You've touched on one of the most pressing issues with libertarianism in my opinion. That is to say, "Where do we go from here?". Do we 'use the market' and simply choose the best products at the best prices, thus supporting the most efficient (subsidised or no) businesses, or do we try to subvert said market and move towards home-grown resources and non-consumerism, which of course directly contradicts libertarian methodology in that we choose a less cost-effective solution to our problem?
It is quite pressing indeed - especially in the current U.S. financial scene. Does one turn to a highly anti-capitalist action such as boycott? Does one turn down cheaper, better products for ones produced in an non-subsidised, competitive environ? My answer is no. Praxologically speaking, I believe the correct answer is to win the spotlight back for the Austrian school, through actions such as postering, protesting, education, and book distribution and promotion. In the mean time; use the market as you normally would.
As Mises brilliantly predicts in Human Action, subsidised (or otherwise artificially advantaged) enterprises will ultimately crumble under the demand and competition of the (according to the subsidiser: illegal) true market. Therefore we should use these enterprises normally; continue to buy their artificially cheap products just as fast as you like, for your consumerism doesn't fuel their continued existence, but rather stokes the flames that will inevitably consume them. Not only is this best for you and your family, it is the most sensible in all ways, practical and ideological. This is to say, because an artificial inflation of credit is truly a debit of massive proportions otherwise known as a bubble, and because praxologically that bubble will collapse eventually (its size and duration in direct proportion to its incendiary power on the market during the "crash"), using said credit only serves to accelerate its collapse (by further prompting inflation).
Now, a fine line must be drawn here with the definition of credit. A libertarian mustn't live in debt, he is a hypocrite. No honest libertarian has lived in the monetary debt of another man and felt comfortable with himself. By this I mean, living beyond your means does fuel their continued existence. Not having the credit to pay back the creditors is exactly the situation credit was designed to implement: slavery.
What are your opinions on the subject liberty student? I understand the idea of not supporting the "oligarchs" as it were, but doesn't that leave the "oligarchs" in the possession of more capital? Take their products and pay for them with their worthless paper! Transferring U.S. Dollars from the hands of the American people into the coffers of the bankers is good, in the same sense that transferring food, water, cars and houses from said coffers into the hands of the American people is good!
Seandon Mooy:What are your opinions on the subject liberty student?
Could you summarize it into one or two sentences?
Seandon Mooy:I understand the idea of not supporting the "oligarchs" as it were, but doesn't that leave the "oligarchs" in the possession of more capital?
And thus supporting these companies actually makes them poorer?
Perhaps you are overthinking this.
Ah, but perhaps you are underthinking it.
The central question is, does one choose better product and price (ie: the libertarian thing to do), or does one make a stand on principle (ie: not buying subsidised products)?
In my opinion, Mises himself gave a perfectly logical explaination why 'using the market', ie: buying the best product, is the correct action regardless of situation. It furthers the actual free-market by shortening the life of the credit system (the example is trading credits for cars, something useless for something useful).
The central question is, does one choose better product and price (ie: the libertarian thing to do),
or does one make a stand on principle (ie: not buying subsidised products)?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I'm going to move this discussion to a new thread shortly.
This stickied thread is for activism ideas, not general discussions on utility or ethics.
Seandon Mooy:The central question is, does one choose better product and price (ie: the libertarian thing to do), or does one make a stand on principle (ie: not buying subsidised products)?
see Juan's comment
Seandon Mooy:In my opinion, Mises himself gave a perfectly logical explaination why 'using the market', ie: buying the best product, is the correct action regardless of situation.
Why can't the best product be one I make myself? Or that you make? Why does it have to be Chrysler or Disney?
Seandon Mooy:It furthers the actual free-market by shortening the life of the credit system (the example is trading credits for cars, something useless for something useful).
I have to trade my useful labour, for the useless credits, to buy the useful car. I'm not sure where we are "sticking it to the man" in this scenario.
Making a stand on based on ideology in the face of practicality does not equal being principled - Don't twist my words.
As for stolen goods, there is quite an anarchocapitalist case to make that it makes no difference as to where the goods came from - rather simply their quality and number. If the supplier stealing the goods can continue to do his job successfully, then he is simply a market equalizer. In a republic such as ours, he wouldn't last long however.
As for Liberty Student, you should read my post!
