Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're post is absurd. Libertarians believe in freedom and the rights of the individual, not putting people in chains. It doesn't allow slavery. Period.
One man's freedom is another man's civil war. Someone has to enforce libertarianism, like the civil war enforced the end of slavery. But wherever there is force, there are people who can be corrupted to use that force for evil. Libertarianism is a utopian dream that doesn't take the real world into account. And the military power that enforces things like the end of slavery, that kind of military power costs money, which implies taxes. Wherever there are taxes, there are people arguing about who should be taxed the most. Corruption starts when some people pay more taxes than others, and they start using crony capitalism to try to make the tax system favor some people more. Then the government grows, and crony capitalism grows with it. Meanwhile, libertarianism is a utopian dream that doesn't take the real world into account.
You're post is absurd. Libertarians believe in freedom and the rights of the individual, not putting people in chains. It doesn't allow slavery. Period.
The idea of Libertarianism, to my knowledge, was either not prevalent or did not exist at all when slavery was abolished, so to use a modern Libertarian view on slavery to justify dismissing criticisms of capitalism doesn't really work for me. It's like saying the Democrats supported slavery or the Republicans abolished it; the parties of today hardly resembles the parties of 150 years ago. Why even bring it up?
My usual criticism of Libertarianism is this: it does not allow economic growth.
Now, this on it's own cannot be condemned as being universally bad. But Libertarianism is a party that advocates for a completely free market, and what is the goal of a market economy? To grow and be profitable. This requires investment. Here's the thing, investors will happily invest in low risk projects that have varying amounts of high reward. Makes sense. They won't invest in high risk projects with a low reward. Again, makes sense. But what of high risk/high reward investments?
This is where reality comes in. Business do not invest in anything that will not turn a profit in 3-5 years. It does not matter what the potential reward is. This is why research and development happens most in the public sector. The public sector can take a penny out of everyone's pay check and put a man on the moon, which I' sure, being an informed individual, you know how many technologies NASA invested in have made it into our everyday lives.
The idea that a completely free and unregulated market will create prosperity simply isn't true. Maybe at one point, but not in the modern age at the very least. If you want the perfect examples of what public funds can do, look to the Manhattan Project. Yes, it was fueled by war and desperation, but we went from having an idea to having technology that could either power a whole city for a lifetime or destroy one in an hour. And this was in less that a decade. The public sector is usually targeted as being inefficient, but all the evidence suggests otherwise. By no means is it perfect, and I would never try to sell an imperfect system as being so (*cough*), but the idea that government is wasteful and inefficient is not universally true. Many public projects are high efficient. My city, for example, has a publicly owned water treatment plant and power plant. Electricity is fairly cheap and we have the cleanest water in my state, which is a scientific miracle given how surrounded by farmland it is.
This is a great article highlighting one of the never talked about benefits of the free market. To basically sum up a few great talking points.
* The market deals with people. And when you discriminate against people, you effectively destroy your business. This means there is rarely if ever an economic incentive to discriminate based on skin color.
* All atrocities that dealt with racism has been due to some overreaching government policy. Racism cannot truly exist without government.
* The more government you have, the more possible arbitrary discrimination you have.
* Discrimination always comes at a cost, and if any business has prospered due to it almost always have government policies protecting them.
Other things not mentioned, that we should probably take away from this.
* Slavery cannot exist within the free market.
* The free market ended slavery
The Civil War ended slavery - in the US, anyhow. We had a pretty good free market system going in the 19th century. The free market in turn, had any number of slave markets going in places where society tolerated the buying and selling of other human beings. But don't let me discourage you - yes, the government is out to get us all. Run, everybody!
Jim Crow had nothing to do with the free market. It was government sponsored protection of discrimination under the law. What the heck is free market about that? The free market is the market operating WITHOUT government coercion. Private people can discriminate, but it's only really a problem when the government protects them.
Except that, even in those cases where the law did not forbid, the culture within certain regions of our country did lead many, many business owners to exclude minorities. That was the "free market" at work. There are so many other "non-government" variables affecting the "free market" that have to be considered in a discussion like this.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 04-16-2016 at 01:39 PM..
Phil P has a good grasp on things. I'd only add that Free Market Above All types assume that people are perfectly rational, or that free markets can make people rational. They don't. As someone else said, some people are willing to take a lower profit in order not to serve "those" types (the current gay discrimination laws in NC and MS are perfect examples of this). The only way free markets have even a fighting chance to make people rational is in the unlikely event that a business' long-term profit margin is so low that the owners can only survive at the most basic humane levels without endangering their own business' survival.
