I've just been doing a little bit of thinking lately. I am not a professional economist, so, I can't really go in depth with talking about the way the economy is. I can only do theoretical stuff, and talk about what I see.
The first big problem with economists is that everyone is so dogmatic. Rothbard, Hayek, Krugman, Keynes, and all of these other economists nowadays seem to suffer from the study of economics as a religion. People like to look at their opinions. They treat their opinions as facts and often times when people cling to their opinions they'll say anything- even BS that doesn't even exist in reality. They'll make stuff up, and, well honestly that's what a lot of people on the left, the right, and even people who are libertarians tend to do. I'll give you some ideas.
Liberals always seem to think that their government spending programs always work. They look at Europe and they look at how other countries have a lot of welfare spending, and, how they have socialized medicine. They think that they know best and that Europe has a better standard of living than we do so they think we should imitate their standards. But of course as we know- too much welfare can lead to people becoming too dependent on the state, and, in France in particular- that's pretty much the extreme of the situation, and, a lot of people are unemployed there because of their policies.
The economic stimulus hasn't helped the unemployed and the impoverished. All it's done has helped the financial elite. What liberals do, is, that they claim that regulation would be better than a completely unregulated market- and they always point to the great depression and how the new deal "rescued the economy from collapse" (we all know the real story- the fed caused it). Liberals don't realize there is a right place for their policies and there is a wrong place for them. It's not wrong for employers to provide all the things necessary for people to live... but big housing programs, and publics works projects may not work because they don't stimulate the economy around themselves- they only stimulate that area of the economy, and, those programs can even cause bubbles later on.
Conservatives are dogmatic in the sense because they always believe the market will work itself out. When not properly kept in check- corporations can become predators and pollute as they will, get themselves involved in wars, abet terrorist groups, and do a lot of things. It's much easier to keep corporations in check now than it was before- before the only tool that they had against corporations was regulations from the government, but now because of the internet if a corporation does something bad we'll all know about it and its reputation will be ruined.
They are dogmatic- because they are misguided. They take the idea of a 19th century ideology- but they fail to realize the changing times. They fail to realize that we don't live in a laissez-fair utopia. We live in an economy where a lot of corporations and small businesses are helped being propped up by the state. We live in an economy where the government relies on corporations to assist them in their military adventures. We live in a country where the government is in bed with corporate executives, and, while it is true the government passed the financial reform act- that still doesn't change the fact that the government still relies a lot on corporations for financial support (for politicians), and political support. The influence of these private tyrannies run deep, and, conservatives who believe this 19th century ideology fail to see this.
Now again- there are those conservatives that recognize that times have changed. They have shaped the 19th century laissez fair ideology to be supply side economics. Supply side economists believed that if you gave more money to corporations that they would produce more. It sounds simple. Right? Well corporations certainly got a boom- but it came at the expense of the middle class (http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20592). These people are corporate shills- and while Democrats tend to say that they support the middle class- they seem to indirectly also be supporting Reaganomics.
Libertarian economists like Rothbard, and Ludwig Von Mises are right in the sense that government influence has gotten too big. But many libertarians cling to this ideology- and they fail to see all the influence that the market has on everyone else. They don't see how much influence corporations have on our monetary policy, and, how they can control it. They don't see how much power that interest groups actually have, and, how closely in bed they are with the state. I believe that when a lot of these economists talk about privileges- they have in mind the common people.
But, corporations feel that they are entitled to things as well. The FCC- for example is a privately owned broadcasting government group, for corporations. It may have not started out that way- and may have started out to ensure fair competition, but, the FCC made the rules of the game so that you could only have a TV station if you were authorized to by a regular TV company (just look at their rules). They've given the people in the industry a monopoly over television. This is why they form interest groups! The government gives them what they want, and, the corporations take it. The governments grant them monopolies, they grant them all legal powers, and, all kinds of rights we don't have. So, the point is not that government regulation has gotten too large- but that we need to find out what kind of laws we need to best serve our interests, to serve free trade, capitalism, and, well ending the culture of interest would be very anti-Democratic in the government- but at least we should make it more transparent. But recognizing that government intervention doesn't work is only half the problem.
The point is that economists tend to become propagandists when they cling to their opinions, and, they should try to just see what's really going on. An economist is supposed to tell what's going on, not, fantasize what's going on.
