J Vine Discusses Corbynomics With The Advisor

[wonderpup]

Don't get me wrong - I understand and even enjoy the well rehearsed logic, but I just can't go along with the 'Socialism'meme (is it just hpc thing ?).

I mean if you take it literally its all a bit of ridiculous cognitive dissonance at best. "The problem is with... Socialism, don't you worry your pretty little head about Capitalism, just feck off and whip yourself into a frenzy about immigration instead".

Not simply to do with greed ? No. Not simply to do with self-preservation ? No. Not simply to do with gullibility about 'free' markets ? No. Not simply to do with how we 'regulate' the system ? No. No. especially NO ! Thats socialism ! Thats the problem !!

A democratic capitalist state is meant to have the inbuilt ingenuity to interrogate, debate, come up with ingenious solutions to make things better. And better again. What the hell has happened since 2008 ?

Instead, at least on here and out of fear, the (mental) Capitalista State steps in, and in its command economy, assigns blame resources onto 'socialism' and 'immigrants'. I mean on one level its genius, on another its just helps corrode capitalism/demcocracy's peerless ability to renew itself resulting in a doomed prolonging of criminal incompetence.

The logic isn't well rehearsed- it's just logical. If people who call themselves 'Capitalists' spend their waking hours in breathless anticipation of what the Fed or the BoE or the ECB may or may not do then they are Socialists- they recognize and endorse the fact that their world is being controlled and manipulated by state employees.

If you doubt this in any way pause to imagine the sheer terror on the faces of the 'free market' ideologues if the worlds Central Banks announced tomorrow morning that they would from now on cease any interference in that market- so no more QE, no more setting of interest rates- nothing. There would be howls of protest and outraged demands that this not be 'allowed' to happen.

I guarantee you that the moment this was announced the self styled champions of the Free Market would be sh*tting their pants and running for the exits. For all their fine rhetoric about letting the market operate without interference if this were ever actually proposed they would be absolutely terrified.

They are Socialists to man and their belief in the necessity of state control over their lives is a deep and unshakeable conviction. They cannot even imagine a world without Central Bankers in control of their so called 'free market'- and they don't want to imagine it- the idea actually frightens them.

I doubt you could find a single person in the City or Wall street who is not a committed socialist when it comes to the need for the Central Banks to control their lives.

Edited September 25, 2015 by wonderpup

[pig]

The logic isn't well rehearsed- it's just logical. If people who call themselves 'Capitalists' spend their waking hours in breathless anticipation of what the Fed or the BoE or the ECB may or may not do then they are Socialists- they recognize and endorse the fact that their world is being controlled and manipulated by state employees.

If you doubt this in any way pause to imagine the sheer terror on the faces of the 'free market' ideologues if the worlds Central Banks announced tomorrow morning that they would from now on cease any interference in that market- so no more QE, no more setting of interest rates- nothing. There would be howls of protest and outraged demands that this not be 'allowed' to happen.

I guarantee you that the moment this was announced the self styled champions of the Free Market would be sh*tting their pants and running for the exits. For all their fine rhetoric about letting the market operate without interference if this were ever actually proposed they would be absolutely terrified.

They are Socialists to man and their belief in the necessity of state control over their lives is a deep and unshakeable conviction. They cannot even imagine a world without Central Bankers in control of their so called 'free market'- and they don't want to imagine it- the idea actually frightens them.

I doubt you could find a single person in the City or Wall street who is not a committed socialist when it comes to the need for the Central Banks to control their lives.

Of course - all logical fallacies are, well. logical. And fallacies. A tea-cup is not a doughnut even though they are topologically the same. The City, surprise surprise, is not a socialist enclave.

But I do enjoy its rhetorical value, as exemplified by your post. Indeed I've inflicted it on 'City socialists' myself !

To those numpties I may as well be a socialist. By your definition up until now I've been a capitalist. Now I certainly have serious doubts with what I believed to be true.

