The Myth of Scarcity

[LittleRaven]

Libertarian ideology actually is orientated around the idea that government should not influence behavior or do anything to "correct" markets or society.

Sure, but Libertarians are also the one political ideology that the Communists can legitimately look down on, since hey, at least Communism has been attempted in the real world.

When someone says "I'm a Libertarian," what they actually mean is "I have no serious political convictions beyond Utopian visions of a world where people are something other than people." And that's fine...lots of people don't like real politics, and it's easy to see why. It's full of real people with real problems, and everything gets complicated fast.

Personally, I have no moral qualms with government involvement in the economy, because the economy is not a moral actor. Obviously, government involvement can be harmful in a number of ways, and so we want to be careful about using that tool. But not only is the tool available, it MUST be used from time to time, because capitalism, while powerful, is an ultimately unstable system that will fall over from getting too top-heavy if the government doesn't step in from time to time.

[Riedquat]

Me, I'm the 21st Century equivalent of a Nationalist Whig (that is, the Henry Clay and John Q. Adams views of the 1820s-1850s). I'm all for government involvement in the economy, especially in areas that are of importance to the nation, so long as it doesn't extend to control. Extra taxes on homes kept empty beyond a certain date as a means to keep landlords from trying to drive up housing prices? A bit close to the line of control, but still short of it. My take is "watch them like a hawk, but allow".

"Close to the line" is important. Not that it means everything should be pushed to the line, but because it points out that there is a line. How often have you seen arguments that seem to be one extreme vs the other? Usually pointing out an extreme is only of use if someone is unwilling to accept any flaws in their reasoning - if the extreme seems absurd it implies the existance of a line somewhere.

The difficultly is that the line isn't so much a line but a big fuzzy grey area, and no two people even agree where it lies (people who insist that everything should be the result of an objective measurement struggle there, because it really is quite subjective).

[Robovski]

I can assure you even if you instituted a non-criminal poorhouse there will be many who will choose to be homeless than take the roof, bed and food offered at said poorhouse.

[Admiral X]

What? Using tax policy to influence social behavior is one of the least authoritarian things a government can do.

o_0 This is by definition authoritarian. You have a government imposing a sin tax for simply holding on to property which is legally theirs to do with as they please, even if that means letting it sit empty. That is entirely their right, and to have the government come in and tell them they have to sell or rent that property goes completely against any sense of property rights, and individual rights in general. In what twisted Orwellian parallel dimension is that somehow not authoritarian?

Unless you think the government should never try to influence behavior at all, in which case you've no doubt become numb to disappointment.

So the social engineering that was done in the 1950s was a-okay then, right?

Personally, I think these kinds of taxes are a great idea, and we should see more of them. No, the government should not just take things. But when the market is using something sub-optimally, as the market is wont to do, then tax policy is a perfect mechanism for correcting the imbalance.

[Admiral X]

Sure, but Libertarians are also the one political ideology that the Communists can legitimately look down on, since hey, at least Communism has been attempted in the real world.

Considering that the various "attempts" have resulted in the deaths of millions, I'd say that's the other way around as far as who gets to look down on who.

When someone says "I'm a Libertarian," what they actually mean is "I have no serious political convictions beyond Utopian visions of a world where people are something other than people."

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with communism.

Personally, I have no moral qualms with government involvement in the economy, because the economy is not a moral actor. Obviously, government involvement can be harmful in a number of ways, and so we want to be careful about using that tool. But not only is the tool available, it MUST be used from time to time, because capitalism, while powerful, is an ultimately unstable system that will fall over from getting too top-heavy if the government doesn't step in from time to time.

I don't disagree, though my idea of government interference would be to break up monopolies and to ensure an open marketplace. Not "buy or rent your property or we will impose a sin tax on you."

[LittleRaven]

Considering that the various "attempts" have resulted in the deaths of millions, I'd say that's the other way around as far as who gets to look down on who.

No. You get no points for not playing. Communism may well be in last place when it comes to effective government, but they are at least on the board. Libertarians have never even made it that far.

And not for lack of trying. There's always someone setting up a 'Libertarian paradise' somewhere. And without exception, it's always some grifter looking to loot the coffers of anyone silly enough to buy into the dream. This is no doubt lucrative, because if you've already sold someone on Libertarianism, well, it'll be pretty easy to get them to believe anything.

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with communism.

They suffer the same delusion, they just realize it differently. Both communists and libertarians think people are...well, not exactly better, but different from what reality offers. Communists think people are wise enough to centrally plan for all ends, Libertarians think people are wise enough to individually plan for all ends. Neither is true.

I don't disagree, though my idea of government interference would be to break up monopolies and to ensure an open marketplace. Not "buy or rent your property or we will impose a sin tax on you."

Well, I'm sure you're used to disappointment, because 'Tax that which you wish to discourage, subsidize that which you wish to encourage.' is basically Government 101. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a government that doesn't engage in social engineering, because that is one of the main things people demandfrom their government.

[LittleRaven]

In what twisted Orwellian parallel dimension is that somehow not authoritarian?

On planet Earth, in the Sol system, where there are 7.5 billion people running around trying hard not to kill each other.

All things are relative. If you assume that a government can legitimately use it's authority to influence behavior, then tax policy is a pretty tame way for a government to go about exerting that authority. If you reject that assumption, then of course everything appears authoritarian, but you're also pretty accustomed to that, given that no governing body in the history of ever has adopted your stance.

So the social engineering that was done in the 1950s was a-okay then, right?

I don't know what you mean. The government was doing LOTS of social engineering in the 50s, just as it is today, just as it always has and always will. Some of it was no doubt awful. Some of it probably wasn't. But the proper response to bad social engineering is to stop engaging in that particular policy, not to swear off never engaging in social engineer again, because that's like swearing off food because you ate a bad hot dog. It isn't healthy or even realistic...you will literally starve and die if you don't eat, and a government will literally fall and be replaced if never engages in any kind of social engineering, because people demand it.

[Nealithi]

This may take a little bit. But I think part of the problem is an epidemic of under education in the US.
I do not mean regular k-12 education. But rest of world education on how things actually work. This may seem off topic but bear with me a bit. I work in a warehouse and rather closely with truck drivers for shipping companies. I have heard and witnessed people going to those trucks demanding a package they are waiting for. Excuses being they ordered something that morning so obviously it is already on the delivery truck. To FedEx and UPS are the same company and do not argue with them that they are not. To the issue of video games have ratings systems that parents willfully ignore then decry when a 'bad' game reaches their child because they would not be a parent and look.
What does this have to do with poverty, hunger, and housing? Welfare. I had a friend who had been injured in a motorcycle accident and could not stand or walk properly. He had a bar holding pins in lower leg. Welfare came through and put him in an apartment and gave him a tiny stipend for food that was rough to shop at a dollar store with. He could still do some work. And he wanted to. But the system is all or nothing. If he worked, even if it was only for a fraction of what he was getting. He lost all his assistance.
Saying things are cheaper than NYC or SF is great. But the income in those other cities is less as well. There was an article https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San ... 425117.php
That is a cross country commute to pay the bills. I think that can sum up the issue we have.
Things are fundamentally broken and not enough people are educated in what and how things work to let any real changes go through to fix things for everyone.

[Beastro]

What does this have to do with poverty, hunger, and housing? Welfare. I had a friend who had been injured in a motorcycle accident and could not stand or walk properly. He had a bar holding pins in lower leg. Welfare came through and put him in an apartment and gave him a tiny stipend for food that was rough to shop at a dollar store with. He could still do some work. And he wanted to. But the system is all or nothing. If he worked, even if it was only for a fraction of what he was getting. He lost all his assistance.

Souns like workers comp here where if you get injured and are told to take two weeks off, even if you get better a week you better damn take the second one as a vacation because if you come back a day before that times up it's taken as you never being injured bad enough to require any time off and get billed.

What you escribe is odd, I'd think it there''d be room to get back into the groove of working like disability is here, where you can work and make up to $500 or so extra a month, but whatever you make above that goes to the government, that way you have an added incentive while getting back into things without it being something preventitive like what your friend faced.

[LittleRaven]

Welfare Traps are a real thing, and are something many low-income Americans struggle with.

They are one of the many problems that would be addressed with a universal basic income.