Can anyone cite libertarian economic policies being a success in a real country?

[k-onmmunist]

Not to fuel the flames here, but I can understand changing ideologies, but how does one manage with such confidence each time?  Like, if I kept changing my mind on fundamental stuff weekly, I'd concede that I'm operating on very shaky ground.  I don't understand how one can experience epiphanies and then just abandon their revealed truths, and not question whether they ever had too much faith.

I don't change my views weekly for Pete's sake. I'm not answering any more on that because people are being ridiculous now.

Hey dude, I was obviously being hyperbolic, which is why I said one, not you.  Let me elaborate:

My criticism doesn't matter if it's weekly or yearly.  I don't understand how someone can change their ideology so sharply, after having previously been strongly convinced, and not wonder if they overestimate the strength of their own convictions.  This is especially true if it happens multiple times.  This change doesn't give any cognitive dissonance, or make you wonder about the foundations of a new ideology, if you were so convinced of something you've since summarily dismissed?  I don't understand the thought process behind that.

I was a pretty strong socialist (economically anyway) before my libertarian phase, so it was coming full circle really.

[Alcon]

That's not really answering my question...you've had several changes of your fundamental philosophy.  That's fine.  What's weird is that your conviction level never changes.  Each time, you seem totally convinced by your latest philosophy, and we never see any struggle during transitions.  Does it not trouble that you felt convinced before of philosophies you now dismiss completely?

I have enough cognitive dissonance from my changes, and most of my now-rejected positions were pretty wishy-washy/uninformed stuff to begin with.

[k-onmmunist]

That's not really answering my question...you've had several changes of your fundamental philosophy.  That's fine.  What's weird is that your conviction level never changes.  Each time, you seem totally convinced by your latest philosophy, and we never see any struggle during transitions.  Does it not trouble that you felt convinced before of philosophies you now dismiss completely?

I have enough cognitive dissonance from my changes, and most of my now-rejected positions were pretty wishy-washy/uninformed stuff to begin with.

I look back on a lot of my old views and I think the same though. There have been many phases where I have felt unsure of my own beliefs, but I don't tend to show them.

[Bacon King]

If we're talking economic policy only, there's an argument to be made here for Chile under Pinochet. Not that I'm going to be one to make it.

[Хahar 🤔]

Note on the Khmer Rouge, since it's been brought up:

The Khmer Rouge was not in any sense Marxist. It was an extremely radical agrarian movement that took the trappings of communism for diplomatic purposes. Remember that Angkar was not publicly renamed the Communist Party of Kampuchea until 1977, two years after it took power. The attitude of the Khmer Rouge toward the urban proletariat, as evidenced in the evacuation of Phnom Penh, runs wholly counter to Marxist theory, even in its Maoist form.

[dead0man]

Well that settles it then!  Despite them calling themselves commies, acting like commies and historians referring to them as commies Xahar knows best (great name for a TV show).  I know it's pointless to ask, but I like to see people dodge...so...uhh...cite?  I know what you're response will be (if we get one at all), but I'm curious as to what words you'll use.


Bring on the condescending double talk!

[Sewer]

acting like commies

nope

[dead0man]

From wikiQuote

[Хahar 🤔]

From wikiQuote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dead0man]

So it's the no true Scotsman defense.  An oldie but a goody.

[Хahar 🤔]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is fundamental to Marxism. Khmer Rouge theory advocated a state based upon the petite bourgeoisie. If you don't want to discuss these things, don't involve yourself in these conversations.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He's right. The Khmer Rouge and Maoism advocated revolutions of the rural poor, which ran very against the urban proletariat theories of Marxism*. That's the main reason why the poor peasants were so afraid of the Bolsheviks.

*This is oversimplifying to an extreme degree of course, but there's not really a better way to put it.

[Хahar 🤔]

The idea of peasant communism is more in keeping with the theories of Bakunin than of Marx, though the Kampuchean state may have professed Marxism.

[dead0man]

Pol Pot thought he was a commie, his followers thought he was a commie, the commies in Vietnam he fought against thought he was a commie, the Soviets thought he was a commie, the PRC thought he was a commie, the US thought he was a commie, the true Scotsman thought he was a commie, historians think he was a commie, but if you (and your pals Winston and Sewer....good company!) don't think he was, well I guess that settles it heh?

[Хahar 🤔]

Clearly you have not understood what I have said. Just as clearly you do not want to understand what I have said.

Good night.

[dead0man]

Well you started out saying that the Khmer Rouge wasn't Marxist (a word I've not used in this thread, but I do know why you keep using it) and you keeping harping on it despite my repeated use of the word communist.  If you think there is a difference between the two, why are you putting up different goal posts?  If you think they are the same it's probably best if you do go to bed.

[Хahar 🤔]

You see, I am making an observation on the Khmer Rouge. Evidently it goes over your head.

If you would like to better understand it, Leszek Kołakowski does a good job of explaining.

[dead0man]

le sigh

[Phony Moderate]

Pol Pot thought he was a commie, his followers thought he was a commie, the commies in Vietnam he fought against thought he was a commie, the Soviets thought he was a commie, the PRC thought he was a commie, the US thought he was a commie, the true Scotsman thought he was a commie, historians think he was a commie, but if you (and your pals Winston and Sewer....good company!) don't think he was, well I guess that settles it heh?