The second biggest problem with economists is that they only seem to talk about statistics relating to the national economy. They point towards the 9 percent unemployment rating and talk about consumer confidence as if that were the only measure that they have to measure how the economy. People don't realize that economics is more regional than nation wide.
I am not an economist- but I am able to recognize that countries have different regions. Different regions have different needs than other regions. What economists need to do is to look at these various regions and figure out what is wrong with them. It's like the whole economic discussion is getting everyone to spend again- but they're missing the whole point. How the heck are we going to spend if we have a terrible infrastructure problem, and, we don't have businesses that can create jobs? The government can't just artificially prop up jobs. They would just be temporary. The different regions of the country and the people of the various states have to actually make the best of their situation.
How are we supposed to have a discussion about the economy without looking at various state's economic problems? It's as if this is missing from the whole discussion of the economy. Yes, we know that states are deep in debt- but how are communities going to know how to fix it if they don't know about what the other states are like, and what businesses are doing poorly or not poorly?
It's a bit messed up... I don't know why this discussion isn't there. Anyhow, what do you think?
But many libertarians cling to this ideology- and they fail to see all the influence that the market has on everyone else. They don't see how much influence corporations have on our monetary policy, and, how they can control it. They don't see how much power that interest groups actually have, and, how closely in bed they are with the state. I believe that when a lot of these economists talk about privileges- they have in mind the common people.
It sure as hell wasn't a fault of Rothbard... nor is it a fault of the "market" that private agents attempt to capture the state.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
"But many libertarians cling to this ideology- and they fail to see all the influence that the market has on everyone else. They don't see how much influence corporations have on our monetary policy, and, how they can control it. They don't see how much power that interest groups actually have, and, how closely in bed they are with the state."
Corporations are not the same as the market. Corporations are part of the market, but are not the market itself. The market is a process.
On the contrary, I would argue that many libertarians see the current situation of corporation and state colluded and can readily identify it, not only by the mere act of collusion, but by name: fascism.
Jon Irenicus- if it's not the fault of the market than those fault is it? It seems as if corporations have been going in bed with the government since the beginning of time almost. In Great Britain corporations used to even serve governmental functions.
iennaSausage- Okay, that's a good thing that they can readily identify it. I suppose I can take back what I said about libertarians. But what do they propose for the solution to be?
I guess the only remaining problems that I have left with libertarians is how lots of them seem to only recognize property rights, and not natural rights, or other kinds of freedom. How can we have freedom if the only rights people have are property rights?
SX: "If it's not the fault of the market than those fault is it? It seems as if corporations have been going in bed with the government since the beginning of time almost."
I think you picked out the culprit in the very statement: collusion between corporation and state. By virtue of that collusion the power of the state.
SX: "I guess the only remaining problems that I have left with libertarians is how lots of them seem to only recognize property rights, and not natural rights, or other kinds of freedom. How can we have freedom if the only rights people have are property rights?"
Would you mind defining what you mean by natural rights?
if it's not the fault of the market than those fault is it?
I think we agree more with each other than your OP seems to imply, it's just a matter of semantics: When we say "the market", we mean the free market without corporatism. For us, corporatism = "the state". For you, corporatism = "the market". (I hope I don't misinterpret you.)
Whatever you call it, we can agree that anyone seeking to loot others via the state is a criminal. The solution? Abolish the state.
What you're saying is familiar to all systems of thought.
Once you completely accept the premises of a system, you tend to rationalize contradictions or counterfactuals that disagree with your system.
Hence Krugman and the 'it wasn't a big enough bailout' excuse.
It's not that his system doesn't work -- it always works and when it doesn't, something else must have been the problem. Scape goat time.
Consultant: "How can we have true freedom? Well, by respecting the libertarian negative rights (to life, liberty, property) and realizing positive rights (health care, food, ...) can not exists without infringing upon negative rights. (If you want to give somebody a food subsidy, you need to tax (= violate property) someone else." (emphasis mine)
Somewhat tangential, are there other terms for negative and positive rights?
ViennaSausage, no other terms come immediately to my mind, sorry.
It's important to make the distinction between positive/negative rights and positive/negative freedom though.
Positive freedom is the idea that individuals need some kind of self-control to handle their negative rights. This self-control comes from education, morals in society, ...
