owners of certain businesses.
You cannot enact certain Rights on a society with an existing substantial disparity. To have the type of Freedom advocated by Libertarianism you would have to start society from scratch.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France
In a Libertarian society the opposite would be true. The Law would allow those things for both the rich and the poor.(Well maybe not stealing).
Property rights are an extension of self ownership. I own myself, therefore I am the rightful owner of my labor. I don't know what you mean by enact rights. I don't have rights because the government decided to enact them. The bill of rights doesn't grant me rights, it protects me from government infringing on those rights. At least that was the idea.
And America up until say Wilson was a pretty libertarian country. It was far from perfect. But if you compare it to what preceeded it and its peers from those times it was remarkably successful. The productivity that this liberty resulted in created enormous wealth. Living standards improved at tremendous rates. Our industrial might allowed us to win 2 world wars and become a superpower. Alas, in the process we have lost our way.
And I still don't know why we need the law to help our fellow man. I wish someone would explain to me why that is the only way to help other people.
I wonder what good ole Anatole thinks about the law that bombs poor people of color as a standard operating procedure?
terp said:
And America up until say Wilson was a pretty libertarian country. ... The productivity that this liberty resulted in created enormous wealth.
You don’t say.
DaveSchmidt said:
terp said:
And America up until say Wilson was a pretty libertarian country. ... The productivity that this liberty resulted in created enormous wealth.
You don’t say.
I'm disappointed that my question regarding property and inheritance keeps getting ignored. Along similar lines, I wonder what the libertarian view is as to the rights of those who are victims of theft. Supposing a great fortune is attributable in a substantial part to theft; do the victims of that theft have any claim upon that wealth? Is that claim inheritable, or is inheritability restricted to the beneficiaries of the theft? Are there any groups we can identify in "America up until WIlson" who can make a strong claim to being victims of massive theft, and what were their rights, and the rights of their descendants?
terp said:
Who are we talking about here? Don't be coy. Explain this.
a lot of people. The world doesn't revolve around you. But of course the comment would include you among them.
terp said:
And I still don't know why we need the law to help our fellow man. I wish someone would explain to me why that is the only way to help other people.
Here's a start -- why didn't the owners of energy infrastructure winterize after the 2011 cold-induced failures? Should they be required to winterize now, after the 2021 failures? If not, why should we believe they will do so on their own given their previous refusal to? If yes, on whose authority would the requirement to winterize be made, and how should that requirement be enforced?
terp said:
And I still don't know why we need the law to help our fellow man. I wish someone would explain to me why that is the only way to help other people.
jeebus. it's not the only way. But it's a far more reliable way than relying on the whims and vagaries of private charity.
Can't believe this even has to be said.
terp, when you hear one of those heartwarming stories on the news about a community rallying around some sick individual by helping with their astronomical hospital bills, do you see that as an an example of society's success, or is it a failure?
cuz it's a failure.
PVW said:
Are there any groups we can identify in "America up until WIlson" who can make a strong claim to being victims of massive theft, and what were their rights, and the rights of their descendants?
Quite the caveat, aren’t they. Well, he did say that era was far from perfect, even if pretty libertarian and remarkably successful.
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:
Are there any groups we can identify in "America up until WIlson" who can make a strong claim to being victims of massive theft, and what were their rights, and the rights of their descendants?
Quite the caveat, aren’t they. Well, he did say that era was far from perfect, even if pretty libertarian and remarkably successful.
Yes, by joining the allied forces in WW2 and let the federal government take over the wartime economy. Typical libertarian success story.
drummerboy said:
jeebus. it's not the only way. But it's a far more reliable way than relying on the whims and vagaries of private charity.
Can't believe this even has to be said.
terp, when you hear one of those heartwarming stories on the news about a community rallying around some sick individual by helping with their astronomical hospital bills, do you see that as an an example of society's success, or is it a failure?
cuz it's a failure.
I've given to Gofundme to help out people without health coverage. And yeah, while I'm doing it I'm thinking how **** up it is that this is necessary in a wealthy country.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Without the multitude of similar words with varying "shades" English language fiction would be far less interesting.