Posted by: graemebird | May 26, 2008

Dumb Libertarians Part 1 /Court Judgements Are Brute Force……

…..THE ONLY FREEDOM INVOLVES CLEAR PROPERTY RIGHTS, TITLES, AND RULES…… KNOWN WELL IN ADVANCE.

One time to prove that banning fractional reserve represented a MINIMISATION of regulation I asked the following questions:

“What would you do when the banks closed their doors?
When do you wind them up?
After two business working days?
Can the banks suspend specie payments?
Do then THEIR debtors have to keep paying back to the banks?
Why would they have to pay back the bank if the bank can suspend paying back their clients?
What are the regulations you propose and why?
When do you call a cop?
And what can the cop do when you call him?
What are the MONETARY IMPLICATIONS of letting things go this far?
Will we have to compensate the poor amongst those that have lost their savings?
And is not that compensation itself AN INITIATION OF FORCE?”

You see in this case having one rule saves you the need to have a whole bunch of other rules. After ducking this reality for as long as they could the answer would come back that it ought all be sorted out through the courts!!!!!!!!?????

The courts. The common law. As if the common law is somehow going to be magically a fair and just way of doing things. You’ve lost all your cash. No chance of getting it back. So you are going to take your broke cashless ass to court.

We are having a big problem with dumb libertarians or people who try to use libertarianism against iteslf. So for example one fellow I know, who favours regulation, government subsidy and control in many theatres, suddenly becomes an anarcho-capitalist, when the topic comes down to deregulating the finance industry and getting rid of fractional reserve. This is a sort of regulation-bigotry wherein one of the few regulations that are actually worthwhile suddenly takes on a great deal of importance in the faux-libertarians mind.

But whats worse is others with a more authentic libertarian bent, but no understanding of monetary economics, are always being tripped up on this matter. There is more than one wrong-headed thing going on here. But one of the things I think is going wrong is the idea that there is something non-compulsary about court judgements. But court judgements in the modern era are the application of brute force.

This doesn’t only come up in fractional reserve. But it comes up all the time in matters to do with infrastructure.

I posed an acid test when it came to infrastructural rules for construction and ownership. I said that if you couldn’t get it done with sole traders alone, it meant you needed to think harder about the rules for privatisation and infrastructure ownership-and-construction. I never once said that all infrastructural properties MUST BE OWNED by sole traders. But somehow they just couldn’t wrap their tiny minds around this simple acid test.

The reaction to that was that it was no problem. Since coroperate law would take care of everything. And any problems could be sorted out in court. Preferably by the common law.

So where is this coming from where the application of common law isn’t brute force? I don’t know who to blame so I might blame some bastardised socialist version of Hayek.

Consider what this means. This is advocacy for cronyism to the highest degree that cronyism can be pushed. And for sure all the people who have advocated this nonsensical point of view have been crony sycophants rather than ever having any sympathy for fairness and capitalism.

What this means is you go into business knowing at the first sign of contention you can be dragged into court and your rich adversary can bankrupt you. So in effect its the ultimate barrier to entry. Since all these court costs would represent overhead of millions of dollars. You have no clear rules. The already rich guys have the very best of barriers to entry. They will have taxeater and court overhead keeping everyone else out.

Sometimes things are so stupid you just wonder where they come from. These are GOVERNMENT-FINANCED COURTS. With government financed police. Backed up by government financed soldiers. How can their judgement not represent brute force?

Over at catallaxy where they represent only the taxeater and the crony (under the membrane-thin guise of being libertarian) the idea was you could even sell off all the roads. You could sell off the roads or gift them, in their view, to current property-holders. Now consider how unfair that is? Because you already own property these crony-lovers are going to give you more arbitrarily. And those who own nothing won’t of course get any damn thing. These are not libertarians these are lunatics.

Next thing you point out that if the road outside your place is owned by others at freehold you would in fact be locked in. Only allowed to move at the sufferance of third parties. So thats no pressure. These crony-sycophants , pretending to be libertarians, say that it would be against corporate law for the company that owned the roads to lock you in, in this way. Sometimes this idiots tale goes down wherein you would be gifted shares while these idiot (patently leftist) taxeaters sold off all this gear that they do not own.

Presumably they would sell off the entire sea as well. And that wouldn’t constitute a blockade in their view since they would have given us all a shareholding. Corporate law would apply so that makes it alright. I even heard one of them talking about the idea that you wouldn’t be blocked off because the common law involves EASEMENTS.

So to move anywhere at all you are going to have to hall your ass into court and take on these huge corporations team of lawyers to get an easement. This is not capitalism. This is the tyranny of government-created corporations they are gunning for. Perhaps they are hoping that some communist government will come along and buy out a controlling interest in all these tyranical blockading corporations.