For statist conservatives, the need for positive freedom validates legislating morality. Many classical liberals have a libertine personal ethic and will deny the need for positive freedom ("men are inherently good!"). Ancaps who are socially-conservative (such as myself) will acknowledge the need for positive freedom, but realize this need for group selection will translate into emerging voluntary social institutions in ancapistan.
Actually, I believe the state coercion of one type of morality results in making reactionary moral convictions stronger. Revolutions can only be stopped by allowing evolution.
Consultant
Consultant replied on 08-18-2010 8:48 PM if it's not the fault of the market than those fault is it? I think we agree more with each other than your OP seems to imply, it's just a matter of semantics: When we say "the market", we mean the free market without corporatism. For us, corporatism = "the state". For you, corporatism = "the market". (I hope I don't misinterpret you.) Whatever you call it, we can agree that anyone seeking to loot others via the state is a criminal. The solution? Abolish the state.
I don't think it's as black and white as libertarians make it out to be. I'll agree that there is a lot of corruption on the state level. The state gives handouts and corporate welfare to the various corporations. They let them lobby to the government for various special favors. But on the other level- the state also has historically tended to not try various corporate entities for crimes that they have done. So I see it as a two-sided issue. I would like courts to try the corporations for things they have done- rather than let them get away with anything with limited liability. I agree also that the state gives corporations many legal statuses that I don't like. I would say that I don't want. The solution is for the people to hold the corporations accountable.
I guess the only remaining problems that I have left with libertarians is how lots of them seem to only recognize property rights, and not natural rights, or other kinds of freedom. How can we have freedom if the only rights people have are property rights? All rights are indeed property rights, but our body and labor are also our property. So again semantics, if we say "rights = property" don't think we exclude your self-ownership. So we think you own your body (life), which implies you can do what you want with it (liberty) and keep the fruits of your labor (property).
Okay, but what about abusing other people with your property? We have a right to treat other people the way we want to. But just because something is our property does that mean we can abuse them? Does it mean we can abuse our wife? No... I say that while we can't physically harm people- I would agree with John Stewart Mill that we don't have a right to abuse others. I think many libertarians forget about this...
How can we have true freedom? Well, by respecting the libertarian negative rights (to life, liberty, property) and realizing positive rights (health care, food, ...) can not exists without infringing upon negative rights. (If you want to give somebody a food subsidy, you need to tax (= violate property) someone else.
I think true freedom is essentially being able to do what you want to do without forcing other people to do something they don't want if they're in a particular situation. True freedom also entails having the right to live and be able to get all the things that you need to live. You have a right to obtain the means to health care, food, and all those other things- but you aren't necessarily entitled to those rights.
In your OP you also talk about economists using too much statistics. This is true but we don't do that. We study the logic of human action, called praxeology. You can use this as a search term to find out more.
I read a bit of Human Action (the Mises book) so I know a bit about it. I agree with it on principle- but I think that there has to be some balance. I don't think that we can just reject statistics altogether, but, we should have a balance. I don't quite know what that is but I think the correct economics is somewhere between austrian economics and mainstream economics.
MrSchnapps
replied on 08-18-2010 9:07 PM What you're saying is familiar to all systems of thought. Once you completely accept the premises of a system, you tend to rationalize contradictions or counterfactuals that disagree with your system.
Can you elaborate on that?
Hence Krugman and the 'it wasn't a big enough bailout' excuse. It's not that his system doesn't work -- it always works and when it doesn't, something else must have been the problem. Scape goat time.
I see what you're saying. I think that everyone does this. But I think simple statements like "government intervention works" or "government intervention never works" miss the point because usually I don't think they're intended to rescue the whole economy. That's only after the initial government intervention. The initial intervention is usually intended to rescue the corporate oligarchs... saying whether it works or it doesn't work misses the point IMO.
No... I say that while we can't physically harm people- I would agree with John Stewart Mill that we don't have a right to abuse others. I think many libertarians forget about this...
I don't know what sort of libertarians you are hanging around with, or getting your information from. I think I can speak for the majority, if not all libertarians on this board (correct me if I am wrong), that libertarians hold the NAP, non-aggression principle, near and dear to libertarianism. The NAP is to libertarianism what the Action Axiom is to Austrian Economics. The NAP is what libertarianism is built off of. Hence one cannot initiate force or physical abuse towards others, and implied in this, wives.
I would say it's simply a matter of freedom vs rights. A right is necessarily positive: a right for one party requires a positive obligation from another party. You could twist the definition and say, "Well, you have a positive obligation not to violate my right to speak my mind," but this gets to be rather silly and even counterproductive. A freedom, meanwhile, is all that which is not prohibited. You are free to speak your mind and engage in commerce; you do not have a right to these activities.
As Anthony de Jasay explains it:
Every feasible act is deemed to be free unless a sufficient reason speaks against it. Justice has the main, if not the sole, say in deciding what are sufficient reasons. In this role, it is guided by conventions. Freedoms under this conception are a residual; they are what remains of the feasible set after unfreedoms have been identified as such by confronting them with the rules of justice and ‘‘blotted out’’ as inadmissible. Not all infringements of freedoms are ipso facto unjust; some, indeed perhaps the most, are really externalities reflecting facts of life. Because not all exercises of freedoms by different persons are perfectly compatible, some externalities are, so to speak, nobody’s fault, and calls for their elimination are not calls of justice but of civility, mutual convenience, or norms of good taste. Conversely, infringements of freedoms by acts that are wrongful are unjust, not because they infringe a freedom, but because they violate some strong convention, most likely one against some tort. It is not that we have a ‘‘right’’ to freedom; it is that they (and we) have no ‘‘right’’ to commit wrong acts.
OP: It sounds like you're mostly venting and, in the process, painting all those with views similar to those of your target(s) with the same brush. It's certainly true that there are libertarians out there who ignore the complexity of certain issues, and may applaud modern business without realizing or addressing the state's involvement in the economy. The more mired one is in ideology, the more blind spots obstruct their view. But it's certainly not true of all, particularly around these forums. (not that everyone here is completely immune to ideological blinders)
And be wary of insisting on moderation and striking "a balance." Moderation/balance is a good policy for much of life, but it's all too easy to treat it as its own dogma. Maintaining a balance is often wise, but it is not the definition of wisdom.
I really hate to bring out the "Post Count" forum cliche, but you've racked up over 400 posts in your stay here, and you're unaware of the Non-Aggression Principle?
The solution is for the people to hold the corporations accountable.
And what sort of accountability do you have in mind? I can think of several that people can do without any coercion whatsoever: Boycotts, informing others, being a downright jerk and utilizing Libel/slander, etc.
However, by the rest of your statement, I honestly doubt that's what you were thinking about.
By your own admission, you have a rather foggy understanding of AE. Why do you insist the "need" for "balance" when you don't even understand what you intend to balance?!
And what "point" is this?
ViennaSausage
The reason why I ask about this is that there is a dangerous attitude in our legal system and many people around the country also believe this- that your personal liberties are trumped by property rights. Therefore it does not matter that you are living in someone else's home, the constitution does not apply there, and they can make the rules as strict as the Soviet Union. What do libertarians say about this?
Marked
I know what the NAE principle is. I was just wondering about the legal theme that seems to be common today- that legal property rights trump your constitutional liberties. I've found out about this view by reading free speech cases and finding out that people would more want to protect the property of an individual from someone else's speech- despite the fact that free speech is viewed with high regard in our society. If property owners can deprive people of their right to free speech what other rights can they deprive them of?
And what sort of accountability do you have in mind? I can think of several that people can do without any coercion whatsoever: Boycotts, informing others, being a downright jerk and utilizing Libel/slander, etc. However, by the rest of your statement, I honestly doubt that's what you were thinking about.
That's kind of what I had in mind. But also just there needs to be more of a general education about what these corporations do in general. So, it 's not that different really.
I've read literature from AE before. Isn't AE mostly rational logic axioms? It uses the boom and bust cycle theory to tell when the fed created a business cycle, and, when it was artificially expanded, and what not. The government economic intervention messes up the normal and rational processes of the market. People are rational beings for the most part and they do things because of specific purposes? Isn't that what AE is?
That the economic "rescue plans" aren't intended to rescue the whole economy. . It's like the one in 2008. It was only supposed to rescue the big banks. But it was given the window dressing and support from the media to make it seem like it was for the whole economy. Remember how they shifted the talk from rescuing the too big to fail companies to the economic stimulus? The stimulus was only supposed to give pepole tax breaks... the hope is once the businesses and the corporations recovered, then, people would start working again. That's why I say what I say.
That's how it's always worked in America. You have the right to say whatever you want on "Public" property(Supposedly), but elsewhere? You'd best watch your tongue. It's like how I can't just come over to your house right now and deliver a sermon on private property rights.
Okay.
The first big problem with economists is that everyone is so dogmatic. Rothbard, Hayek, Krugman, Keynes, and all of these other economists nowadays seem to suffer from the study of economics as a religion
It's funny, you mention four economists at least two of whom have been motivated entirely by ideological concerns and are well outside of the mainstream and conclude that all economists are dogmatic? Look, for all the talk of physics envy and a priorism, at least mainstream economists can say their models have been subjected to rigorous empirical testing and serious theoretical scrutiny. Austrians will go on and on about the costs of regulation and taxation but when the time comes to provide the empirics, there isn't much forthcoming. Thing is, you get Austrians and PKs who spent their careers on history of economic thought; meaning "what did Mises or Keynes, Hayek or Robinson, Rothbard or Kalecki really say?"
If anybody knows of any similar literature on what Debreu or Arrow really meant, please link me...
Marked I know what the NAE principle is. I was just wondering about the legal theme that seems to be common today- that legal property rights trump your constitutional liberties. I've found out about this view by reading free speech cases and finding out that people would more want to protect the property of an individual from someone else's speech- despite the fact that free speech is viewed with high regard in our society. If property owners can deprive people of their right to free speech what other rights can they deprive them of? That's how it's always worked in America. You have the right to say whatever you want on "Public" property(Supposedly), but elsewhere? You'd best watch your tongue. It's like how I can't just come over to your house right now and deliver a sermon on private property rights.
1/ It's funny, you mention four economists at least two of whom have been motivated entirely by ideological concerns and are well outside of the mainstream and conclude that all economists are dogmatic? Look, for all the talk of physics envy and a priorism, at least mainstream economists can say their models have been subjected to rigorous empirical testing and serious theoretical scrutiny. Austrians will go on and on about the costs of regulation and taxation but when the time comes to provide the empirics, there isn't much forthcoming. 2. Thing is, you get Austrians and PKs who spent their careers on history of economic thought; meaning "what did Mises or Keynes, Hayek or Robinson, Rothbard or Kalecki really say?"
1. That's why I say the right kind of economics is a balance between mainstream economics and austrian economics. Mainstream economists use too much statistics and they don't know much how to explain things- while austrians use too few statistics, and, it becomes a problem when proving things.
It uses statistical techniques for empirics, perhaps you could make a case for other approaches to empirical work, and if so I'd like to see such a case. But in terms of theory, economists are perfectly capable of "explaining things", using graphical techniques for exposition, language to flesh out the intuition and math to rigorously prove the results.
2. It does seem a little silly... but I guess it could be useful somewhere.
In terms of history of thought as a subfield in and of itself, it's absolutely useful. However, too much Austrian economics (and PK economics) gets bogged down fighting over what was said 50 years ago.
SilentXtarian
Apologies for the tardy reply.
We have to remember that we ourselves are property, and that we own ourselves. Or to speak more precise, an individual owns his or herself. Likewise, if another individual initiates infringement on ones personal liberties, that would be "illegal".
Our legal system is not necessarily a libertarian legal system, those it shares many aspects of what a libertarian minarchist legal system would be.
fascism is *not* corporate government. this comes from Mussolini's (ghost written) quote. He spoke of corporations as understood by Italians in the 1920s, meaning, more like stakeholders - not corporations as we might understand them today.
He spoke of corporations as understood by Italians in the 1920s, meaning, more like stakeholders - not corporations as we might understand them today.
The difference is...
Jon Irenicus- if it's not the fault of the market than those fault is it?
The two legged herd animals who tolerate it.
Yeah, Italian fascism derives from English guild socialism. A corporation is simply a group of owning/concerned parties, the modern usage is quite different. By the classical terms the US Federal Government is a 'corporation', that is a body that is corporate or incorporated.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
fascism from english guild socialism? How so? In the same way trades unions are, say?
Apparently the best academic definition of (the core) of fascism is "pallingentic populist ultranationalism" -- a phoenix-like rebirth of the nation. (Prof Roger Griffin) In such a sense, the close relationship between state and private sector has absolutely nothing to do with it, though such notions seem common on the internet, especially amongst americans (and conspiracists.)
[BTW Why do you have a crude anti-socialist Mussolini quote as a tagline?]
You pay too much attention to labels and not enough to substance. For example, Hitler was socialist because the State directly regulated industry to the point where it was the de facto owners. Any other definition of 'socialism' is rather irrelevant for political economy.
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec4.asp
By the classical terms the US Federal Government is a 'corporation', that is a body that is corporate or incorporated.
What is that supposed to mean? The USFG is a corporation by any terms.
SilentXtarian: I read a bit of Human Action (the Mises book) so I know a bit about it. I agree with it on principle- but I think that there has to be some balance. I don't think that we can just reject statistics altogether, but, we should have a balance. I don't quite know what that is but I think the correct economics is somewhere between austrian economics and mainstream economics. Michael J Green: And be wary of insisting on moderation and striking "a balance." Moderation/balance is a good policy for much of life, but it's all too easy to treat it as its own dogma. Maintaining a balance is often wise, but it is not the definition of wisdom. Marked: By your own admission, you have a rather foggy understanding of AE. Why do you insist the "need" for "balance" when you don't even understand what you intend to balance?!
Michael J Green: And be wary of insisting on moderation and striking "a balance." Moderation/balance is a good policy for much of life, but it's all too easy to treat it as its own dogma. Maintaining a balance is often wise, but it is not the definition of wisdom.
Marked: By your own admission, you have a rather foggy understanding of AE. Why do you insist the "need" for "balance" when you don't even understand what you intend to balance?!
SilentXtarian: I say the right kind of economics is a balance between mainstream economics and austrian economics. Mainstream economists use too much statistics and they don't know much how to explain things- while austrians use too few statistics, and, it becomes a problem when proving things.
I say the right kind of economics is a balance between mainstream economics and austrian economics. Mainstream economists use too much statistics and they don't know much how to explain things- while austrians use too few statistics, and, it becomes a problem when proving things.
Argument to Moderation
SilentXtarian: So in other words- you're not really for freedom. You only believe in the first amendment when it comes to public spaces, and, you would be fine if the government barred the first amendment from private property? So then- in a libertarian or an anarchist society- you would find it a violation of property rights if the government enacted free speech laws? If I'm getting this right- if we had a libertarian society- would you rather free speech not to exist?
So in other words- you're not really for freedom. You only believe in the first amendment when it comes to public spaces, and, you would be fine if the government barred the first amendment from private property? So then- in a libertarian or an anarchist society- you would find it a violation of property rights if the government enacted free speech laws? If I'm getting this right- if we had a libertarian society- would you rather free speech not to exist?
Does an owner of a piece of land not have the right to regulate who else can come onto that land? Of course any reason for a regulation would be purely arbitrary, but that is true for any kind of regulation of anything, whether your own property or that owned by someone else. This is what property is...something a person has claim to control or regulate. You control who drives your car. You control who lives in your house. You control who gets what food from your fridge or pantry. You control what you trade for other things. You control your own body.
So if an owner of a section of land finds someone on his land (whether invited or not) speaking things he does not want spoken, does the owner not have the right to regulate his property and impose conditions that person must agree to in order to remain on this property, such as not speaking of things the owner finds objectionable? Of course the owner of a piece of land can say whatever they wish on their own land, but is also regulated when on someone else's land. Currently, the first amendment seems to be intended to at least allow "free speech" on government property (although we know the government does in fact restrict such speech on it's property).
So of course free speech would exist in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society. You can speak freely on your own property, and on the property of others as long as they allow others the right to free speech. For a government to allow anyone to say anything on anyone's property is to restrict the property owner's ability to regulate their own property, hence a violation of their "rights".
EDIT (in continuation of the above):
The enactment of a "free speech" law is in effect the partial socialization of land. Partial control/regulation is removed from private owners of land and transfered to the government. Any land owner attempting to reassert their full ownership of their land and regulating speech on it does so at the risk of the government initiating violence against them.
People that believe everyone should be able to speak what they wish on anyone's property always (assuming a free market) have the option to attempt to purchase the right to speech regulation from land owners and then allow anyone to come onto that land to speak what they wish. I would speculate that most land owners that sell you this right will not sell you absolute speech control over their land, but only speech control of some part of the population that does not include themselves (or their family and friends).