h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Like a hot knife through butter, well said Nog!

The only people who think that capitalism and libertarianism are the same thing are Rand disciples, but then again they have new meanings for all kinds of common words

Was it JK Galbraith who said "markets where possible, governments where neccesary"? Seems like a good maxim to me....

Otto

Especially when you consider every account manager over 45 uses Marx's theory everyday to make or seek profits.

>>Because of the buy-in issue, there wouldn't be any founding residents who weren't capable of self-support. And it seems highly likely that should the communities survive into subsequent generations, they would find it most expedient to simply expel residents who weren't capable of supporting themselves. The problem isn't eliminated, it's just shoved onto someone else. <<
In about 1985, because of the rise of libertarian parties in NZ (which began then) I wrote an sf story within my Biosearch series about a colony world founded exactly as you say, with the buy in. The first generation had also taken along skilled people as workers, who were allowed if they signed an indenture, even if they couldn't afford to buy in (the cost of a spaceship divided by number of takers.) The trouble was their descendants were workers and serfs forever, as their indenture holders managed to keep subsequent generations from ever paying their debt.) Much as has happened in other societies here on )

Exactly. A gated community is being advertised on radio right here in Auckland, NZ. I certainly pricked up my ears when I heard that!

Your promoting free egalitarian education then Della?

Della you have a problem.

third man, an excellent statement!

Oetz, what *do* you mean?

"The key thing is that the early libertarians never envisaged the modern global corporation and its symbiosis with the state. For them, and I think it's still relevant, the key guarentee of liberty was a layer of small producers/traders and small scale civil society institutions."

As far as I know, the earliest people to call themselves "libertarians" were the anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin. And they were stridently anti-communist, anti-state and anti-capitalist, believing in a stateless society where people are co-operative in a self-confident society and out of consent and individual liberty is supreme. Something I keep having to remind New Zealanders who have listened to too many Randites

The people I think you are referring to are people like Adam Smith, 18th century liberals who were, despite what many think, deeply concerned with the lot of the "common man" and wanted what was best for him. They were very pro-market but not law-of-the-jungle. They saw free-market capitalism as a way of weakening the grip of the state (at the time, there was no welfare state, the state was basically an empire that served an aristocracy) and empowering the individual.

Corporations are a collective with a heirarchy with no respect for the individual. Therefore, it is absurd for a "libertarian" to promote corporate power.

I agree about Smith being compassionate. A few years ago the buffoonish Prince Philip said that people on benefits in Britain actually had a comfortable lifestyle 'compared to people in countries like Morocco.' One of the papers then printed a quote in reply from Adam Smith which said poverty "was the inability through economic circumstances to enjoy all the things which are considered not just essential, but normal, in the society which they live." I think Adam Smith would not necessarily be a huge supporter of the Institute that uses his name. Funny that no-one has mentioned John Maynard Keynes so far.

waves to Della

Lots of good stuff (ie that I agree with!) here.

Yes! People - rich and poor - are selfish, they hoard, they dont' want to contribute to society as a whole etc (not us here on this thread of course. The rest of them out there!)

And that is just the reason why political, economic and social systems that rely on altruism, even enlightened altruism can't work. Systems rely on people and people are not perfect. Therefore systems need to work with our shortcomings rather than assume that we don't have them or cna be cured of them.

We need to be made to pay our proper taxes, to avoid poluting the environment when it is not in our immediate interest, to treat our employees decently when we can make a quick profit by not doing so; and we need to be motivated to provide the material wealth that society needs to provide a reasonable world for all of us to live in. We also have to make people behave decently to preserve that world. No material motivation - no wealth: it may be sad but that's the way we are.

Therefore the most effective way of securing an even reasonably fair society is enlightened and regulated capitalism. It is the only workable system for producing the necessary wealth and distributing it moderately equitably.

I too would like to see a socialist system: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs; but I don't believe humans are that civilised...not yet anyway.