Firstly, I always believed that the strength of capitalism was that it harnessed the energy of these greedy selfish slippery buggers, indeed the selfish instinct for self-preservation in us all. I also get the rather human desire to rig the system in their favour, or the idea that they must be protected from harm - its almost meaningless if not outright misleading to paint this as 'socialist' and indeed flat out contradicts the idea that these very qualities are the resource that I understood capitalism to be based on in the first place.

Secondly - and I really don't know the answer to this one - would democracy survive the 'pure' capitalism we're discussing ? Especially with the advance of technology and exotic instruments is it looking inevitable that at some point the fallout from a 'capitalist' crisis would destroy the very infrastructure it needs (or at least we prefer!) to survive ?

edit: I should add - its not enough to dismiss this just because its in the interest of those naughty 'free marketeers' to have us to believe this...

Edited September 25, 2015 by pig

[Killer Bunny]

Capitalism is the greatest destroyer of poverty in world history and socialism its greatest creator, rivaling war.

Karpov

[campervanman]

Well thats ok then. You enjoy your capitalist housing and i'll enjoy my socialist housing.

[Killer Bunny]

Pathetic. That you suggest that what we have is capitalism. Just pathetic.

[wonderpup]

Of course - all logical fallacies are, well. logical. And fallacies. A tea-cup is not a doughnut even though they are topologically the same. The City, surprise surprise, is not a socialist enclave.

But I do enjoy its rhetorical value, as exemplified by your post. Indeed I've inflicted it on 'City socialists' myself !

To those numpties I may as well be a socialist. By your definition up until now I've been a capitalist. Now I certainly have serious doubts with what I believed to be true.

Firstly, I always believed that the strength of capitalism was that it harnessed the energy of these greedy selfish slippery buggers, indeed the selfish instinct for self-preservation in us all. I also get the rather human desire to rig the system in their favour, or the idea that they must be protected from harm - its almost meaningless if not outright misleading to paint this as 'socialist' and indeed flat out contradicts the idea that these very qualities are the resource that I understood capitalism to be based on in the first place.

Secondly - and I really don't know the answer to this one - would democracy survive the 'pure' capitalism we're discussing ? Especially with the advance of technology and exotic instruments is it looking inevitable that at some point the fallout from a 'capitalist' crisis would destroy the very infrastructure it needs (or at least we prefer!) to survive ?

edit: I should add - its not enough to dismiss this just because its in the interest of those naughty 'free marketeers' to have us to believe this...

If a Socialist is someone who believes that the institutions of the state should be brought to bear in order to artificially redistribute the nations wealth in favor of certain chosen groups then I see no inconsistency whatsoever in ascribing the term Socialist to a group who have the absolute conviction that their positions of wealth and influence should-indeed must- be bolstered and protected by the actions of Central Bankers.

The moment any fragility appears in the financial system that might represent the possibility of significant losses to this group they do not 'suggest' or even 'request' Central Bank action they demand it- such is the level of their conviction that the state owes them a living- and a good one.

On Wall street and in the City Socialism is the default mindset- what else is 'too big to fail' if not a Socialist paradigm that insists that the resources of the state be mobilized to ensure that wealth is distributed not according to market forces but to the diktats of political power?

If Socialism is the ascendance of politics over Capitalism then it's surely obvious that we today live in a Socialist system- because if the markets had been allowed their way many of those voices who currently can be heard in the media bleating for yet more state interference would have been swept away as their 'wealth' devolved into the worthless paper it actually is.

I think you are right that democracy and free market capitalism are probably impossible to combine in their pure forms- if only because in a true democracy the majority would act politically to break up the concentrations of capital that Capitalism requires as the source of it's energy. What we have had until recently was an awkward combination of quasi democracy- in which the wealthy retained enough influence to prevent their wealth being politically arbitraged away- and an equally bastardized free market where market forces were tempered by political action in the form of Unions, welfare and state regulation.

