The Great Liberatarian Offer

[Blancho]

What, exactly, have any of these things done for us? Short of the CDC and the CIA I see little need for any of that, and we surely don't need the FBI. Though I suppose a legitimate case can be argued for funding highways; the rest, however, is socialism, and an unnecessary drain on the government, like all socialist ideals.

There have been numerable success stories involving the Federal government providing a service for the greater good of the nation. Without Federal programs the American west wouldn't even have been settled as fast as it was; without massive land purchases/giveaways, the Homestead Act, the Pony Express, agricultural colleges, rural electrification, telephone wiring, road-building, irrigation, dam-building, farm subsidies, and farm foreclosure loans, settling the West would have been virtually impossible.

Surely we don't need the FBI!? I don't know what rock you've been living under, but the FBI consists of perhaps the most well trained investigators in the world. They have been essential to combat terrorism, protect the nation from espionage, and have recently played a significant role in preventing cybercrime. As well as this, they also have branches that fight political corruption (including organized crime), and bolster local police forces tremendously. Law-enforcement would crumble nationwide if the FBI were simply removed.

What's wrong with depressions persay? If you're intelligent you can ride through them, and they market naturally corrects for them. Japan shows what happens if you take Keynesian economics to an extreme. Even in the 1930s we were about to recover from the Great Depression, but FDR's Keynesian policies just excerbated it.

If your intelligent... so your argument is that the poor are simply stupid? Many things go into wealth accumulation, and intelligence is very far down on that list (inheritence possibly still remains at the top; most millionaires in America were millionaires when they were born).

Japan's economic woes were more than simply a radical approach to Keynesianism. The IMF policy of repayment of international banks should take priority over revival of the domestic economy. The effect this had on other Asian countries (Thialand, Indonesia, etc) as well as Russia plunged South East Asia further into recession, and the situation exploded with the Russian devaluation of 1998. This sent panic through the international financial system with a ‘dash for cash’ as institutions progressively dumped all but the safest financial instruments (essentially either cash or US Treasury bonds). In reaction to this, Japan enacted its policy of expanding public spending and the fiscal deficit to 10 percent of its GDP.

This is not evidence of the failures of Keynesianism. The implications are far more indicting of the central policies of the IMF, which had advised countries to attempt to defend fixed/high exchange rates via ultra-high interest rates and squeezing of fiscal deficits, even at the cost of plunging the domestic economy into deep recession.

Which showed the greatest growth in American history, period.

And growth is not the ultimate goal of any economy; a measure of stability is required in order to prevent massive inflation and the resulting depressions. If your argument is that growth is the fundamental goal of an economy, you can then praise the slave system of the South as well as Stalinism. Hell, Stalinism turned Russia from an agrarian hovel into an industrial superpower within a single generation. THAT is the greatest growth in WORLD history, yet I seriously doubt you would praise Stalinism.

You're spinning. The numbers in Chile don't lie; and they tell a very different story than "depression" and "unrivaled unemployment". The simple fact is that Chile today is a functional democracy, and that its economy recovered with incredible rapidity from the horrors and depredations of Salvadore Allende to unparalled heights for such a state, and such recent extremities as were inflicted upon it by the Allende regime.

Spinning? You can't be serious. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America during Pinochet and the "Chicago Boys" reign, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses. You quoting classic conservative apologist literature on Chile hardly erases nearly two decades of the economic and social quagmire that the nation underwent.

There is a reason why "Monetarism is dead" has become a favored quote in economic academia. Guess what? That's because it is.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

[

There have been numerable success stories involving the Federal government providing a service for the greater good of the nation. Without Federal programs the American west wouldn't even have been settled as fast as it was; without massive land purchases/giveaways, the Homestead Act, the Pony Express, agricultural colleges, rural electrification, telephone wiring, road-building, irrigation, dam-building, farm subsidies, and farm foreclosure loans, settling the West would have been virtually impossible.

The purposes of a federal government should be to maintain defence and foreign relations, to operate the national postal service (or facilitate interstate communications in the modern era), to maintain the necessary infrastructure to support national defence, and to prosecute cases against such criminals as have committed their crimes against the State. Otherwise the government should operate on the principle of decentralization. As many powers as possible should be delegated to the states; from there, as many as possible to the counties. From there, as many as possible to the municipalities. Individuals and corporations should have maximum freedom of action.

Within your list I only have serious problems with farm subsidies, agricultural colleges, rural electrification (though since dams are an acceptable construct of the Federal Government there's no reason not to sell the electricity), and farm foreclosure loans.

Surely we don't need the FBI!? I don't know what rock you've been living under, but the FBI consists of perhaps the most well trained investigators in the world. They have been essential to combat terrorism, protect the nation from espionage, and have recently played a significant role in preventing cybercrime. As well as this, they also have branches that fight political corruption (including organized crime), and bolster local police forces tremendously. Law-enforcement would crumble nationwide if the FBI were simply removed.

The FBI is incompetent and has to much power. It has proved it consistantly in the miss-handling of numerous cases, most recently and most atrociously 9/11 and the coverup in the aftermath. It needs to go. I would annihilate every Federal Police Agency except for the Marshals - We need one, and they can serve as that one - And create a border service without arrest powers to support a paramilitary Border Guard that would be raised on state lines and have martial authority over foreign nationals within a fixed number of miles of our national boundaries on land.

Every single other federal police agency with arrest powers can go. It's more than just the FBI. NOAA has cops these days! Your State-loving friends in the USA have gone insane with their love for power.

Intelligence could be handled by a combination of the NSA and the CIA with the two working in competition to prevent one from monopolizing affairs. A certain amount of inefficiency would be expected.

If your intelligent... so your argument is that the poor are simply stupid? Many things go into wealth accumulation, and intelligence is very far down on that list (inheritence possibly still remains at the top; most millionaires in America were millionaires when they were born).

The poor are not necessarily stupid, but in many cases they are unmotivated. Not the same, but motivation is critical to success. Anyone can become well-off, have their basic needs met and insure they have a decent standard of living onto their deaths, if they just work for it.

That's all you need to do, work. And many people are not motivated to do this. Socialist care makes it worse, because it removes the motivation to work. Humans are inherently lazy creatures. You give them food and they won't work, because they have no compulsion. Send 'em a check in the mail and the only work they'll do for their food is to walk out to the mailbox, and vote for whatever populist candidate promises to raise their Dole.

That's what destroyed the Roman Republic, and that's what is destroying western civilization today, albeit more slowly thanks to our written constitutions and limitations on power therein.

The only way to have stability is to prevent the Mob from gaining that kind of power, the power to continuously vote in greedy people, the people who will promise them the ever-higher dole so they can avoid working. It's an endless cycle, as the dole slips higher and more people find it better to quit their jobs rather than work and send most of the money to taxes.

It's already happening in Britain; I have friends in the poorest districts, who speak of how every kid from the schools there simply drop out at age sixteen and get on the dole. They prefer it to working, because they know they'll get more on the dole than they will working a job. That's insane! Once you're giving a higher dole than the lowest-paying job available, the cycle has begun and it will eventually destroy your nation. One of my friends, who works as an internet designer no less, sometimes even contemplates quitting her job; she makes less than the dole would give her. That's madness. Fabianism has destroyed your society.

And growth is not the ultimate goal of any economy; a measure of stability is required in order to prevent massive inflation and the resulting depressions. If your argument is that growth is the fundamental goal of an economy, you can then praise the slave system of the South as well as Stalinism. Hell, Stalinism turned Russia from an agrarian hovel into an industrial superpower within a single generation. THAT is the greatest growth in WORLD history, yet I seriously doubt you would praise Stalinism.

Russia had one of the fastest growing industrial economies in the world before WWI. Stalin's achievement had a very firm base to build from and was not as great as it was made out to be. The slave system of the South was a stagnating holdover of the last and agrarian organizing and hardly growth-oriented.

Spinning? You can't be serious. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America during Pinochet and the "Chicago Boys" reign, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation),

And what, exactly, caused the inflation?

During the second and third years of the UP, demand outstripped supply, the economy shrank, deficit spending snowballed, new investments and foreign exchange became scarce, the value of copper sales dropped, shortages appeared, and inflation skyrocketed, eroding the previous gains for the working class. A thriving black market sprang up. The government responded with direct distribution systems in working-class neighborhoods. Worker participation in the management of enterprises reached unprecedented proportions. The strapped government could not keep the economy from going into free fall because it could not impose austerity measures on its supporters in the working class, get new taxes approved by Congress, or borrow enough money abroad to cover the deficit.

- From fas.org, no less. The inflation was extant from the Allende Regime; Pinochet had to deal with the debris of socialism in repairing his economy. It was no fault of Chicago Economics.

There is a reason why "Monetarism is dead" has become a favored quote in economic academia. Guess what? That's because it is.

We'll see how dead it stays now.

[Crazy_Vasey]

It's already happening in Britain; I have friends in the poorest districts, who speak of how every kid from the schools there simply drop out at age sixteen and get on the dole.

That's horribly exaggerated. My family was on the dole once before my Dad found work and we could barely afford to eat.

[Blancho]

The purposes of a federal government should be to maintain defence and foreign relations, to operate the national postal service (or facilitate interstate communications in the modern era), to maintain the necessary infrastructure to support national defence, and to prosecute cases against such criminals as have committed their crimes against the State. Otherwise the government should operate on the principle of decentralization. As many powers as possible should be delegated to the states; from there, as many as possible to the counties. From there, as many as possible to the municipalities. Individuals and corporations should have maximum freedom of action.

Firstly, corporations did not garner the rights they have through any legislation, but through a series of court cases. Why, in your view, should corporations be given the same rights as citizens?

Second, decentralization is largely impractical for most large scale programs and statutes that have been enacted by the Federal government, though I understand that the libertarian position on this matter is purely one of ideology and not practicality. The fact remains that government programs to fight poverty within the United States have been largely effective in their goal, despite libertarian propaganda that spouts to the contrary, and we've even seen much larger welfare programs such as in Sweden that have been resounding successes. Why should such programs be cut if they work?

Within your list I only have serious problems with farm subsidies, agricultural colleges, rural electrification (though since dams are an acceptable construct of the Federal Government there's no reason not to sell the electricity), and farm foreclosure loans.

And what are your problems with these?

The FBI is incompetent and has to much power. It has proved it consistantly in the miss-handling of numerous cases, most recently and most atrociously 9/11 and the coverup in the aftermath. It needs to go. I would annihilate every Federal Police Agency except for the Marshals - We need one, and they can serve as that one - And create a border service without arrest powers to support a paramilitary Border Guard that would be raised on state lines and have martial authority over foreign nationals within a fixed number of miles of our national boundaries on land.

Please elaborate on this "coverup" of 9/11 and provide credible sources. The FBI has been instrumental in solving far more crimes than you alledge that they have botched.

Why is such a Border Guard necessary? Such a radical departure from current policy, which is inefficient to be sure, is not necessary. And martial authority over any foreign citizen on any land, be it our own or not, would raise serious grievances with our neighbors to the north and south.

Every single other federal police agency with arrest powers can go. It's more than just the FBI. NOAA has cops these days! Your State-loving friends in the USA have gone insane with their love for power.

The NOAA has officers with arrest authority in order to detain persons who violate coastal mandates, usually involving gross violations of national fishing laws. How this is evidence of my power-hungry statist friends going overboard is beyond me.

Intelligence could be handled by a combination of the NSA and the CIA with the two working in competition to prevent one from monopolizing affairs. A certain amount of inefficiency would be expected.

The CIA has no charter to operate domestically, and this is a very good thing. The NSA is made up of primarily information analysts. How would they cover the FBIs role without a heavy increease in their budget and authority?

The poor are not necessarily stupid, but in many cases they are unmotivated. Not the same, but motivation is critical to success. Anyone can become well-off, have their basic needs met and insure they have a decent standard of living onto their deaths, if they just work for it.

Job opportunities, like money, do not grow on trees. Even with the Federal Reserve attempting to curtail unemployment (and doing a purposefully lousy job at doing it), unemployment will exist regardless of the conditions of the job market. This fact and the discovery of the Natural Rate of Unemployment by libertarian paragon Milton Friedman bares this out. Most people who live beneath the poverty line are there only temporarily; welfare programs exist to ensure that the victims of a poor job market and/or recession have a supplemental income.

That's all you need to do, work. And many people are not motivated to do this. Socialist care makes it worse, because it removes the motivation to work. Humans are inherently lazy creatures. You give them food and they won't work, because they have no compulsion. Send 'em a check in the mail and the only work they'll do for their food is to walk out to the mailbox, and vote for whatever populist candidate promises to raise their Dole.

The pessimistic view that characterizes libertarian dogma. Academic studies have not shown this viewpoint to be true: the supplemental income provides by welfare programs, at least within the United States, have not been shown to decrease a persons motivation to work. Reagan's anecdote about the welfare queen making thousands off the Federal government while driving her brand new cadillac was a complete fabrication.

That's what destroyed the Roman Republic, and that's what is destroying western civilization today, albeit more slowly thanks to our written constitutions and limitations on power therein.

Barbarians, wars, and disease destroyed the Roman Republic, not welfare.

And what, exactly, caused the inflation?

That for two straight years, after eradicating every program that Allende's government had enacted, Pinochet had no economic plan of his own. When the Chicago Boyes were introduced, and by that time inflation had grown over 300%, their plan (which they called Economic Recovery Program or EEP, or "Shock Treatment") was to reduce the money supply and government spending, which succeeded in cutting inflation to acceptable levels. However, it also caused unemployment to rise from 9.1 to 18.7 percent between 1974 and 1975, a figure on par with the U.S. Great Depression. Output fell 12.9 percent, causing Chile's worst recession since the 1930s. Unemployment began to rise until it hit its peak in 1989 at 41%. Meanwhile income inequality skyrocketed, as did pollution. The only reason why Chile's citizens didn't rise in revolt to these policies was Pinochet's corrupt regime killing its political opposition. Quoting a report on CIA activity in Chile, and their involvment in the coup against Allende, does not cover up these inconvenient facts.