The "Gully Foyle Bashes Libertarianism" extravaganza.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Sometimes you just read something so stupid and offensive it makes one respond in one's mind "You know I should make thread on how stupid and retarded this is". Such is my way with certain segments of the oxymoronically and ironically named "libertarian movement". Now perhaps I wouldn't mind if it's opinions were kept to such neglected oddities like Lew Rockwell and were put onto the back corners of the internet with the truthers, the UFOlogists and the Crop circle crowd, which of course is where they properly belong. But of course the simplistic, reductionist logic of libertarianism has gathered a certain appeal, at least on segments of the politically minded interwebs - probably to the intellectual descendants of those late 60s/early 70s student Trotskyites who held their beliefs due in part to an instinctial reaction that washing the dishes was bourgeoise. Indeed in the simplicity of its equation "markets good, government bad" can be an easy rewrite of "proles good, middle class values bad". Which is wonderful, especially as those terms are so brilliantly imprecise.

But enough of the ad hominem truth. Here's what provoked this, an article from a leading libertarian/austrian economist (who Philip often links to in his otherwise interesting blog) who had been travelling in Sweden and Denmark and gaves us some of his opinions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Things I have learned from this article:

1) Education is bad. Indeed, Mass Education is very bad because it is "inefficient" and should not be given to "workers". Indeed it would be better off if Sweden and Denmark had stupider/less educated people working the trains like the United States (and it would save more in taxes too!). The only reason people get educated is to work and get a high paid, non-menial job; workers like the train tickets seller (of course Brian wasn't polite enough to ask for his views) shouldn't actually be educated at all as that would violate THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE OMGZ!!11. Indeed, the Scandinavians must be freaks for not thinking like this - like everyone else - and refuse to take a basic job, because that's somewhat beneath their ability and should go about exploiting their advantage instead or anything else is a "tragic waste". In short what Brian Caplan seems to either think there is or desires that there should be a world full of Richiuses (Richiuii?).

2) The purpose of life is apparently work and to make money (why else should people with skills not take up unskilled or semi-skilled jobs?) and indeed the use of one skills should be headed towards that job. Not notion of even social worth or utility here. Yay! For Monotous Materialism.

3) Proof no. 257962 that Economists are one of the greatest threats to the human race.

4) I'm not going to even comment on "the semi-competent workers on welfare" bit. (For the record via a quick google search it is estimated that Sweden's official unemployment will be 9% by the end of the year - less than the United States. This implies that Sweden has more competent workers in it than the United States.)

So Libertarianism as by Bryan Caplan is Pro-destruction of Civilization and Pro-Elitism in the worst possible way and anti-Human. Really did anyone expect anything else (especially from a man in another article on this topic deems Singapore to be freer than Sweden)? [/rant over]

[Tetro Kornbluth]

That ain't my flavor of libertarianism.  Who wouldn't want more intelligent workers...in any field?  Smarter people do jobs better, even if they are way too smart for the job.  This would be especially important in jobs that deal with the public like this idiot libertarian is ranting about.  Just imagine how much easier flying would be if the TSA was made up of smart, efficient people.  Leave the dumbasses to clean toilets and dump french fries for us, give us the smart guys at the train station.

More than just some nobody though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan (Actually reading those quotes makes me realize that he is even a bigger douche than I originally thought).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Things I have learned from this article:

1) Education is bad. Indeed, Mass Education is very bad because it is "inefficient" and should not be given to "workers". Indeed it would be better off if Sweden and Denmark had stupider/less educated people working the trains like the United States (and it would save more in taxes too!). The only reason people get educated is to work and get a high paid, non-menial job; workers like the train tickets seller (of course Brian wasn't polite enough to ask for his views) shouldn't actually be educated at all as that would violate THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE OMGZ!!11. . . .

2) The purpose of life is apparently work and to make money (why else should people with skills not take up unskilled or semi-skilled jobs?) and indeed the use of one skills should be headed towards that job. Not notion of even social worth or utility here. Yay! For Monotous Materialism.

Show me where Caplan makes any of those claims. I read and re-read his blog post, and couldn't find those startling views anywhere.

The argument is basically "smart, intelligent people are (without asking them) doing useless menial work, this is a waste of resources "a tragic waste", instead people of less intelligence and less education should be doing those jobs - which would not "violate the principle of comparative advantage" (ie. people should make their decisions to the diktats of economic laws thus #2) indeed it is desirable that people with lower-skills, which he effectively admits are rare in Sweden (see comments on education and on welfare) exist and should do these jobs themselves and they are beneath educated people. Indeed he admits his classism and his disdain for actual intelligence and learning with the comment that the Dane doing the tickets would be a manager in the United States (if you read the rest of his articles, as you do, you know he prefers the US to Denmark as it is "oppressive to materialist and ambitious minded people*".

* - Whoever they are.

How anyone can't see that this is anti-intellectual elitist garbage is beyond me. (And then of course there is the welfare comment; which I note you did not list in your quote)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see the difference. That is basically what I've been attacking (in part). Not to mention that his argument if you think about it contradicts itself by essentially admitting that Swedish workers are more efficient workers than Americans (Note: I don't know whether this true or not, but that is what he is saying) funny for a "libertarian". Anyway the attitude of the whole thing is the most disgusting thing.

Oh and as for this thread I plan to make it a long running thing.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The language you quote was in response to Snowguy. My response to you is two posts up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if the unskilled population is kept on welfare—which is Caplan's theory—then that will naturally tend to drive up the working population's average skill level.

Not sure why you insist on putting scare quotes around the term "libertarian."

... Which as Sweden has actually a lower unemployment rate than America and that more skilled (whatever that means) people are doing unskilled (also, wtm) jobs that implies that skill levels (whatever they are) are higher in Sweden than the United States.

As for the rest:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... And this is bad? (which is what Caplan is implying). Why is people being unskilled (read: uneducated in this context) a bad thing?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because libertarians are against anything I would consider actual liberty. Also I resent the way the word was hijacked to describe radical free-marketers which is very different from its original definition, also applied to Bakuninite anarchists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I'm biding my time.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Bump.

I need to use this thread more often.

Anyway it has occured me that Libertarianism is the bizarre ideology, completely contrary to even basic intutions or life experience, that if everything did everything that they wanted (and let's be clear... this is what this is about, not 'capitalism', 'free markets'* or other masking bollocks) the world would be wealthier, happier and more enlightened place. Unsurprisingly, it is really about self. And people make fun of communists.

* - This term should be abolished from the English language NOW**.

** - Though it does not anywhere get the banality of 'economic freedom'.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Which is not to say, I'll with the add, that 'the state' (whatever that is) or 'the government' (whatever that be) is necessarily a good restricting agent either (or that 'restricting' is necessarily a good thing... though it is rather the world's fault that most of the people who live in it are clearly not up to the task).

Austrian Economics is a giant joke whose entire purpose is to reassure its thinkers that the profit motive is in fact a moral cause. The fact that leading Austrian economists attack state education or Grameen bank or hold that child labour in Nineteenth Century England was mostly a 'state' issue shows this to be true. There isn't an Austrian economists who isn't a joke historian (see Nineteenth Century England comment; also see Murray Rothbard's historical commentary).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Anyway it has occured me that Libertarianism is the bizarre ideology, completely contrary to even basic intutions or life experience, that if everything did everything that they wanted

Libertarianism is the doctrine that Lockean property rights are absolute or near-absolute, and that the repeated and systematic invasion of them is properly criminal.

"Austrian Economics is a giant joke whose entire purpose is to reassure its thinkers that the profit motive is in fact a moral cause." If emphasis were enough to prove a point, you would be safe in resting your case. But your reasoning is sloppy; it consists of listing a few positions of some Austrian economists (your link doesn't work, BTW), assuming that they're wrong, and then using amateur psychology to discern their "real" motive for believing what is (supposedly) patently false.

I don't have any problem with critiques of Austrian economics or its leading thinkers, but your criticism is just silly.

Obviously you shouldn't take what I said there as my literal position (except on Austrian Economists as historians, which is more of a general comment). Though I do think there is an element of that in it.

Also as for definition of libertarianism (I was attacking more the common garden variety); Define 'property' please.

Also I fixed the link.

I'm still waiting for the bashing and the extravaganza.  There is one thing that has become obvious though, if somebody claims to be about to bash libertarians you can rest assured they won't bring up anything even close to a position actually held by a majority of libertarians.

Don't take everything I say seriously. etc. etc.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Lockean property would here mean "those things regarded as property in Lockean philosophy" (which is not to say that Locke was a libertarian).

Having never read Locke other than opening parts of An Essay concerning human understanding I don't know what this definition is....

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Bumpity Bump.

All this talk of the gold market (I read some libertarian blogs recently and need to get the stupid off) and the superiority of the gold standard over fiat currency forgets obvious salient fact... that the value of gold itself is based on... absolutely nothing except the perspectives and prejudices of people especially those who operate in the ´market´. Gold serves no real function, in manufacture, in production or any other human economic activity of any great significance. Furthermore, in many societies in history it was not used as a currency (It only had a decorative function in those parts of Pre-colombian American where it was present and used). Some would argue that its rarity is it´s main virtue - but why not then a platinum standard? No, it`s real virtue as a currency as far as I can see is it´s SHINY (and now, it has historical connonations too which is actually one of the major reasons behind the bubble in precious metals. See below). I would like to convinced of gold´s utility beyond the sheer fondness of shiny things in which you can see your reflection but so far I haven´t actually got one. I, at least, would like to think that educated people at least have learned enough to get beyong "OMG SHINY" school of human thought about money.

Anyway it has been clear for some time that the whole ´gold´ debate has absolutely nothing to do with economics (as far as I can see veryfew  people arguing for it actually seem to understand their arguments) but everything to do with a particular (need I say, false?) image of American history.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The essential contradiction of libertarianism is that of liberalism and liberal forms of socialism, in order to operate a modern economy production and productivity need to increase but in order to do so forms of personal expression and freedom need to suppressed or at least managed. One only has to think of all those times businessmen are found complaining about the amount of national ´sick days´ there are to understand this point. An economy is a fundamentally ´collectivist´ construct, what individuals do within it is what is important. As we all should know by now, people don´t act like social economic models tell us they should (in fact I actually the purpose of these models is for them to be imposed upon people as ´correct´ ways to act. See history of nineteenth century imperalism and that´s just to start with) and if they disobey en masse then of course the ´system´ has problems.

Imagine libertarians were put in charge of a late Imperial China in which a large percentage of the population were so dependant on opiates that it severly damaged the nation´s economy and worker productivity (this is crude example, I know, but it sums up my point). Now, of course, this is due to decisions that the Chinese population made themselves (this historical example alone shows the daftness of most economic theory especially any of a determinist nature. And Austrianism seems pretty determinist to me. Certainly "Libertarian Sociology" seems to be not existant). Would the libertarian argue in favour of ´free trade´(which in common with free trade throughout human history was first imposed by cannon and gun shot) and thereby further help to erode the basis of the local economy or does try to impose the laws and force of coercion that make the economy work in the first place. What is the libertarian solution exactly? I would love to know.

The Soviet Union had a similiar problem with alcoholism in the 80s (actually it was a not totally insignificant cause in the destruction of the union). And let us not forget why men like Rockefeller supported prohibition in the 20s (and continue to support the war on drugs now in many cases).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I stand by my earlier post....

I'm still waiting for the bashing and the extravaganza.  There is one thing that has become obvious though, if somebody claims to be about to bash libertarians you can rest assured they won't bring up anything even close to a position actually held by a majority of libertarians.

gold's value, while mostly tied to the "shinny" part of the equation does have some very important uses in the electronics field.  It's one of the best conductors and doesn't corrode.

And the relevance this has to the ´gold standard´ debate and bubble is? (I stand corrected on that issue, btw but not on the wider point).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I missed this earlier.

There is a confusion here. The argument in favour of a gold standard isn't necessarily linked to gold. I do think Gold is pretty suitable (it is rare but not too rare, it's durable and so on) and it obviously has become a strong candidate by virtue of its position in our culture.

The argument for having a metal based currency instead of a fiat one is not in any way specific for gold. I don't think those arguments are particularly convincing myself, but they don't relate to shinyness.

Ummm but that "virtue of its position in our culture" is in fact, that gold is shiny and suitable for ornaments, no?

EDIT: Re-reading my original post I will note that my point on Gold was pretty much a side observation. When is anyone going to get down to the meat of my post?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm bumping this old thread to post a Caplan article that needs to be read for its sheer awfulness. Mercifully, it's short...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I was told in the other thread that I was making a strawman version of libertarianism, I shall not be providing any commentary but it is hardly necessary anyway and I should emphasize here this is not satire. Repeat, not satire.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm bumping this old thread to post a Caplan article that needs to be read for its sheer awfulness. Mercifully, it's short...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I was told in the other thread that I was making a strawman version of libertarianism, I shall not be providing any commentary but it is hardly necessary anyway and I should emphasize here this is not satire. Repeat, not satire.

What's your objection, to his advocacy for abolition of the minimum wage (I don't think many libertarians would object to legalizing transactions between consenting adults), or his acknowledgement that libertarians are bad at pathos?

Are you really so blind as not to see the absurdity there?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think this should be shared by all to appreciate it's dead-on accuracy. Perhaps the greatest tweet of all time?

https://twitter.com/dankmtl/status/221978990720724992

"Libertarianism is Astrology for Men"