Is "protectionist libertarian" an oxymoron?

 
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 26 Feb 2008, 21:43

    Is "protectionist libertarian" an oxymoron?

    I don't consider myself a "real" libertarian, although I do have a lot of libertarian views. I'm aware that the vast majority of libertarians support free trade, but does a protectionist trade policy necessarily contradict the libertarian philosophy? What if a government had a libertarian laissez-faire policy regarding domestic business/trade, but a protectionist policy for foreign trade, imposing high tariffs and restrictions on imports. Would it still be a libertarian government?

  • no

  • Yes (answer to the question in the last sentence)
    No (answer to the title question)

    • Aryo said...
    • User
    • 3 Mar 2008, 15:23
    Protectionism is the first step to fascism, so Manowar1 is either dumb or is fooling around :D
    There is no justification for tariffs, unless your aim is to make citizens poorer and inefficient producers richer at the expense of the former. Besides, tariffs never worked the way they were devised for ("guarding" the "infant" industries from the "unfair" advantages of the already established foreign ones). they created problems of their own - that is the need for the state to bail out the inefficient protected industries when they became too old and even more incompetetive because of the ineffectiveness of management under protectionism.
    Down with protectionism! All hail Free Trade!

    http://mises.org

    the Vienna professor Mises, who has been called the ‘last knight of liberalism,’ fights indefatigably against government intervention in the market process.
  • To Genius Aryo:
    From where the money suppose to come from to support
    your your libertarian government?

    • Aryo said...
    • User
    • 4 Mar 2008, 23:01
    Manowar1 said:
    To Genius Aryo:
    From where the money suppose to come from to support
    your your libertarian government?


    there is no such thing as a libertarian government. if you mean a minarchist state - then there is a plenty of taxation forms which can be implemented to support it, but every libertarian would oppose it as unjust. Private firms can perform every government function better and cheaper.
    Objectivists on the other hand only advocate voluntary contributions to a minimal state.

    http://mises.org

    the Vienna professor Mises, who has been called the ‘last knight of liberalism,’ fights indefatigably against government intervention in the market process.
    • Nirve said...
    • User
    • 12 May 2008, 22:16
    There is no such thing as protectionist libertarianism but that doesn't even mean that anarchy is in any way the same thing as libertarianism. However, since Rothbard was the one that coined the term as a right wing-thing I am inclined to let the anarchists keep it. Here in Sweden most of us use a term that could best be translated to neoliberal anyway, not that the anarchists give us any more free space because of it though... For simplicity I will, however, call anarcho-capitalists just that and neoliberals for libertarians in the rest of this text. (I leave objectivists out of this one, even though I think they take my side on this one.)

    But to show as simply as possible that anarchy and freedom stand in direct opposition to each other I can you give you two examples. Somalia and Hong Kong. The former is a pretty good example of an anarchy, and has sometimes been praised by anarcho-capitalists, and the latter was, and is to some degree, a pretty good example of a libertarian state.

    Anybody who claims that anarcho-capitalists and libertarians have the same goal also claims that Somalia and Hong Kong have the same level of wealth and freedom.

    Anarchy is not freedom. Anarchy is violence and stand in direct opposition to freedom.

    • Aryo said...
    • User
    • 16 Jun 2008, 17:32
    of course, but NONE of anarcho-capitalists endorse violence. We endorse PRIVATE governments, demonopolized use of force and prohibition of compulsory taxation (theft). In other words, we endorse FULL PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT of the individual.
    In Somalia that right was not secured - people were subjected to a multitude of warlords and their clans, who expropriated them, but of course in the long run the warlords perceived that it is more profitable to stop the wanton expropriation and rather let the people do business for a minimal fee for protection. It was close to the tribal monarchy.
    In Western civilization it is more probable that professional security agencies would fill the need of securing the property rights, and they would do it better than monopolized state police and court system.
    Simple praxeology.

    http://mises.org

    the Vienna professor Mises, who has been called the ‘last knight of liberalism,’ fights indefatigably against government intervention in the market process.
    • Nirve said...
    • User
    • 16 Jun 2008, 20:20
    That was NOT the case in Somalia. The warlords never stoped exploiting the peopleand their private proverty, a government was founded by buisnismen who wanted to be left alone. But as far as I know this governemt still only has control over the northern areas of Somalia and is thus little more than a new gang trying to earn power through violence.

