Prompted by a discussion in comments in another post, here's a question for debate, and I'll recreate the comments on the matter so far so you can see how it's all come to this:
Mark Hubbard:To state my ideology, I'm an Objectivist Libertarian. From that point of view, a query.
In light of the government in Greece which has managed to create a State rail system that employs more people than it carries, and it would be cheaper for Greek taxpayers to simply pay for taxi chits for all the passengers; in light of this, and every other disastrous decision made by central planners that are currently collapsing the economies of Europe and the USA, for central planners, including in our crony social democracies, can never anticipate the complex needs and desires of all the individuals in a society (in comparison to a laissez faire free market which in and of itself is the very expression and working out of those needs and desires): given this, how on earth do you think governments can create jobs?
I contend that if governments cast aside their doomed Keynesian socialism and got out of the lives of individuals, economies would then be prosperous, and would provide the more jobs necessary.
And even more important than that, albeit intricately linked, because you can't separate philosophy, politics and economics, such a society, a classical liberal society, would be denoted, above all else, by the freedom of the individuals within it, including every woman.
A bit scatter gun now, sorry, but one of the mysteries of a 'feminist movement', at least according to the myth of it, to me is why it has adopted the central planning Big Brother State collectivist model, and not the individualistic one of classical liberalism. The smallest minority is the individual: protect that minority, as, say, a constitutional libertarian minarchy would, then every individual is set free, regardless of gender or race?
I've never understood this. Though I do understand the impulse to be free.
Psycho Milt:I contend that if governments cast aside their doomed Keynesian socialism and got out of the lives of individuals, economies would then be prosperous, and would provide the more jobs necessary.
Sure you do. And Karl Marx wrote some very good descriptions of what the resulting society would look like, and where it would be headed. Which is why we've spent the last 150 years getting govts to make sure that doesn't happen.
Still, your comment does reflect National's thinking to some extent: their thinking being that if they just unbalance labour relations sufficiently in the employers' favour, employees become cheaper and more jobs can be created. It's a recipe that's worked for various Third-World countries, and as long as we don't mind Third-World living standards I expect it's one that would work for us too - thing is though, employees here don't fancy Third-World living standards much.
Mark Hubbard:Milt, I said I was a Libertarian: that's a long, long way from a Conservative right winger: I would no more vote National than Labour.
You write on conditions under a crippled capitalism called crony capitalism, under which we are simply slaves of those businesses that can capture monopoly rents in collusion with Big Government. I'm writing on the only economic system consistent with my individual freedom, and everybody elses: laissez faire.
So this debate doesn't simply break down to ad hominem, can you name me an economy where Marxist theory has made the individual's lot better, in every sense, not much, much worse?
Because regarding Keynesian socialism - because Marx has still been at the lectern of every western economics tertiary course for the last eighty years - I cite Europe and the US: they're now wiping out swathes of their middle classes, and, Europe first, will in many areas enter the third world, yes. And worse, Nanny's already Big Brother States - please don't deconstruct that - will take them down Hayek's Road to Serfdom where they risk repeating all the evil excesses of the 20th century all over again.
Humans have done that already: why haven't we learned from it? Why are we so scared to move to free societies: Classical liberalism?
What say you all? Is libertarianism the answer we've been striving for all these centuries?