Mr A wrote:Rand is not a Libertarian or libertarian.

Rand fell out with some libertarians who thought objectivism was a cult, but there is an underlying philosophical commonality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertaria ... bjectivism says Ayn Rand Institute board member John Allison spoke at the Cato Club 200 Retreat in September 2012. On June 25, 2012, the Cato Institute announced that John Allison would become its next president. In Cato's public announcement, Allison was described as a "revered libertarian." In communication to Cato employees, he wrote, "I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists."

Mr A wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote: Libertarians such as Rand

Rand is not a Libertarian or libertarian.

etudiant wrote: If government had no control over the money supply, then who would you propose did?

What traders use to buy goods with, pay employees with, and so forth, in laissez-faire capitalism (LFC), the government has no control over it, like with our money supply. The government in LFC is only there to protect man's rights. By doing so, people are free to use whatever they want, or free to accept whatever in payment for their goods.

I'm not quite clear on your meaning here. Are you proposing a barter system- you give me three bushels of wheat, I give you my dog? If so, then we are moving even further back beyond the 19th century.

Are you suggesting a system where any sort of enterprise may issue currency? If Miami Trust and Pizza Delivery gives out vouchers they claim have x value, would you be confident? Would the department store take them, or the airline? The man at MTPD swore they are backed by gold. Good enough?

Again, I feel moved to state that real freedom isn't merely individuals being able to do anything they want, but the balance between individual and community that allows for a better life. We have done barter, and private currency in the past and it hasn't provided the degree of "freedom" possible today.

Mr A wrote: Don Watkins, from the Ayn Rand Institute writes:

"Under laissez-faire capitalism, individuals are free to use whatever they want for money, assuming they can get other people to accept it. Historically, when people have been free to choose their medium of exchange, they have gravitated toward gold."
capitalism.aynrand.org/gold-restrains-g ... overnment/

[/quote][/quote]

I'll concede one thing about your link- it does cut to the chase. The title says it: Gold Restrains Government. And that's what this is all about, a fear of "government" that borders on pathology. The article fails to make a case for a gold standard, but does reveal an ideological desire to do away with regulation as much as possible. It is philosophy trumping pragmatism.

A gold standard would indeed restrain government, to the detriment of all of us. 2008 didn't turn into 1929 in large measure because of the ability of government to cut interest rates, and increase the money supply. The Great Depression of the '30s lingered on and on because of the ideological insistence that government should stay out of the economy. It ended when the realization was made that people (through their government) actually have the power to claim the society they want to have. We have learned from history, except a few like Ron Paul , who perhaps was too busy studying medicine to read history books.

The claim that inflation is an overarching problem is a limited view of things, to say the least. In fact, a small amount of inflation is healthy. It encourages spending, and discourages hoarding money for the future, in the belief that prices will be lower. Most central banks aim for about a 2% rate of inflation. What is important is to have money in circulation, and to have societies resources directed towards constructive and redeeming purpose. A common thread in successful economies is a large and healthy middle class. A moderate income tends to mean that people will spend freely, but for the most part on pragmatic things that generate economic activity in the community. Large gobs of wealth that have no immediate need to to float around the financial system in search of the next nirvana, thereby creating bubbles- in the stock market, real estate, etc. We have had recent evidence of the negative effects here. It is the very items that so annoy Ayn Rand aficionados that have promoted a healthier economy in recent years- monetary controls, progressive tax policy, bank regulation, deposit insurance, etc. Devolving this authority to thousands, or tens of thousands, of Goldman Sachs wannabes would be a recipe for disaster.

Mr A wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote: Libertarians such as Rand

Rand is not a Libertarian or libertarian.

etudiant wrote: If government had no control over the money supply, then who would you propose did?

What traders use to buy goods with, pay employees with, and so forth, in laissez-faire capitalism (LFC), the government has no control over it, like with our money supply. The government in LFC is only there to protect man's rights. By doing so, people are free to use whatever they want, or free to accept whatever in payment for their goods.

I'm not quite clear on your meaning here. Are you proposing a barter system- you give me three bushels of wheat, I give you my dog? If so, then we are moving even further back beyond the 19th century.

Are you suggesting a system where any sort of enterprise may issue currency? If Miami Trust and Pizza Delivery gives out vouchers they claim have x value, would you be confident? Would the department store take them, or the airline? The man at MTPD swore they are backed by gold. Good enough?

Again, I feel moved to state that real freedom isn't merely individuals being able to do anything they want, but the balance between individual and community that allows for a better life. We have done barter, and private currency in the past and it hasn't provided the degree of "freedom" possible today.