    Also, you can't really have these laws protecting private property without a governemt, working under or beside the people, with the task to protect it. A private governemt is very much the same thing as one of the somalian clans, and they are not even regulated by any laws against murder or theft because they make the laws.

    And it's also really silly to claim that private police forces would do the job better than a national one simply because it is a private one. A police (or a government at all) is a necessary security system, created to protect individuals, their property, and their right to create. This works because it is strictly regulated by other governemt systems, such as the courts. When you privatise these institutions you also take away the only thing that keeps them from turning into criminal systems.

    And no, nowhere in the rights to life, that we libertarians claim to uphold, does it say that you can create your own private government or anything to that like. Let's take a look at them again. An individual has the right to his or her own life, property and to defend this property. Nowhere in these rights does it say that he or she has the right to punish anyone trying to rob her from her rights. Which is exactly what we have the government for!

    A government infringes on no ones rights simply because it is a government because an individual doesn't have the right to act as the executioner to begin with.

    Also, as the last nail in the coffin it should be noted that the italian mafia was founded as "private alternatives to the government."

    • Aryo said...
    • User
    • 16 Aug 2008, 14:51
    Nirve said:
    That was NOT the case in Somalia. The warlords never stoped exploiting the peopleand their private proverty, a government was founded by buisnismen who wanted to be left alone.


    and here it is - if a state was established, and the warlords became the members of the state - they would exploit the people as much, but then under the guise of the system and legality.
    on the other hand, the businessmen founded a government to secure their property rights. in what way would it be different from founding several private security firms to secure property rights? it wouldn't be.

    But as far as I know this governemt still only has control over the northern areas of Somalia and is thus little more than a new gang trying to earn power through violence.

    of course. that's why it's better to have many gangs which you can choose, than a single one, which will abuse you at will

    Also, you can't really have these laws protecting private property without a governemt, working under or beside the people

    what better works under or beside the people, if not a private firm, subjected to profit and loss , and consumers' choice? exactly. private governing firms, competing for the consumer.

    A private governemt is very much the same thing as one of the somalian clans, and they are not even regulated by any laws against murder or theft because they make the laws.

    A public government is very much the same thing as one of the Mongolian hordes, and it's not even regulated by any laws against murder or theft, because it makes the law.

    And it's also really silly to claim that private police forces would do the job better than a national one simply because it is a private one

    would it mean, that you really think it's really silly to claim that a private shoemaker would do the job better than a national one simply because he is a private one?
    are you crazy or just economically ignorant?

    . A police (or a government at all) is a necessary security system, created to protect individuals, their property, and their right to create

    exactly! that's why we cannot cede these essential functions to a state monopoly!

    . This works because it is strictly regulated by other governemt systems, such as the courts.

    yep, private court system would be the best guarantee against private governments' abuse.

    When you privatise these institutions you also take away the only thing that keeps them from turning into criminal systems.

    Whoa! Are you saying, that private bakers immediately turn into criminals who cheat their customers by selling them spoiled bread? Do you also advocate public social pension system, because you believe that a system of private competing pension firms would make them criminal and people would die of starvation when reaching old age?
    Why don't you just admit that you are a one fascist bastard, who cannot accept the right of the individuals to FREE CHOICE?

    And no, nowhere in the rights to life, that we libertarians claim to uphold, does it say that you can create your own private government or anything to that like.

    I guess you never read Rothbard, but then - nowadays people rarely read anything.
    Private property right means that I can make my own laws on my property. Logically extrapolating - I can make my own laws on the properties of all the individuals who willingly buy my government services.

    Let's take a look at them again. An individual has the right to his or her own life, property and to defend this property. Nowhere in these rights does it say that he or she has the right to punish anyone trying to rob her from her rights. Which is exactly what we have the government for!

    A private governing contract in a free society will contain a passage, which prohibits a client of a governing firm, to single-handedly exact vengeance upon his opressor, without notifying his own governing firm. It is the only logical (free-market) solution to the spiral of aggression which may occur during personal conflicts. Such a resolution law will secure the proper dealing with such incidents.

    Also, as the last nail in the coffin it should be noted that the italian mafia was founded as "private alternatives to the government."

    and that's why various Italian mafias are so popular in Naples and other cities, where the government oppression is so strong.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY WILL PREVAIL!

    http://mises.org

    the Vienna professor Mises, who has been called the ‘last knight of liberalism,’ fights indefatigably against government intervention in the market process.
    • Nirve said...
    • User
    • 20 Aug 2008, 19:05
    Are you like intentionally trying to misinterpretate what I said or is this based on some much bigger issue I have failed to realise?

    There's a great difference between a privately owned bakery or showstore or whatever and a privately owned government, namely that the last one is the only one that has the right to enact any kind of violence. You can't privatise violence then you have murderers with the right to kill.

    The reason a government actually even CAN work as a public institution and not as a private one is that the public government can be strictly regulatet in it's actions by courts, media and democracy which is exactly what all these things were instituted to do.

    The reason for the recent growth of most every government in the world is not some nonsense story about how a government must always grow larger and oppress the people because it can. But rather because a very pragmatic and cynical world-view that claims that need somehow should create right and that poor people don't know what's best for them, aswell as an enourmosly sloping point of view for newspapers and television.

    Not to mention this huge misconception of what the government should do that pretty much every single individual seem to have these days.

    Also on another note that you brought up, yes, I have in fact read Rothbard, and he didn't manage to convince me, just as no other anarcho-capitalist have. I prefer his mentor, Ludwig von Mises, much more, and even Ayn Rand, despite that her books and most of her philosophy makes me wanna puke.

    However, I have a question for all anarcho-capitalists out there reading this: Since we are all laissez-faire capitalists here and thus are all for unregulated competition... What would happen in the anarchist country once one of all those "private governments" manages to "win" over all of its "competitors" and thus essentialy gaining a monopoly on the market?

    It has essentially turned from an anarchy into a dictatorship but if you overthrow it you are both violating private proverty (that of the one owning the so called government) and working against the free market (because they earned their position with what you apparently call fair free market competition).

    But then again, I don't know why I even bother to try and argue with someone who apparently claims that Somalia is one of the best countries on the world to live in...

  • as you should actually know, there is no such a thing like monopoly on sth in the 3market. even though, supposedly, some1 gain control of law, then others have to rival to gain greater benefits. if the rivals are still not competitive, than the goverment which monopolized market 4 a moment have a way to enforce dictatorship, but then it would be impossible, because 3society is based on the private property which is inseparable from it. only in the case of a lack of private property there is such a possibility to bring the dictatorship, which from the point of natural law view is a violation of entity's right (such as each government, but nevermind...). so it's nonsense to claim, that destroying dictatorship is violating the private property.

    • Aryo said...
    • User
    • 24 Aug 2008, 18:09
    Pieniadzo got it sorted out for ya.
    Now some of my comments

    Nirve said:


    There's a great difference between a privately owned bakery or showstore or whatever and a privately owned government, namely that the last one is the only one that has the right to enact any kind of violence.


    no, there isn't. A POG can only enact the amount of violence it was contracted for, or it loses reputation. Moreover, one can freely switch from one POG agency to another, and if a POG forces him not to - it loses reputation and goes out of business.

    You can't privatise violence then you have murderers with the right to kill.

    oh my. You can't privatise social security then you have old people dying in the street. I've heard it all before, pal.

    The reason a government actually even CAN work as a public institution and not as a private one is that the public government can be strictly regulatet in it's actions by courts, media and democracy which is exactly what all these things were instituted to do.

    fine, but before there was a public government, a PRIVATE one existed, called MONARCHY, albeit not fully free-marketable. A strong ancient tradition among the first republican societies (like the Founding Fathers' USA) served to actually enable the public decentralized government to remain minimum. When the tradition died, and new values became dominant (see Rothbard on millenialists and progressivists), republican government became a tool for oppression which cannot be stopped.