Corporations are themselves a government creation in the modern world. They may well have their more voluntary antecedents but this is the 21st century. So they cannot really represent true capitalism until we can nail down exactly what their legitimate scope is and which clear rules must be kept and which government inspired regulations must be dropped.

They are a government creation. And insofar as the government behaviour is not in accordance with making very simple and clear boundaries then they ought not be seen as the heart and soul of capitalism.

One complete idiot calling himself Jimmy-The-Spiv reckoned that the roads ought to be all sold off to 13 different mega-giatn corporations. Why 13? Well he didn’t say. But the thing is all these nutters are neoclassical-economics types. Thief-economics as its morphed to in Australia. Thief-economics in contempt of fairness or property rights. Their focus is not on property rights but on static-equilibrium models. So its very easy to see where the 13 comes from. You see 1 is monopoly, 2 is duopoly, 3-7 or so is oligopoly…. So spiv will make it 13 because then we won’t be able to tag it as being oligopolistic. But just imagine how much money you would need to break into this business if there were no clear rules and so all differences had to be worked out in courts.

Why this is all important is that we need clear rules for infrastructural goods construction/ownership and administration. And if we don’t get them we will always have some version of cronyism or socialism or some hybrid of both in infrastructural goods.

And we do need to have private infrastructure. The titles need to be clear and strong but they do not need to be freehold. Why we have to have private infrastructure in the end is that infrastructure becomes disproportionately more important as the economy progresses. So we cannot leave it up to government as much as one might wish to.

The dangerous stupidity of these people is getting in the way of sensible privatisation and the private construction of infrastructure.

Take this talk on privatisation here at ABC UNLEASED.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2246102.htm

Nowhere in this screed does Jason show any interest in sorting out clear rules for private sector construction of power generators. Which means that it has to be all done with taxeater initiative or else with extreme amounts of taxeater schmoozing. The latter of course means with high effective barriers to entry.

In fact the economist doesn’t have even any of this in mind. He doesn’t want private concerns to build these things. HE WANTS TO FLOG OFF THE OLD STUFF TO CRONY-TOWN.

So you see the whole focus is on selling the old stuff off. Not creating clear rules so that the new stuff can be built. He refuses to show any understanding of the importance of clear property rights, titles and rules all known in advance. And this is not some hardcore fault of this lone economics graduate. Rather it is a problem with economics graduates in this country more generally. And with people claiming to be libertarians.

We ought not sell off any more infrastructure until our taxeater economists start taking property rights for constructing the new stuff seriously. Or until we can fire them all from any taxeater positions and hire people who can do the job.

IN SUMMARY.

Though getting rid of MOST regulation is important to the libertarian program it is not the case that getting rid of ALL regulation is a good thing. We need very clear rights, rules and property titles. In the past we’ve had clear rules for private property at freehold. But we are completely at sea when it comes to infrastructural goods. And therein lies the problem. This is why we will not and cannot get adequate private infrastructural development until we figure this problem out.

Leaving things up to corporate law and the courts is anti-capitalist and anti-liberty. Both corporate law and court judgements represent brute force. Having the courts make up all the rules represents a massive barrier to entry that will lead and has lead to a society based on priviledge and cronyism.

Clear rules, property rights and property-titles are the only way forward to a freer society.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. So then Graeme I always thought you favoured gifitng local infrastructure to property owners.

    SITE DIETY SEZ: ITS VERY HARD TO KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE LYING OR NOT HERE ADRIEN. I’LL GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT THIS TIME. THAT WAS MARK WHO ARGUED THIS. FATTY ALSO. AND JASON EGGING THEM ON AS I REMEMBER. I NEVER ARGUED THIS. I THINK THIS IS LUNACY. I THINK YOU ALWAYS TRY AND DO THINGS WITH PRINCIPLES OF “HOMESTEADING” IN MIND EVEN IF YOU CANNOT MAKE IT A PURE HOMESTEADING DEAL. PRINCIPLES OF HOMESTEADING AND ALSO THE GOAL OF “OVERCAPITALISATION” SINCE I THINK OVERCAPITALISATION IS THE TRUE “COMPETITION” AND I VEER AWAY FROM THEORIES THAT EMPHASISE TOO MUCH THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS AS BEING THE KEY TO COMPETITION.

    IF YOU ARE SINCERE YOU’LL TAKE IT UP WITH MARK. BECAUSE I NEVER SAID IT. MY IDEA IS THAT ONCE PROPERTY TITLES ARE GIVEN OUT THEY ARE KIND OF SACRED. HENCE YOU HAVE TO BE PRETTY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW YOU DISTRIBUTE THEM. YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUSTICE AND SOUND ECONOMICS.

    I myself think the whole notion’s ludicrous and unworkable…..

    ME TO. THAT WAS MARKS GIG. TELL IT TO MARK.