It means that he wasn't objectively a Communist.

[phk]

Not to fuel the flames here, but I can understand changing ideologies, but how does one manage with such confidence each time?  Like, if I kept changing my mind on fundamental stuff weekly, I'd concede that I'm operating on very shaky ground.  I don't understand how one can experience epiphanies and then just abandon their revealed truths, and not question whether they ever had too much faith.

.... because politics is essentially a very easy subject.

[k-onmmunist]

dead0man, why do you insist on carrying this on? Read Marxist theory and then look at Pol Pot's actions. Marxism is about the revolution of the urban proletariat - Pol Pot cleared out the cities completely on some sort of bizarre national agrarian power trip which involved destroying the proletariat basically. Even Maoism, which advocates a larger role for peasants in the revolution, wouldn't agree with it.

[Earth]

There's a lot of rampant bull in this thread.

And anyway, I don't look at libertarianism as a name for a new type of govt or something.  It's not going to replace a liberal democracies or dictatorship or whatever.  It's more of a way to look at the world....or at least a well understood* name for a particular way of looking at the world.  It's a "Live and let live"...."do no harm" kind of a thing.  It's not selfism;there will still be charity, govts will still help citizens not able to help themselves.

Dead0man is right here; libertarian philosophy is not the offering of a positive political program, it is a negation. "Positive" meaning "adding to", as in a comprehensive ideology, as opposed to a "negative" one; that takes away.

Libertarianism is a liberal ideology intended to rid society of certain things; it's fundamentally not an ideology that attempts to ingratiate itself into society, but alter it by taking away. This has profound effects, but we have to recognize it's makeup to have a serious discussion about it.

The part I chose to emphasize of Deadman's post is where the catch comes in. To what degree could we see libertarianism exist as a practical endeavor? Deadman insists there will be charity, police, fire and a way for the state to help it's citizens, but then it brings up the issue of exactly what kind of libertarianism we'd see. I think Deadman's conception isn't the extreme version; the kind that posits a private legal system, private police forces, privatized fire departments, privatized toll roads, etc. It's not the full negation we think of when we argue against libertarianism on this board.

...It's not a system that benefits the rich;there can still be progressive taxes and the rich would have a lot less pull via the govt because the govt will have a lot less pull in the first place.

This part here^ is where libertarianism's idealism comes in. By ridding all government involvement in the economic sphere, which has never ever been done in the history of mankind, this ideology does support the rich; more specifically, the super rich with the capabilities to create monopolies, and overtake all markets eventually.

My issue here is that many people don't know what capitalism actually entails; that if left to itself, it eats itself; the condition for it's success is what undermines it's very successes. A materialist understanding of capitalism isn't necessary to posit libertarianism, but it necessary to understand it's implications to a full degree.

Libertarianism allows those that have wealth to continue to accumulate it without any economic safeguards provided by the state, if we're talking about libertarianism's extreme form. It posits that an equilibrium will come about, a social equilibrium, that will benefit people if the market is left to itself. That "creative destruction" is a positive force.

Because Dead0man says progressive taxation will still exist, I think he's talking about a moderate form of libertarianism.

One fundamental issue here needs to be the recognition that the rich value a socialized form of enterprise, socialized in the sense that it needs the state to continue, and accumulate. They support safeguards that ensure their capital will not disappear in a crash; they support government contracts allowing them to accumulate profit because there is no competition in this case, only in so far as competition amongst themselves to gain these contracts in the first place.

Competition is actually detrimental to the accumulation of capital because it undermines the profit margin. No obcenely rich oil magnate wants competition, so in this way, the libertarians are right when they rely on "competition" to level out the field, but what they don't understand is collusion is a very real, immanent threat to a libertarian world. No safeguards means business is free to twist, and alter the playing field to it's advantage. This even occurs under our form of economics right now; the rich have invaded the state, and the state ensures an uneven market. What the libertarians fail to understand is that the state exists to ensure the market; without it, "free markets" crumble because of their intense boom and bust cycles. Intervention, even the smallest intervention, becomes necessary to not send the lowest classes off the cliff into unyielding poverty.

Look at two examples; East India Company, which was created by the English state, and Standard Oil, which was allowed to grow into a behemoth; both of them depended on the state; the former for it's lifeblood, the latter, for it's negligence in allowing things to go as far as they did. Libertarianism has no answer to provide when we ask "how could we stop another Standard Oil from being born?" No intervention becomes a free for all until the very market that allows their business to flourish crumbles beneath capital bottlenecking; an exhausted market, prone to monopoly, and insider sh*t, creates stagnation. Boom and bust all over again.

Because governments, at least modern ones, stemming from the early eighteen hundreds have been economically liberal in some form; they have seceded their power to markets. Libertarianism loves it's private vs. public dichotomy, but they don't recognize the latter is the service of the former. There is a union that goes ignored, and this union has always existed.

(con't)

[Earth]

Plus, if, as many believe, the rich "run" things, wouldn't they have forced (tricked?) libertarianism down our throats if it favored them so much?