If you can make a better movie than Disney and a better car than Chrysler, then by all means go ahead. In fact, sell me them. Currently, Chrysler makes better cars than you do (if I would be so bold as to guess you don't have a multi-billion dollar infrastructure, crumbling as it may be), so buy Chrysler. The question was not whether we should buy from "corporations", but if we should buy lower quality goods out of protest.
In my view of libertarianism, boycotts make no sense. Buying the best quality goods at the lower prices will further the system (see my post above for the implications of that in a fiat currency system), in the sense that companies able to produce your chosen product will continue to exist.If you can grow your own food, good for you. If it makes more sense, in terms of monetary efficiency, to buy food from a local farmer, do that. Buying a product of low quality or high price out of protest simply protests justice. You are literally campaigning for lower quality and higher prices. Government subsidies aside (again, see my first post), you're protesting capitalism.
As for "sticking it to the man", my point was its not a good investment to have dollars currently, rather, to buy products - that is to say, 10,000$ spent in 2009 may be greater than 10,000$ spent in 2014. Spending money on high-quality products (even artificially low-price products) now is the smart decision. Not "sticking it to the man"... Just getting the best spending power out of my credits. Like I said before, its more practical and more Austrian than the socialist remedy of boycott. Boycott is pointless with free-entry. Like organic food? Pay slightly more. Like private bathrooms? Pay slightly more. If a bus company forced African-Americans to the back of the bus, a competing African-American-friendly bus company would be in on some great business. It's only in the face of government intervention (ie: forcing a single bus company), that something like boycott becomes necessary.
Best is marginal. If a legal or ethical means by which something was aquired is a necessary precondition people have to making a purchase, the best product will be the one that wasn't acquired through theft. Supporting theft has undesireable implications, like the lack of future products, since the theif distributing stolen products doesn't actually produce anything, and the producer who was robbed has taken a loss that may cause him to be unable to continue operating.
Such a company would be in a good position to hire private security, would they not? The leakage into the market is their own fault - a byproduct of public exposure. But you make a good point: the theif will never be as good a supplier as the producer. It also benifits the customer to buy from the supplier, as they can recieve updates and support for example. So the theif is not really a threat, thus, buying stolen goods is not something consumers need to concern themselves with.
Seandon Mooy:The question was not whether we should buy from "corporations", but if we should buy lower quality goods out of protest.
Then that was a strawman, because no one ever mentioned buying lesser quality goods.
Seandon Mooy:In my view of libertarianism, boycotts make no sense.
In a free market, I would agree. We are not in a free market.
Seandon Mooy:You are literally campaigning for lower quality and higher prices.
Again, a strawman.
Seandon Mooy:Government subsidies aside (again, see my first post), you're protesting capitalism.
On the contrary, I am encouraging entrepreneurship.
Seandon Mooy:As for "sticking it to the man", my point was its not a good investment to have dollars currently, rather, to buy products - that is to say, 10,000$ spent in 2009 may be greater than 10,000$ spent in 2014.
No one proposed holding cash. You should read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's most recent Mises Daily Article on why we hold cash. Yes inflation is a concern, but certain uncertainty trumps uncertain inflation.
Seandon Mooy:It's only in the face of government intervention (ie: forcing a single bus company), that something like boycott becomes necessary.
Which was precisely the whole point. I don't think you are familiar with Max Keiser's projects, which was what I was directly referring to in the original thread. Next time, a clarification might be in order before going off on a tangent. I'm one of the last people on this forum who could be labeled anti-capitalistic, in ideal or outcome, so when my posts infer anti-capitalism, that's the first sign of a misunderstanding, or that I am completely nuts (which shouldn't be ruled out by any means).
The key thing to remember is a product's value is subjectively determined, and so if a consumer views a product so negatively it may indeed be from their perspective be inferior, even if otherwise deemed superior (e.g. cheaper.)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Seandon Mooy:The leakage into the market is their own fault - a byproduct of public exposure.
It's not a victims fault that a criminal does them wrong.
Seandon Mooy:By this I mean, living beyond your means does fuel their continued existence. Not having the credit to pay back the creditors is exactly the situation credit was designed to implement: slavery.
incurring a debt , even a sizable longterm one (like a mortgage say), does not make a libertarian a hypocrit per say. I dont know where you get this.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring