Transfer to more libertarian system?

[trew]

What? Assuming you are correct and that corruption was the sole cause of their demise, extensive corruption can only occur due to a presence of state enforced regulations not its absence.

It is the lack of enforcement of regulations that allows corruption, not the enforcement of them.


How much difference is there between the government structures and laws of Greece and Germany ?
How can you explain why the two countries have ended up in such different circumstances ?

 

[capt.sparrow]

Really? You don't think that big coercive government lends itself to massive corruption?
No doubt that corruption was/is a factor in all these cases, however I believe that you cannot see the wood for the trees and that bordsilver is perfectly correct in his assertions.

wtf ?

What did big government have to do with Iran ?
That was a country run by a corrupt dictator that stole all the oil wealth from the population to fund wars and line his pockets. Destroyed by corruption and then war.

What did big government have to do with Afghanistan ?
Invaded by the USSR and then taken over by the Taliban - then by the US. Destroyed by war.

Argentina is supposedly a form of democracy but has had underlying corruption for 100 years... a wealthy country gradually destroyed by corruption.

Do I even need to talk about Zimbabwe ? Corrupt to the extreme.

Only the USSR fits the argument bordsilver is trying to make - large communist government that failed.
Lumping all those other countries into the same list is just plain ignorant.

Zimbabwe = big socialist government to the extreme => extreme corruption
Not too sure about the others, although i'm 100% sure they have never been icons of libertarianism!

how you could conveniently ignore USSR is interesting to say the least, and also proves the point about big coercive governments being the precursor for massive corruption. Ask any Russian

 

[bordsilver]

The phillipines.

Yes the Philippines have many enviable characteristics. From what little I know, they have strong freedom of speech through the constitution. They do not however, have strong enforcement of private property rights with the rich being treated significantly differently to the poor. This is a critical attribute since private property rights are critical to the success of any country. Without them you do not have true liberty for all even if you can be "free" to whinge about it in the newspaper and public rallies.

You should be able to confirm, but from memory the Philippines has domestic ownership quotas of businesses and property. I think foreigners are allowed to buy a single unit in a unit complex but are prohibited from owning the land and building the complex. Worse I believe corporations required to have two-thirds or 60% local ownership (or something like that). If this is the case then that is the key problem right there. It automatically creates a class of people with the ability to extort others. Mandatory ownership quotas are probably one of the most fundamental ways that a Government can screw up the potential development of any economy. It is anti-equality and breeds corruption and inefficiency.

 

[bordsilver]

It is the lack of enforcement of regulations that allows corruption, not the enforcement of them.

Trew, laws such as the Philippines ownership quotas (which are created and enforced by the government) are what create corruption not what prevent it. Corruption simply can't exist unless it is forced (else why would I voluntarily pay your "bribe").

We can both agree that effective enforcement of private property rights is key to success (that's a no-brainer). We don't need to bother arguing here whether or not an anarcho-capitalist or a minarchist economy is better (that's been done enough times in other threads) but it is necessary to recognise that moving toward a minarchist/protectorate system is the only direction that will maximise the welfare of all people within an economy while minimising waste.

The mere presence of Government is anti-private property rights. Working from a minarchist/protectorate society, then it's a simple equation "More Government = less private property rights = less welfare and development".

W.r.t. Germany vs Greece - there are a lot of other factors that make them completely different, not least of which is the Government spending beyond its means because unlike an individual or a company it had no checks and balances (until the bond market eventually stepped in which even then hasn't worked as yet other Government entities have continued to bail it out).

 

[renovator]

Third world countries are third world because they don't have individual freedoms not because of a lack of Government. In nearly all cases it's because they have too much government. Iran, Afghanistan, Argentina, Zimbabwe, the USSR, North Korea etc are all text book examples of previously healthy liberal countries (not libertarian) being turtled up by anti-Libertarian philosophies.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you ?

All of those countries you list were destroyed by corruption - nothing to do with personal freedom (or lack of) or size of government.

What? Assuming you are correct and that corruption was the sole cause of their demise, extensive corruption can only occur due to a presence of state enforced regulations not its absence.

And are you claiming that the biggest social experiment of all - the USSR - failed because of "corruption"? Seriously?

Extensive corruption can only occur due to a presence of state enforced regulations ?

corruption is everywhere you dimwit

:lol: hahahahaha

 

[bordsilver]

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you ?

All of those countries you list were destroyed by corruption - nothing to do with personal freedom (or lack of) or size of government.

What? Assuming you are correct and that corruption was the sole cause of their demise, extensive corruption can only occur due to a presence of state enforced regulations not its absence.

And are you claiming that the biggest social experiment of all - the USSR - failed because of "corruption"? Seriously?

Extensive corruption can only occur due to a presence of state enforced regulations ?

corruption is everywhere you dimwit

:lol: hahahahaha

No need for name calling because you can't see the difference.

 

[Roswell Crash Survivor]

Back to the OP.

Don't even waste your time day-dreaming about it.

The sheer overwhelming number of gravy-train passengers and state-dependent subjects means democratic reforms are beyond reach.

The only chance any of us will see a classical libertarian government is after an TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It' event.

Think along the lines of 'The Road', 'Mad Max' ,'Waterworld', 'The Postman', 'The Book of Eli', or 'Fallout'. Even then only if the current system is government is effectively disbanded/extinguished.

The lack of any central authority able to impose its will by armed means we'll have de-facto libertarian society. A society of willing individuals associating for reasons of personal gain.

Unfortunately, its also only a matter of time until an able, dynamic charismatic individual becomes a warlord, a king/queen and his/her court...and before you know it we'll be on the road to income tax, plutocratic kleptocracy.

 

[renovator]

The phillipines.

Yes the Philippines have many enviable characteristics. From what little I know, they have strong freedom of speech through the constitution. They do not however, have strong enforcement of private property rights with the rich being treated significantly differently to the poor. This is a critical attribute since private property rights are critical to the success of any country. Without them you do not have true liberty for all even if you can be "free" to whinge about it in the newspaper and public rallies.

You should be able to confirm, but from memory the Philippines has domestic ownership quotas of businesses and property. I think foreigners are allowed to buy a single unit in a unit complex but are prohibited from owning the land and building the complex. Worse I believe corporations required to have two-thirds or 60% local ownership (or something like that). If this is the case then that is the key problem right there. It automatically creates a class of people with the ability to extort others. Mandatory ownership quotas are probably one of the most fundamental ways that a Government can screw up the potential development of any economy. It is anti-equality and breeds corruption and inefficiency.

Yes they do have quotas or the rich would own everything . When you have over 100 million people & only so much land that goes someway to allowing citizens to have land to be procured
In saying that when you have title deed in hand theres little to no chance of anyone taking it from you As far as im aware the law applies to rich & poor the same .

The other things you mention is where it pays to be creative A pocket full of money & a good attorney. .So what if they want to keep the money & assets in their own ownership .Thats what you guys think oz should do .

Without them you do not have liberty ? WHAT !!!! those laws give the citizens the liberty not foreign investors . Which i hear you eggheads crap on about all the time the chinese buying this & buying that blah blah now its a hinderence to the economy So you want to hinder australias economy by having no foreign ownership ? Oh fk make up your mind .You dont know what you want .You want it all .....newsflash .....YOU CANT !!!

 

[renovator]

Back to the OP.

Don't even waste your time day-dreaming about it.

The sheer overwhelming number of gravy-train passengers and state-dependent subjects means democratic reforms are beyond reach.

The only chance any of us will see a classical libertarian government is after an TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It' event.

Think along the lines of 'The Road', 'Mad Max' ,'Waterworld', 'The Postman', 'The Book of Eli', or 'Fallout'. Even then only if the current system is government is effectively disbanded/extinguished.

The lack of any central authority able to impose its will by armed means we'll have de-facto libertarian society. A society of willing individuals associating for reasons of personal gain.

Unfortunately, its also only a matter of time until an able, dynamic charismatic individual becomes a warlord, a king/queen and his/her court...and before you know it we'll be on the road to income tax, plutocratic kleptocracy.

You needed to finish the post with "again " :

 

[trew]

Corruption simply can't exist unless it is forced (else why would I voluntarily pay your "bribe").

You want the police officer that pulled you over for speeding to overlook the offense, so you voluntarily pay them a bribe.

You want a court case to go your way, so you voluntarily pay the judge a bribe.

You go to a state run hospital and to ensure the doctor and nurses look after you, you voluntarily pay them a bribe.

It is the lack of prosecution of those that take the bribes that leads to endemic corruption.

 

[bordsilver]

Corruption simply can't exist unless it is forced (else why would I voluntarily pay your "bribe").

You want the police officer that pulled you over for speeding to overlook the offense, so you voluntarily pay them a bribe.

You want a court case to go your way, so you voluntarily pay the judge a bribe.

You go to a state run hospital and to ensure the doctor and nurses look after you, you voluntarily pay them a bribe.

It is the lack of prosecution of those that take the bribes that leads to endemic corruption.

Actually, I was just rereading the previous posts and I think we are talking about slightly different things.

First, someone must be handed a specific power that enables them to extort in some fashion. This is primarily what I am talking about. The creation of power over others through regulations.

Second, if someone has a specific power then it is in the interests of the general population to make sure that they don't abuse that in some fashion. I think this is where you're coming from. A decent economy which minimises the level of corruption (like Australia) has decent enough checks and balances that the corruption is detected and enforced. Hence, I agree with you on this point.

The effective detection and enforcement are a stop gap solution to the first problem but which takes resources and is done imperfectly (like in Australia). The first problem is what Libertarians are trying to remove altogether.

Importantly because of the cost of running a Government that works well enough, Wealth must be created before "big" Government. "Big" Government cannot be created without the wealth in the first instance which is why so many of the World Bank policies have failed over the decades because they were trying to build the expensive Government institutions or social welfare policies before the countries had generated the wealth. It's like child labour laws. You can't ban child labour without having enough resources/wealth in the country to be able to afford it else all you will do is end up creating more poverty such as what happened in Bangladesh.

 

[bordsilver]

The phillipines.

Yes the Philippines have many enviable characteristics. From what little I know, they have strong freedom of speech through the constitution. They do not however, have strong enforcement of private property rights with the rich being treated significantly differently to the poor. This is a critical attribute since private property rights are critical to the success of any country. Without them you do not have true liberty for all even if you can be "free" to whinge about it in the newspaper and public rallies.

You should be able to confirm, but from memory the Philippines has domestic ownership quotas of businesses and property. I think foreigners are allowed to buy a single unit in a unit complex but are prohibited from owning the land and building the complex. Worse I believe corporations required to have two-thirds or 60% local ownership (or something like that). If this is the case then that is the key problem right there. It automatically creates a class of people with the ability to extort others. Mandatory ownership quotas are probably one of the most fundamental ways that a Government can screw up the potential development of any economy. It is anti-equality and breeds corruption and inefficiency.

Yes they do have quotas or the rich would own everything . When you have over 100 million people & only so much land that goes someway to allowing citizens to have land to be procured
In saying that when you have title deed in hand theres little to no chance of anyone taking it from you As far as im aware the law applies to rich & poor the same .

The other things you mention is where it pays to be creative A pocket full of money & a good attorney. .So what if they want to keep the money & assets in their own ownership .Thats what you guys think oz should do .

Without them you do not have liberty ? WHAT !!!! those laws give the citizens the liberty not foreign investors . Which i hear you eggheads crap on about all the time the chinese buying this & buying that blah blah now its a hinderence to the economy So you want to hinder australias economy by having no foreign ownership ? Oh fk make up your mind .You dont know what you want .You want it all .....newsflash .....YOU CANT !!!

Protectionist policies on ownership go straight to the heart of the concept of private property. Either something is YOUR property to with as you freely choose or it isn't. If it isn't then you automatically take away many of the incentives for people using the scarce resources available to the economy in the most productive ways possible. You take away much of the scaffolding that supports the specialisation of labour and the allocation of scarce resources. It is because of specialisation of labour that we all trade with each other in the first place.

People create wealth through better uses of the scarce resources so by arbitrarily restricting the trading between people by placing restrictions on ownership is the hinderance to economic development not the solution. So, yes, everybody should be completely free to sell their private property to a Chinese, Japanese, American, a Queenslander, Tasmanian, Sydneyite, Brisbanian, Darwinite or whoever wants to pay the highest price in the expectation that they can make more money from the scarce property in your possession than anyone else.

And your fear of rich people is a joke. In a free capitalist society everyone is able to become rich and everyone is able to become poor. Until people become immortal, no one can be uber-super rich for all eternity without some special power compared to other people (i.e. through mandatory protectionist barriers protecting their fiefdom from all competitors). Kids can (and do) build on their parents legacy or piss it up against a wall. They are not privileged humans in any way except when they are through privileged through force.

 

[renovator]

Yes the Philippines have many enviable characteristics. From what little I know, they have strong freedom of speech through the constitution. They do not however, have strong enforcement of private property rights with the rich being treated significantly differently to the poor. This is a critical attribute since private property rights are critical to the success of any country. Without them you do not have true liberty for all even if you can be "free" to whinge about it in the newspaper and public rallies.

You should be able to confirm, but from memory the Philippines has domestic ownership quotas of businesses and property. I think foreigners are allowed to buy a single unit in a unit complex but are prohibited from owning the land and building the complex. Worse I believe corporations required to have two-thirds or 60% local ownership (or something like that). If this is the case then that is the key problem right there. It automatically creates a class of people with the ability to extort others. Mandatory ownership quotas are probably one of the most fundamental ways that a Government can screw up the potential development of any economy. It is anti-equality and breeds corruption and inefficiency.

Yes they do have quotas or the rich would own everything . When you have over 100 million people & only so much land that goes someway to allowing citizens to have land to be procured
In saying that when you have title deed in hand theres little to no chance of anyone taking it from you As far as im aware the law applies to rich & poor the same .

The other things you mention is where it pays to be creative A pocket full of money & a good attorney. .So what if they want to keep the money & assets in their own ownership .Thats what you guys think oz should do .

Without them you do not have liberty ? WHAT !!!! those laws give the citizens the liberty not foreign investors . Which i hear you eggheads crap on about all the time the chinese buying this & buying that blah blah now its a hinderence to the economy So you want to hinder australias economy by having no foreign ownership ? Oh fk make up your mind .You dont know what you want .You want it all .....newsflash .....YOU CANT !!!

Protectionist policies on ownership go straight to the heart of the concept of private property. Either something is YOUR property to with as you freely choose or it isn't. If it isn't then you automatically take away many of the incentives for people using the scarce resources available to the economy in the most productive ways possible. You take away much of the scaffolding that supports the specialisation of labour and the allocation of scarce resources. It is because of specialisation of labour that we all trade with each other in the first place.

People create wealth through better uses of the scarce resources so by arbitrarily restricting the trading between people by placing restrictions on ownership is the hinderance to economic development not the solution. So, yes, everybody should be completely free to sell their private property to a Chinese, Japanese, American, a Queenslander, Tasmanian, Sydneyite, Brisbanian, Darwinite or whoever wants to pay the highest price in the expectation that they can make more money from the scarce property in your possession than anyone else.

And your fear of rich people is a joke. In a free capitalist society everyone is able to become rich and everyone is able to become poor. Until people become immortal, no one can be uber-super rich for all eternity without some special power compared to other people (i.e. through mandatory protectionist barriers protecting their fiefdom from all competitors). Kids can (and do) build on their parents legacy or piss it up against a wall. They are not privileged humans in any way except when they are through privileged through force.

My fear of the rich ? :lol:

You forget one thing in an impoverished country someone from a first world economy can buy 100 maybe 1000 times what they can buy in their own country .It wouldnt take long before there was no land left ...all owned by foreigners . You need to think a bit longer before you post i think .

 

[bordsilver]

^ I have thought about it. I suggest you think about the real implications of restricting private property rights before advocating the Philippine/Indonesian/Malaysian/Zimbabwe/North Korean etc system given that it seems to be working so well for them.

...and - as you should well know - owning lands in foreign countries is not all that it is cracked up to be unless you have a local presence. If all foreigners clambered to buy all the land, its price would rise and rise until it wasn't worth buying. Simple supply and demand.

 

[renovator]

^ I have thought about it. I suggest you think about the real implications of restricting private property rights before advocating the Philippine/Indonesian/Malaysian/Zimbabwe/North Korean etc system given that it seems to be working so well for them.

...and - as you should well know - owning lands in foreign countries is not all that it is cracked up to be unless you have a local presence. If all foreigners clambered to buy all the land, its price would rise and rise until it wasn't worth buying. Simple supply and demand.

So you think a country should let the bulk of its land be sold to foreigners.

Protectionism is a good thing in some circumstances.

Yes the land probably would go up putting it further out of reach of its own citizens . .

The thing i read you & the others whinging about all the time . what are you on ? Fk me you flip & flop around like a fish out of water . Like i said before you dont know what you want you just shoot from the hip before you think about it enough .

Thank god your not running the country you would have to do more backflips than the last 10 prime ministers put together

 

[bordsilver]

In saying that when you have title deed in hand theres little to no chance of anyone taking it from you As far as im aware the law applies to rich & poor the same .

That is really good to hear. It is a good foundation.

 

[renovator]

^ I have thought about it. I suggest you think about the real implications of restricting private property rights before advocating the Philippine/Indonesian/Malaysian/Zimbabwe/North Korean etc system given that it seems to be working so well for them.

...and - as you should well know - owning lands in foreign countries is not all that it is cracked up to be unless you have a local presence. If all foreigners clambered to buy all the land, its price would rise and rise until it wasn't worth buying. Simple supply and demand.

Forgot to say that owning land is well ....umm owning land not cracked up to be what ? what are you on about now something else you know absolutely nothing about obviously .

 

[bordsilver]

So you think a country should let the bulk of its land be sold to foreigners.

If the foreigners were willing to pay more because they had the technology and know how to make it more valuable - absolutely. Importantly, if they aren't bringing significant technological know how to a purchase then a foreigner is generally at a disadvantage to the local. Taking Mongolia's Oyu Tolgoi as but one example - the huge resource was technically there for centuries but the knowledge required to discover and develop the resource did not reside in the local people. Instead it required foreigners to bring their knowledge (and capital) to bear to extract the value.

Protectionism is a good thing in some circumstances.

Nope.

Yes the land probably would go up putting it further out of reach of its own citizens . .

But more citizens would have money from the previous sales and (as mentioned above) if the foreigners are adding value then there will be more goods and services available as well as the technological spillovers that the locals will receive by (at the least) seeing and copying their processes.

The thing i read you & the others whinging about all the time . what are you on ? Fk me you flip & flop around like a fish out of water . Like i said before you dont know what you want you just shoot from the hip before you think about it enough .

Thank god your not running the country you would have to do more backflips than the last 10 prime ministers put together

I don't think this is true and I think you are confusing me with others (or else was simply an example of talking at cross purposes with people using different definitions).

I clearly remember only one "backflip" which occurred as a result of a discussion with Gino (and someone else whose name escapes me) within one thread about 4-6 months ago. They showed me the error of my thinking and I have openly admitted to others (off the forum) that I was wrong.

I don't expect you to trawl through old threads but if you do remember a particular incident then I am happy to see where the misperception lies.

PS. And thanks for being less of a troll than usual. It's much nicer.

 

[capt.sparrow]

^ I have thought about it. I suggest you think about the real implications of restricting private property rights before advocating the Philippine/Indonesian/Malaysian/Zimbabwe/North Korean etc system given that it seems to be working so well for them.

...and - as you should well know - owning lands in foreign countries is not all that it is cracked up to be unless you have a local presence. If all foreigners clambered to buy all the land, its price would rise and rise until it wasn't worth buying. Simple supply and demand.

Forgot to say that owning land is well ....umm owning land not cracked up to be what ? what are you on about now something else you know absolutely nothing about obviously .

Without a respect for property rights there can be no liberty.

 

[bordsilver]

^ I have thought about it. I suggest you think about the real implications of restricting private property rights before advocating the Philippine/Indonesian/Malaysian/Zimbabwe/North Korean etc system given that it seems to be working so well for them.

...and - as you should well know - owning lands in foreign countries is not all that it is cracked up to be unless you have a local presence. If all foreigners clambered to buy all the land, its price would rise and rise until it wasn't worth buying. Simple supply and demand.

Forgot to say that owning land is well ....umm owning land not cracked up to be what ? what are you on about now something else you know absolutely nothing about obviously .

Simply that if I have money to spend, it's generally better to own local land than foreign land - not least because of the presence of government's but also because although certain land has value it is the way that it is used that is the true worth and many effective uses depend on a good understanding of the local environment and a local presence.