I am by no means a communist, but capitalist Russia strikes me as a good example of 'the unacceptable face'. There are millionnaires and even billionnaires all over the place now. Western firms are busting a gut to get in and even Dunn & Bradstreet have given the country Investment Grade status. Yet the average Russian is worse off now than in 1988 when Gorbachev and the communists were in power. So what is the definition of a successful capitalist economy? Obviously a place where a handful of people can make lorry loads of money.

Hi, Kaz...(waves back).

So it would seem, 3rd man. Russia has been a complete disaster since the 'fall' of communism. Hence all the adverts for Russian mail order brides in NZ papers, and the doco I saw on TV last year about two in particular, both of whom were desperate to take their kids and get out, because of the unemployment and poverty. One man went to meet the woman he'd chosen and rejected her because her desperation for economic betterment was so palpable!
Yes, capitalism has done them a world of good!

I lost h2g2 temporarily, and had gone to a nutty RW site called NewsMax.com, where I discovered - this:
>>As we reported a few weeks ago, after a lengthy competition to choose the state they want, members of the Libertarians’ Free State Project picked New Hampshire and are urging their followers to move there.

According to the New York Times, they plan to turn the state (the only one in the entire Northeast to vote for President Bush in 2000) into a nursery for libertarianism by recruiting freedom-loving people from all across America. Once they attract 20,000 people they plan to use their electoral clout. The Times reports that 4,960 people have already moved or pledged to make the move.

Once they reach that goal (target date: 2006), they plan to run candidates in elections, get active in schools and community groups, and demonstrate the wisdom of curbing taxes, reining in the gun grabbers, minimizing regulation of drugs, privatizing schools and cutting government programs.

"We want to make New Hampshire our home, and we want to make it a better place for everybody," Elizabeth McKinstry, a spokeswoman for the project, told the Times. "Many times government gets in the way."



Like-minded Libertarians Bruce and Devera Morgan plan a move from Royse City, Texas, to either far-north Coos County or the White Mountains town of North Conway.

"I didn't think I would ever leave Texas; that's how much I believe in this project," said Mrs. Morgan, 34, who wants to lift restrictions on home schooling.

Jackie Casey has just moved from Portland, Ore., to Merrimack, between Nashua and Manchester, along with her cat and her two 9-millimeter handguns.

"I don't like to go places that don't let me have my gun," said Miss Casey. Her plans in New Hampshire include starting eight businesses "because nine out of every 10 fail, and I've already started two, so I need to do eight more.<<
There's not much mention of capitalism, but these are American Libertarians! (Check it out, Zagreb...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/28/134008.shtml

Stephen
You argue that socialism can't work because people are not civilised and altruistic enough yet.

So who is going to make sure we pay our proper taxes etc.
The regulated capitalism you argue for sounds like E.E. "Doc" Smiths "Doctrine of Enlightened Self-interest" but that was SF. We don't seem to have any enlightened capitalists around.

In the present system we get enough welfare to prevent riots and revolution, and enough healthcare and education to ensure we can turn up and do our jobs.

That's what I love about America. Unambiguity!

When I made the point that the rich hoard money and the action does not help an economy and those on lower to middle incomes spend a higher percentaage of their earnings there by keeping an economy ticking over. I was in no way decerning motive or a willingness to contribute to society.

I was merely stating an economic fact. Lower to middle income earners have no choice but to spend a higher percentage of their income to life and attain/maintain comfort.

---------

"The catch 22 of the situation now is that we need to end the situation of corporations being the political paymasters; but you can't get elected without the cash, and the corporations won't support you if your campaigning to remove their influence from government."

Here in NZ political parties are given government funding based on their size and are not allowed to spend any extra money on election campaigns. The wealth supporting a party does not affect it's ability to campaign. This does however mean that smaller parties can have a difficult time growing.

---------

I see a number of pople have understood my intent in the question of this thread. It is indeed about the extreems of these ideals. Zagreb, in libertarianism I mean the modern day reality of the term in which it marries closely to to capatalism

---------

My wife, yesterday, showed me a few interesting passages from her sociology text book and I'm going to read up on a fellow named Durkhiem.