    The reason for the recent growth of most every government in the world is not some nonsense story about how a government must always grow larger and oppress the people because it can.

    you call praxeology nonsense? Honey, you can't just magically stop economic laws from happening only because they pertain to a public sphere.

    But rather because a very pragmatic and cynical world-view that claims that need somehow should create right and that poor people don't know what's best for them, aswell as an enourmosly sloping point of view for newspapers and television.

    why American Constitution and Bill of Rights were thus unable to prevent it?
    because under democracy, everything loses its authority, except for the whims of the mindless mob.

    Also on another note that you brought up, yes, I have in fact read Rothbard, and he didn't manage to convince me, just as no other anarcho-capitalist have.

    Perhaps you should re-read his books and his essays enough times for your brain to associate facts and logical conclusions?
    Not to mention hard historical evidence for the actual existence of anarchocapitalist societies: medieval Ireland - 1000 years of pure stateless society, based on private property, private law and private executive. Medieval Iceland - 300 years of almost pure anarchocapitalism. That "almost" was coercive Church monopoly for tithes, which became a road to corruption for the up-to-that-point free-marketable chiefs, who were chosen by any free man as private law enforcers, depending on their market qualities.
    What else? Medieval pre-Norman England, based on free associations which guaranteed execution of justice among its members. Of course one could choose not to join any of these associations, but it that case he would be considered untrustful and not a very good business partner. Norman Christian conquest laid end to the free-market form of associations, and introduced a compulsory one, which fared much worse.

    I prefer his mentor, Ludwig von Mises, much more, and even Ayn Rand, despite that her books and most of her philosophy makes me wanna puke.

    As I have just been re-reading most of Mises' brochures, especially "Liberalism" where he writes a lot about free-market and democracy, I know what you base your worldview at. But he also sees clearly, that masses are blind and oblivious, and can be easily deceived by socialists to warp democracy into a constant class (special privileges) warfare. Actually, democracy was always an arena for special privileges warfare, and the minarchist ideal was never reached even in early USA. It is the core flaw of the "public" idea of government, so I'd rather choose a parliamentary monarchy, where the king keeps everything consolidated to prevent the class warfare, and the kingdom is a private property of the monarch.

    However, I have a question for all anarcho-capitalists out there reading this: Since we are all laissez-faire capitalists here and thus are all for unregulated competition... What would happen in the anarchist country once one of all those "private governments" manages to "win" over all of its "competitors" and thus essentialy gaining a monopoly on the market?

    If it becomes a DPA (dominant protective agency), and starts behaving irresponsibly, it stops being DPA, as any free man is in possession of firearms and free men can form their own protective associations. Besides, there are always independent private judges (natural aristocracy) who can declare DPA outlawed for infringing private property rights of the free men.

    It has essentially turned from an anarchy into a dictatorship

    it can turn into a monarchy, but on a limited area, and you can always choose another agency, just like it was in Iceland or in Ireland.

    but if you overthrow it you are both violating private proverty (that of the one owning the so called government)

    you can overthrow it only if it broke private property rights of its clients or non-clients it wanted to coerce.

    and working against the free market (because they earned their position with what you apparently call fair free market competition).

    if a DPA coerces anyone to use its services, DPA works against free market and private property, and independent private judges will outlaw it.

    But then again, I don't know why I even bother to try and argue with someone who apparently claims that Somalia is one of the best countries on the world to live in...

    I never said that. Somalia lacks a tradition of the right to private property. As soon as its society will develop itself to embrace this right fully, and will not be tempted by the short-term benefiction of Western-style democracy, it will become a great country.

    http://mises.org

    the Vienna professor Mises, who has been called the ‘last knight of liberalism,’ fights indefatigably against government intervention in the market process.
Anonymous users may not post messages. Please log in or create an account to post in the forums.