The rich aren't stupid; they realize the problems of capital, and they want to have their cake and eat it too; socialism for the rich, free markets for the poor. That old cliche sums this problem up. The rich want less, and less government intrusion, but for their own sake, for the sake of the upper class, can't let a genuine free market exist; not because that would render them obsolete, but because it's too temporary for business, and it ruins the market itself. They want continued profit growth, and just enough government involvement to ensure this happens regardless of coming crisis.

We've done this before.  No, straight communism has never been tried on a large scale.  Lots of people have called themselves communists and claimed to be working to that goal on a large scale, which is why I said "attempted", you may have missed that part because you bolded it so hard.  Every case has lead to some of the worst crimes against humanity the world has ever seen.  People calling themselves communists (whether they fit the exact definition or not) are some of the worst people the planet has ever seen.  It's horrible ideology except when it's done on a small scale with people that want to be there (and even then it kind of sucks, but hey, live and let live right?  As long as they aint killing people trying to leave, I got no issue with it.).

You're taking their word of what they consider themselves to be true; that if I call myself a "communist", I must be one, regardless of whatever I do; kill millions of people, accept funds from bankers, etc. I must be a commie because I call myself one. On the same token of some of the worst people to ever live; this applies to capitalists as well.

No, you just think it's a horrible ideology because it's opposed to your view of the world. Liberals have killed countless people in the name of democracy and 'freedom' but I don't see anyone complaining about them.

My world view of live and let live....my world view of not shooting people in the back trying to leave my horrible system of govt?  Nice.  And not only are you nit picking, you're strawmanning too?  Awesome.

Your worldview is extremely idealistic, and even though I don't believe you're a bad guy, and that you genuinely want positive change, libertarianism is not going to get you there. Libertarianism, if we can say, is about "live and let live", it only applies to the ruling party because of neglect. Libertarianism has no social theory, simply that leaving people alone will get a net positive benefit. It's a theory of neglect. I don't have to beat my kids to be a terrible parent, the same way that practical libertarianism doesn't have to inflict direct harm; that harm comes from the market itself by not recognizing any limits to the accumulation of capital.

USSR under Stalin=8-61 million....real number probably around 20million
PRC under Mao=numbers vary but likely somewhere between 30 and 50 million...lets say 40 million
Khmer Rouge=more than 2 million

Cliched as it is; none of them were Marxist regimes (even though they all genuinely thought they themselves were). Stalinism, very consciously, ended up being a horribly repressive bourgeois regime, essentially the continuation of Tsarism, transformed. The same thing occurred under maoism, but with a wholly different emphasis on the peasantry. The same under the Rouge. They all exploited Marx's ideas for their own benefit, and left it raped and half dead. There was no mobilization of the proles; it was a movement by and for the vanguard party, a thoroughly non-marxist idea. 

You're not up in arms that they're calling themselves Marxists, but if a regime came about that pledges allegiance to the banks, ends up destroying third world countries, and they call themselves "Libertarians", and the media calls them that, too, you'd be pissed off, and right you'd be.

But if we're focusing on death toll, as if it proves anything substantial besides these regimes were immoral thugs, then we have to look at the death toll held by capitalism.

The Global Slave Trade
Economic warfare resulting in the crippling of Africa (colonialism)
The poverty within all liberal democratic nation states for the last 200 years
the destruction of environments in these countries

Add these all up and you'd get a number greater than all the deaths in these allegedly Marxist countries. And this ignoring everything else capitalism may be responsible for.

If we're talking economic policy only, there's an argument to be made here for Chile under Pinochet. Not that I'm going to be one to make it.

We can't even say that for Pinochet, unfortunately. Chile was able to reap giant profits off of their copper mines, which remained nationalized under Pinochet. It accounted for almost 80% of the wealth of Chile during those years. Pinochet came closer to free markets, but it was a neo-liberal adventure from the likes of Friedman and his gang of thugs.

Well that settles it then!  Despite them calling themselves commies, acting like commies and historians referring to them as commies Xahar knows best (great name for a TV show).  I know it's pointless to ask, but I like to see people dodge...so...uhh...cite?  I know what you're response will be (if we get one at all), but I'm curious as to what words you'll use.


Bring on the condescending double talk!

Now you're just getting pissed, and it's not helping. The problem here is that you think since this is the way self proclaimed communists act, then it must be genuine, when it's nothing like that. Please stop engaging in Glenn Beck's specialty.

[Gustaf]

Copper accounted for 80% of Chile's wealth? I assume you have a source for that claim?

Oh, and regarding the thread title, free trade. Do I get an award? Otherwise I can add legally protected property rights or the general system of free market capitalism.

If anyone wants to cite real countries who have owed their success to these policies you can just pull out a list of countries...who have had any sort of success.

(of course, if the question was after some sort of libertarian utopia corresponding to purist libertarians' wet dreams, yeah there are few examples. There are few examples of that regardless of what ideology you use in the preceding sentence)

[k-onmmunist]

Free trade has destroyed the industry of Britain and made sure that many US jobs have been outsourced to places where workers can be paid far less for the same job. Is that really a success?