Some Evidence Please

[FireShield]

This is similar to a thread I made earlier, only for a slightly different purpose.  While the anarchist position remains more logical to me than anything else, both conservatives and liberals claim that their economic policies are better for the economy, and both make historical arguments to back that up.  But I have yet to see any specific evidence to back up either side.

 

I made a thread on The Young Turks forums asking people to provide me with evidence in support of government intervention in the economy and evidence in support of global warming/climate change, and now I'm asking the same thing here.  Can anyone provide me with links to websites showing evidence that less/no government intervention in the economy is better for the economy, and evidence against global warming/climate change?

 

Edit: Oh, and facts on the effects of gun control too.

[Mister Mister]

what would it mean for an action to be "good for the economy"?  I think my position would be that such a thing does not exist.  Currently it is defined by several indicators, namely GDP, which is really just a measure of dollars changing hands, including government spending (most of which is military spending, destroying lives and property, but hey, it's good for the economy).  Of course this serves the government, as the more dollars that change hands, the more taxable income there is.  For example, when women entered the workforce in large numbers, they had to hire people to do the work previously done in the home by women, laundry, childcare, etc.  So now not only are they working and providing taxable income, but they have created a new job which is also taxable.  But many economists will see this as simply a rise in GDP and therefore "good for the economy".  Though in reality it is probably not good for the people involved, especially the children.If people in large numbers stop watching TV, ride bicycles rather than drive, plant gardens, stop smoking and drinking, live in smaller houses, exercise more personal and family time, this would be result in a huge drop in GDP and might be considered "bad for the economy".  But maybe these are good choices for the people involved.  Peoples' lives are complex, they make choices for all kinds of reasons, and it is the height of arrogance for central planners to think they know what is best for millions of people.This has to do with what Stefan calls as Arguing from Effects or Utilitarianism vs. Arguing from Principles or Universal Morality.  We oppose government intervention in the economy because it involves force, in the form of selective enforcement of laws (arbitrary words written on paper) or the allocation of money acquired through theft, either directly through taxation, or indirectly through debt or inflation.  If we were to argue about which policy or philosophy creates better effects, we could argue all day, citing endless statistics.  Utilitarianism supposes that in order to know what is the right thing to do, you have to be an expert economist who can predict all the effects of your actions and calculate cost/benefits.  Whereas voluntaryists believe that the moral principles taught to little children "don't hit, don't steal" should apply universally.

[FireShield]

what would it mean for an action to be "good for the economy"?  I think my position would be that such a thing does not exist.  Currently it is defined by several indicators, namely GDP, which is really just a measure of dollars changing hands, including government spending (most of which is military spending, destroying lives and property, but hey, it's good for the economy).  Of course this serves the government, as the more dollars that change hands, the more taxable income there is.  For example, when women entered the workforce in large numbers, they had to hire people to do the work previously done in the home by women, laundry, childcare, etc.  So now not only are they working and providing taxable income, but they have created a new job which is also taxable.  But many economists will see this as simply a rise in GDP and therefore "good for the economy".  Though in reality it is probably not good for the people involved, especially the children.If people in large numbers stop watching TV, ride bicycles rather than drive, plant gardens, stop smoking and drinking, live in smaller houses, exercise more personal and family time, this would be result in a huge drop in GDP and might be considered "bad for the economy".  But maybe these are good choices for the people involved.  Peoples' lives are complex, they make choices for all kinds of reasons, and it is the height of arrogance for central planners to think they know what is best for millions of people.This has to do with what Stefan calls as Arguing from Effects or Utilitarianism vs. Arguing from Principles or Universal Morality.  We oppose government intervention in the economy because it involves force, in the form of selective enforcement of laws (arbitrary words written on paper) or the allocation of money acquired through theft, either directly through taxation, or indirectly through debt or inflation.  If we were to argue about which policy or philosophy creates better effects, we could argue all day, citing endless statistics.  Utilitarianism supposes that in order to know what is the right thing to do, you have to be an expert economist who can predict all the effects of your actions and calculate cost/benefits.  Whereas voluntaryists believe that the moral principles taught to little children "don't hit, don't steal" should apply universally.

 

Yes I know.  However, whenever I debate people, they all already get the argument from morality, but they say that sure, anarchist ideas sound good in theory, but would never work in the real world.  They want evidence to show that they do work.  It's easy to come up with evidence against social conservatism, but I've never found any evidence for or against economic liberalism.  I try using the argument from morality, but they're more concerned about the practical aspects, so the argument from effect is needed, but I don't have any evidence to use to support my position.

[TheRobin]

idk, ask them if they could possibly think of any are in their life where they'd rather have someone be able to force them against their will to do what he wants without being responsible or liable for the outcome and without the possibility of firing that person or even stop "paying" them. I mean, generellay there's no "proof" for hypothetical futures and people who don't want to accept that violence is wrong are even less likely to accept any argument from effect, because it's just as easy to say "well, that's not "realistic"" (whatever "realistic" might even mean to them).

 

But also, generally, if people think there's no link between a prinicple or theory for action and action itself, then I don't know what one would use as an argument, since they can always just ignore anything anyway, since there's no solid basis from which they work from.On the other hand to most easy examples where more freedom leads to cheaper and better stuff, is the technology market (computers, phones, internet), and compare that to a heavily regulated and government controlled market like finance or money.

[Pepin]

There is a lot of economic material at mises.org that will be helpful. Rothbard's Man Economy and State is seen by many to be one of the best books on economics by the Austrian school of thought. Personally I don't find historical arguments to be very helpful because it is always the case that there will be polar perspectives depending on the argument a person wants to convey, and it is far too easy to dismiss any side as "biased". Despite this, there are a lot of history books with lots of evidence in regards to libertarianism, I'd recommend anything by Tom Woods. 

 

As far as climate change and evidence, it isn't a subject that I can bring myself to care about. Provided that it is true, there really isn't anything I can do. The idea that any government is capable of solving such an issue when they are the worse polluter by incredible stretch is irrational. The idea that I can have any influence on it with my everyday actions is irrational. It is completely outside my sphere of influence. Is it like the 

[FireShield]

I guess I just will use moral arguments.  An easy way to win would be: "Well okay, if the policies you're advocating are better for everyone, then clearly we don't need a government to enforce them."

[ribuck]

Can anyone provide me with links to websites showing evidence that less/no government intervention in the economy is better for the economy

 

It's not "a link to a website", but there are some very good side-by-side experiments showing that the less-governed country ends up with the stronger economy every time:

• West Germany vs East Germany
• Hong Kong vs China
• Taiwan vs China
• South Korea vs North Korea
• Chile vs Venezuela

etc.

[Mister Mister]

yes I think it depends on the specific policy.  I have found that explaining national debt and inflation in common sense language helps to show how much wealth governments are sucking out of society, and also explodes the myth of democracy, because the money being promised to win elections in the short term comes at the expense of the future.  of course this argument works for young people who are generally frustrated and more open to new ideas, not so much older people who expect government money or are just emotionally invested in a particular political party.

[FireShield]

I'm debating someone right now, over private messages on YouTube.  Can anyone provide me with some specific evidence for how society is better off when there's less government?