Mr A wrote: Don Watkins, from the Ayn Rand Institute writes:

"Under laissez-faire capitalism, individuals are free to use whatever they want for money, assuming they can get other people to accept it. Historically, when people have been free to choose their medium of exchange, they have gravitated toward gold."
capitalism.aynrand.org/gold-restrains-g ... overnment/

[/quote][/quote]

I'll concede one thing about your link- it does cut to the chase. The title says it: Gold Restrains Government. And that's what this is all about, a fear of "government" that borders on pathology. The article fails to make a case for a gold standard, but does reveal an ideological desire to do away with regulation as much as possible. It is philosophy trumping pragmatism.

A gold standard would indeed restrain government, to the detriment of all of us. 2008 didn't turn into 1929 in large measure because of the ability of government to cut interest rates, and increase the money supply. The Great Depression of the '30s lingered on and on because of the ideological insistence that government should stay out of the economy. It ended when the realization was made that people (through their government) actually have the power to claim the society they want to have. We have learned from history, except a few like Ron Paul , who perhaps was too busy studying medicine to read history books.

The claim that inflation is an overarching problem is a limited view of things, to say the least. In fact, a small amount of inflation is healthy. It encourages spending, and discourages hoarding money for the future, in the belief that prices will be lower. Most central banks aim for about a 2% rate of inflation. What is important is to have money in circulation, and to have societies resources directed towards constructive and redeeming purpose. A common thread in successful economies is a large and healthy middle class. A moderate income tends to mean that people will spend freely, but for the most part on pragmatic things that generate economic activity in the community. Large gobs of wealth that have no immediate need to to float around the financial system in search of the next nirvana, thereby creating bubbles- in the stock market, real estate, etc. We have had recent evidence of the negative effects here. It is the very items that so annoy Ayn Rand aficionados that have promoted a healthier economy in recent years- monetary controls, progressive tax policy, bank regulation, deposit insurance, etc. Devolving this authority to thousands, or tens of thousands, of Goldman Sachs wannabes would be a recipe for disaster.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Mr A wrote:Rand is not a Libertarian or libertarian.

Rand fell out with some libertarians who thought objectivism was a cult, but there is an underlying philosophical commonality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertaria ... bjectivism says Ayn Rand Institute board member John Allison spoke at the Cato Club 200 Retreat in September 2012. On June 25, 2012, the Cato Institute announced that John Allison would become its next president. In Cato's public announcement, Allison was described as a "revered libertarian." In communication to Cato employees, he wrote, "I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists."

Regardless of what Allison "believes", this does not change the fact that Rand was not a Libertarian, libertarian. Have you ever read anything that she has said about Libertarians, libertarians?

etudiant wrote: I'm not quite clear on your meaning here. Are you proposing a barter system- you give me three bushels of wheat, I give you my dog?

That is a voluntary trade that Rand would have no problems with, or if you bought the wheat in exchange for paper money currency, or bought it with gold, or it was given to you in payment for helping out on the farm, etc. The point is, people are free to decide what they trade, what they exchange, the form of currency, etc. No rights are violated when a person trades wheat for a dog, as it was done voluntarily. If someone wants to trade this baseball card for another persons baseball card and both agree to it, then they can trade card for card. Is that clearer?

etudiant wrote: Are you suggesting a system where any sort of enterprise may issue currency?

Sure, I think that they have a right to, and businesses have a right to accept that currency or not. Private issuance of money. The Federal Reserve would be abolished in laissez-faire capitalism.

Mr A wrote:

etudiant wrote: I'm not quite clear on your meaning here. Are you proposing a barter system- you give me three bushels of wheat, I give you my dog?

That is a voluntary trade that Rand would have no problems with, or if you bought the wheat in exchange for paper money currency, or bought it with gold, or it was given to you in payment for helping out on the farm, etc. The point is, people are free to decide what they trade, what they exchange, the form of currency, etc. No rights are violated when a person trades wheat for a dog, as it was done voluntarily. If someone wants to trade this baseball card for another persons baseball card and both agree to it, then they can trade card for card. Is that clearer?

etudiant wrote: Are you suggesting a system where any sort of enterprise may issue currency?

Sure, I think that they have a right to, and businesses have a right to accept that currency or not. Private issuance of money. The Federal Reserve would be abolished in laissez-faire capitalism.

I hear you re-stating your position Mr A, but not addressing all the myriad problems that would flow from it. No reputable economist today would claim that the market is perfect, and not needing any sort of intervention for the social good. Economic decisions will be made, and if one's ideology insists elected governments should not do this, then it will fall to other shoulders. We have had ample evidence in the last five years of what happens when the "producers" are given free reign, in the belief that some sort of magic guiding hand will direct their actions towards the good of all, sci-fi style. What does in fact happen, not too surprisingly, is individual players work for their own good, and larger social goals get lost in the shuffle. The more chaotic and unorganized things appear, the more the human tendency to circle the wagons, and look out for one's own interests, even if this means a loss for all.

A lot of our world-especially the financial world- works largely on trust. When you deposit your money in a bank, the assumption is that the teller is not going to pocket your money as soon as you are out the door. It's not that this isn't possible, just that long standing convention, and the rule of law make it unlikely. Once this trust is lost however, the whole system could take a tumble. And it did, over and over, and boom and bust and bank runs occurred, up to the biggest of them all, the '30s depression. The reason they don't today is........government. The '30s was one captialist staw too many, and after that federal involvement in the market place gave the assurance that we just assume today when doing financial transactions. You system of bartering and monopoly money would erode this system in no time at all.

etudiant wrote:
I hear you re-stating your position Mr A, but not addressing all the myriad problems that would flow from it.

And I hear you continuing to support your position that ultimately violates the rights that Ayn Rand is in full support of - man's individual rights, and the only moral political economic social system that recognizes, upholds, and protects man's individual rights - laissez-faire capitalism.

So then that's that for discussion, if you would like to continue to think it's right to violate individuals rights, then our positions will not change.

Mr A wrote:

etudiant wrote:
I hear you re-stating your position Mr A, but not addressing all the myriad problems that would flow from it.

And I hear you continuing to support your position that ultimately violates the rights that Ayn Rand is in full support of - man's individual rights, and the only moral political economic social system that recognizes, upholds, and protects man's individual rights - laissez-faire capitalism.

So then that's that for discussion, if you would like to continue to think it's right to violate individuals rights, then our positions will not change.

A little hypothetical question for you Mr A: You are driving down the street, in a bit of a hurry (you have a job interview at Goldman Sachs). You're a little concerned because you might be late- not a good impression at a job interview. The light ahead of you turns red. Anxiety builds. You look left and right, and not a car in sight. Go through the light, and improve your own personal immediate prospects, or sit there and submit to bureaucracy for the common (traffic safety) good?

I'm sure you don't consider yourself above or better than anyone else, so you'll have to admit that if it's OK for you to ignore red lights if the situation seems to merit it, then it is OK for everyone else. No doubt, if this became the convention, many would only us this ability wisely. However, statistically, how many addtional fatalities and injuries do you think would occur globally if red lights became, in the subjective opinion of a vast diversity of drivers, optional?

In a crowded world, we can only have that sense of freedom a car can give by acknowledging not only individual rights, but also those of the larger community. So too in our economic world. Considering only the individual means the law of the jungle. True freedom means balance, not simply no rules.

Robert, what do you think of the Libertarian approach to solving pollution externalities? The ideas sounded reasonable to me for a span of time. But there seems to be no way around the complexity of our world. There are issues that pop up when we start looking at the nuances of the concepts and how they would apply.

Here is a primer. Notice lower in this blog where it speaks of individuals' preference for curbing different types of pollution. Coupled with all the various sources of pollution, it's a confabulated situation. Simply putting into place non-government incentives for these externalities would be as much work as the regulation.

I would have left early enough to not be late. Like I do for work. If somehow something happens and I might be late, then I might be late.

Mr A wrote:I would have left early enough to not be late. Like I do for work. If somehow something happens and I might be late, then I might be late.

Excellent Mr A- I think we may be making progress. So you would stop if "something happened", like a red light. In other words, you would conform to group norms, for the good of all, forgoing your personal benefit for what is clearly an important social goal.

If this seems clear in an obvious example, then why not in the broader picture? By forgoing the presumed benefits of issuing our own etudiant or Mr A currencies (although I do think my image on a bill would be more striking than a number of presidents/prime ministers), we can then tap into the greater gains of having a single currency, one that has acceptance, the confidence of the masses, and is not tied into some hoaky scheme like the price of gold, and presumably the efforts of miners in Russia and South Africa, rather than real economic imperatives-ie: grounded in reality.

By accepting that, at certain times, individual freedoms must be rationalized with group rights, we in fact end up with greater freedoms overall. Confidence in a world wide financial system means we can travel and do business to a degree only hoped for in the past. If Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, and BA Oil were calling the shots, how much confidence do you think there would be in the system? Indeed, you wouldn't even be able to travel, unless individual notions were squelched by a world wide system of air travel, namely the univeral use of English in air traffic control, and standardized, agreed upon air traffic techniques.

It's a case of bending local tendencies to a greater cause. Your method of allowing individual authority would actually lead to greater parochialism, and decreased trade and travel. Some might rise to the occasion of spontaneous mass organization (Germany and Japan come to mind), but realistically, we would have less than we do today.