    …. but that’s just me and as you know I’m a Marxist-Leninist Nazi Taxeating Holocaust denier. But anyway…

    RIGHT. BUT EVEN COMING FROM YOUR POSITION OF TOTAL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS YOU HAVE TO REALISE THAT YOUR INSTINCTS MIGHT OCCASIONALLY BE RIGHT ABOUT SOME THINGS.

    Exactly how would you privatize infrastructure?

    THATS COMPLICATED. DONE RIGHT IT WILL BE A LONG PROCESS. CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUNDLING A LOT OF GEAR TOGETHER AND AUCTIONING IT OFF AS IT IS DONE RIGHT NOW. THE QUESTION IS TOO LARGE FOR THE SITE DIETY TO DEAL WITH IT WITHIN YOUR POST. IF YOU ARE SERIOUS TRY AND DIGEST ALL MY POSTS ON JASONS THREAD AT THE ABC AND GET BACK TO ME WITH SOME INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS. THE FIRST STEP HOWEVER IS TO GET RID OF ALL FUEL EXCISE AND START TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER A SEAMLESS CONGESTION TAX.

  2. Marks comment doesn’t make it. Since he’s got the imbedded accusation that I was arguing against modern land titles. This is bound to mislead third parties if this turns into an extended argument.

  3. Over at catallaxy where they represent only the taxeater and the crony (under the membrane-thin guise of being libertarian) the idea was you could even sell off all the roads.

    Yes, these clowns ultimately try to push rather unpalatable views under the aegis of ‘libertarianism’.

    This is why we must be consistent in our responses to government power, such as the police and military. This is why we should critique the Iraq war, and the ‘terror’ laws that arose from 11/9.

    Keep up the good work, Birdman. Hope to see you at Moomba next year.

  4. Right.

    Onward.

  5. Bird

    You realize THR is a Marxist, right? I’m not kidding, he’s a full blown marxist without qualification.

    And now you’re agreeing with him, more or less.

    Bird, what are you doing?

  6. What can I do? I posted a nasty post claiming he was discrediting me by linking me with French Facism. But then I decided I had to give everyone a chance and deleted it.

    His points are pretty sound when you think about it. I mean regardless of how valid the increase of government power was in response to terrorism if these measures go on too long they do in fact pose a grave risk to our liberty.

    He might think the measures and the war were unnecessary at the start. I think they were necessary but the extended occupation is doing the US and the West grave damage.

    But there isn’t a great deal I can disagree with him on in the literal things he is saying above. I thought he was JM playing tricks on me and got angry.

    But I’ve got to give him a fair go.

  7. some nimbin chick has you pussy whipped, eh Graeme?

  8. I don’t quite know about that one. Though I can make a guess. I put a 24 hour advanced google search on myself and kept it on my browser and just before I went to work I clicked on a link I hadn’t seen before. And it went to some sort of complaints to the moderator page. So do let me know whats going on. I don’t know anyone from nimbin. Though I hear they have a lot of flower children there. Beautiful people with better cheaper drugs then people can get hold of here no doubt.

  9. Communists appear to be sabotaging my site. So no more posts for the time being. Let me just say that we are now in severe recession, but not from the point of view of official statistics. Because they are compiled wrongly.

  10. WOW, judging from the comments it is obvious that libertarians are to dumb to understand your post.

  11. Right. But for the most part they are fake libertarians. You watch these guys long enough they reveal themselves as being repulsively crony-socialist. Not wanting fair rules for all but rather supporting their own tribe.

  12. Moderated elsewhere:

    “But all data contains errors, and data usually consists of estimates of greater or lesser accuracy. When the data do not fit a well-established theory, it is often because the data are wrong. Every undergraduate laboratory class produces data inconsistent with current theory, and these data are rightly ignored.”

    Scandalous error. And here you have the problem with the global warming fraud. They ignore the data, as these two advise them to do. And therefore their “well-established” theories are not overturned, in line with this wrong epistemology.

    Under sound epistemology you ALWAYS take the data seriously. And the scientific process is largely DRIVEN by “anomalies” in the data.

    You don’t need to go far from this part of the internet to find out what is wrong with science today.

    So the data of the student is anomalous? Did you teach him to calibrate the equipment properly? Is the test designed to yield unambiguous results?

    Anomalous data is a great opportunity no matter who produces it. To miss that opportunity would be a disgrace vis a vis the scientific ethos and the scientific method, properly considered.

  13. Graeme Bird :
    05 Apr 2011 8:15:41pm

    These utter lunatics are now claiming they are going to pay coal power stations to close down. These people are attempting to be more damaging then carpet bombing.

    And yet there is no known anomaly which global warming seeks to explain. Since light is not the only form of energy passing from the sun to the earth.

    Reply Alert moderator


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: