tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post113324446821161472..comments2024-03-18T17:17:00.423+13:00Comments on Not PC: Cue Card Libertarianism - Harmony of interestsPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1137383899313019462006-01-16T16:58:00.000+13:002006-01-16T16:58:00.000+13:00No, Icehawk. You certainly aren't a libertarian.A...No, Icehawk. You certainly aren't a libertarian.<BR/><BR/>As for the notion that 'screwing everybody helps an individual more'; how sad.<BR/><BR/>Why? Because in business, the ideal situation is where both parties prosper. Screwing someone is hardly going to get you repeat business. You'll only do it once & more fool, you.<BR/><BR/>It also goes without saying that those employers who respect their staff ultimately receive more productivity from them. In other words, miserable bastards - because they do exist in an imperfect world - invariably shit in their own nests eventually.<BR/><BR/>I also disagree with your statement that 'pragmatists prefer mixed systems with markets in most situations, but with regulation where markets don't work well'.<BR/><BR/>The reality is that 'the market' will always work - because it is simply the concept of supply meeting demand. If there's a demand for something, suppliers will vie for it. If there's no demand, there's no need for supply.<BR/><BR/>Regulation, or interference within the marketplace is what upsets the applecart. There are two clear examples in both the NZ broadcasting and housing markets. <BR/><BR/>The state insists upon dishing out public money to make programmes to fulfil its so-called 'charter obligations'. <BR/><BR/>But if the programmes are good enough and there's a demand for them, the makers will find backers in typical business fashion. Plenty of people subscribe to Sky for preferred programming. They pay for what they want. But the state stepping in means it forces programmes upon the public whether there's an interest or not. In other words, it decides what we should watch! Good old we-know-best statism at work again!<BR/><BR/>And re housing, wherever the state steps in 'to help the poor' we invariably end up with a (politely) less than desirable suburb/housing area - which only goes to artifically raise the prices of the surrounding non-state housing areas, making it harder than ever for those on lower incomes to own their own home in a nicer spot.<BR/><BR/>That's the thing about socialism: it tends to crap on the very people it purports to 'care' about.<BR/><BR/>Wrong C-word, I'm afraid. 'Control' would be a better one.<BR/><BR/>And as for Paris Hilton being 'undeserving' of her inherited wealth: who are you to decide who's deserving or not? That's entirely subjective. In my subjective opinion she happens to be one of the silliest cows imaginable, but that's beside the point.<BR/><BR/>Her great-grandparents had the foresight to create fabulous wealth, (via a service that the public obviously wanted!), ensuring their family's wellbeing, comfort and financial independence for generations to come.<BR/><BR/>We should all aspire to such forethought and generosity. <BR/><BR/>Yes, generosity. Because if you've got more; you've got more to give. You can't help the poor by being one of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1137382105803218812006-01-16T16:28:00.000+13:002006-01-16T16:28:00.000+13:00b) Icehawk, you said: "Instead, they bitch about t...b) Icehawk, you said: "Instead, they bitch about the $150 million inheritance of Paris Hilton. Are you seriously trying to argue that Paris Hilton's ownership of large amounts of inherited capital is because she is vastly more able than those who work in the companies she owns?"<BR/><BR/>Well, no, I haven't argued that, and nor am I. However, Paris Hilton's $150 million (if such is in fact her personal fortune; I confess I don't really follow her personal fortunes too closely) takes nothing away from you or from anyone else. Only a flawed 'zero-sum' argument would say that her owning riches meant that somehow you were harmed thereby. The fortune was her parents' [?] to give; the existence and disposal of that fortune neither pauperises nor diminishes you or I or anybody else.<BR/><BR/>And just as the work of an office clerk is made better by Carlson's photocopier, so the path of the traveler is made better by the existence of the Hilton Hotel chain -- even if you yourself don't use either, their existence adds to the sum of things that affects you in a positive fashion either by cheaper reproduction through effficient copying, or by cheaper<BR/>accomodation because of greater supply, and better standards due to greater competition.<BR/><BR/>a) Icehawk, you also said: "Tragedy of the Commons. Transaction Costs. Market Failure. Haven't we been here before?" So we have, and as I've said before: <BR/>1)whatever so-called market failures you can cite and no matter how bad such faiures are claimed to be, they pale into insignificance as compared to the manifest failures and iniquities of governments. Further, as I've also said before, the problems that government claims to be fixing (by force) invariably come down to problems of their own making. Real 'market failure' is less numerous than you imagine, and less damaging than you maintain.<BR/>2) The solution to both the Tragedy of the Commons and the problem of Externalities is the recognition and protection of property rights. (I'm not sure what you're claiming is a problem with Transaction Costs - I'm assuming it is Externalities you meant to include in your list?)Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.com