Exactly! I also like how another poster put it that the free market actually encourages discrimination as it isn't bound by the law and, thus, minorities are subject to the whims and prejudices of irrational individuals.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 04-16-2016 at 01:58 PM..
Centering your business around not serving customers who have money to pay for your business is NEVER a good move period. In no warped reality is it ever sound business practice.
If all black, Asians, or Latinos make great workers, and you REFUSE to hire them. That is hurting no one but your business. If you read the article, the author specifically addresses this point, especially when he talks about South Africa. Blacks in South Africa would be better workers in many cases and negotiate lower prices which undercut white workers. So business owners were the main ones trying to end apartheid in South Africa.
...
The KKK wasn't officially endorsed by any government. But the government had no issues turning a blind eye or even charging the KKK with murder and other heinous crimes. The KKK was fully protected by the power of the state. If it wasn't, the local authorities would have made it a priority to disband the KKK. The operated with impunity for decades
...
This was not the free market. It was mercantilism. Government protected slave owners. Under the free market, slavery can't exist. Why? Because if a slave revolts and take over a plantation or run away, the government can't legally do anything to stop it.
...
Nonsense, technology has risen ONLY because of the private market. It is the private sector that is pushing innovation, not the public sector. I can't believe you would even say something like that.
Fairy tale beliefs.
1. Many small business owners were more than happy to turn away Blacks for decades. White hotel/motel owners and restaurant owners consistently turned away Black customers from the Civil War right up through the early 1960s...and did fine.
The KKK wasn't officially endorsed by government, but the leaders in many local and state governments were also leaders of the KKK.
In today's world, some of the third world countries with the worst degree of slavery are the very countries that have the least government.
And is because the alleged proponents of a free market: corporations, economic elite & the top 1-4% actually fear the consequences to their highly structured and artificially maintained power.
In a true free market, those that are in control now, who are too weak to survive in a free market would gradually lose everything. Including their access to politicians and political power that like the cowards and frauds that they are: maintain from the sidelines.
Except that, even in those cases where the law did not forbid, the culture within certain regions of our country did lead many, many business owners to exclude minorities. That was the "free market" at work. There are so many other "non-government" variables affecting the "free market" that have to be considered in a discussion like this.
And once the Civil War ended, former slaves were free to pack up and more to a place where land was inexpensive and, with the exception of a few simple tools, honest labor was the only input required. There are entire predominately-AA communities in Kansas (Nicodemus) and Oklahoma (Boley) which were founded upon this simple principle; life was hard starting over there -- as it always is, and always will be.
In a true free market, those that are in control now, who are too weak to survive in a free market would gradually lose everything. Including their access to politicians and political power that like the cowards and frauds that they are: maintain from the sidelines.
How would a free market make them lose access to politicians and political power? Doesn't freedom imply more access, not less? Doesn't a free market imply freedom to bribe, without fear of prosecution? Because, if you can't spend your money on bribes, it implies the market isn't really free, because it restricts what you can spend your money on.
And once the Civil War ended, former slaves were free to pack up and more to a place where land was inexpensive and, with the exception of a few simple tools, honest labor was the only input required. There are entire predominately-AA communities in Kansas (Nicodemus) and Oklahoma (Boley) which were founded upon this simple principle; life was hard starting over there -- as it always is, and always will be.
Not that free and not that easy. "Packing up and moving" was never free. That would take money the newly freed slaves didn't have. The newly freed slaves (and many of the poor whites as well) were immediately sucked into a "free market" sharecropping system in which the landowner (their former slave master) sold them seed and equipment (at his own rate of interest) and bought their crops (at his own price). They system was designed to keep them in debt and as much enslaved to the land as they'd ever been. As Tennessee Earnie Ford sang, "Load sixteen tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go...I owe my soul to the company store."
My own maternal great-great-grandparents were able to find additional jobs and managed to save their way out of the sharecrop system, moving from Mississippi. Even then, they had to be cagey about it, saving on the sly, paying the bill quickly and getting the heck out of the county before the "Old Captain" could launch an armed response.
And they were in the 1989 Oklahoma land rush. They staked out land on a stream and built a successful saw mill. When my great-grandfather and his brother enlisted into the army to fight the Spanish-American war (starting a military family heritage that would last a century), the constable looked up and them and said, "Well, I know you. You're the miller boys." They kept the name "Miller," abandoning the name taken from the slave plantation. Their story is a primary plank in my family heritage.
But I'm not a victim of survivor bias. I'm well aware that not everyone was able to do what they did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