This clunky arrangement kind of worked until the whole thing blew up in 2008 and was replaced by the current regime that comprises of Socialism for the asset wealthy in which the state is now deployed not to act as an intermediary between capital and labour but as a means through which the wealthy can prevent the remnants of Capitalism from asserting itself and destroying their illusory net worth by marking to market their assets.

[sikejsudjek]

Arguments about socialism or capitalism are pointless these days. The definitions of the words can mean very different things to different people.

What is obvious is that we have a debt based money system that is unstable. How unstable no one really knows - but to keep it going we need around 3% growth per year. However we are on a finite planet with finite resources. At some point exponential growth will become impossible and we will end up with a collapse. At some point this system is heading into a brick wall.

Pure capitalism could be argued to be a form of social Darwinism. Indeed some of the cuts this Government has made have directly led to deaths of vulnerable people - my sister in law being one of them. If socialism simply means looking after the most vulnerable in society, then I'm in favour of it. If it means a state run command economy then I'm against it.

It is patently obvious that the years since the crash have seen socialism for the rich on a massive scale. We now have a cabal of bankers and politicians attempting to run society according to their vision of the future by stuffing all major parties with its shills. Its not one I share.

[wonderpup]

Capitalism is the greatest destroyer of poverty in world history and socialism its greatest creator, rivaling war.

Karpov

I agree that this is historically true- no other system has done more for more people than Capitalism. But the possibility exists that this effect was transitory rather than intrinsic, reflecting not some inherent virtue of the system but only a temporary state of that system. The ongoing debate on automation is in fact a debate on the long term viability of Capitalism itself.

A crude analogy of Capitalism might be found in the astronomical phenomena of binary stars where a centre of gravity is created by the opposing forces of two suns creating a stable orbital arrangement. We could call these two suns Capital and Labour. As long as these two forces exert a proportionally consistent influence on the system that system works- but should one of these forces begin to grow too strong or too weak relative to the other this stable system might fail leading to the destruction of both.

Perhaps the growing frequency of systemic shocks we see occurring in the current arrangements reflect the fact that the distribution of power between Capital and Labour is moving away from the previous state of equilibrium that allowed these arrangements to work in a benign way and instead we see the evolution of mutated forms of 'Capitalism' that no longer creates wealth for the many but only for the few?

[Killer Bunny]

I agree that this is historically true- no other system has done more for more people than Capitalism. But the possibility exists that this effect was transitory

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes there isn't enough evidence.

ROFL!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[wonderpup]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes there isn't enough evidence.

ROFL!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

There was a lot of evidence-spanning thousands of years- that for a human being to fly was impossible- until it wasn't. The view in the rear view mirror is not always a reliable guide to the road ahead. As someone in the investment game I would have thought that the notion that past performance is not a reliable guide to future outcomes would be self evident.

Don't you think it a bit inconsistent to advocate Capitalism for it's dynamism while at the same time apparently believing that it could never bring about radical change? In fact if we do wish to use past performance as a metric is it not the case that Capitalism has generated societal changes on a vast scale since it first appeared in a recognizable modern form at the time of the industrial revolution?- so what makes you so confident that this process has now come to an end?

It's not entirely rational to insist that a system that promotes constant change could never itself be subject to the very changes it brings about- automation being a good example. If as a result of 'creative destruction' millions of jobs are eliminated by technology leading to widespread social unrest and dislocation then it's entirely possible to argue that at this point Capitalism has at least the potential to become a liability rather than an asset to the well being of the human race.

So while the history of Capitalism shows it to be on the whole a positive force it would be simplistic to assume that this will remain true for ever- it's at least possible to imagine scenarios in which Capitalism in it's current form could lead to outcomes that would be so destructive that any element of the creative will be not worth the cost.

Edited September 27, 2015 by wonderpup

[zugzwang]

Pathetic. That you suggest that what we have is capitalism. Just pathetic.

What we have is a pathological variant of capitalism, the so-called 'free market'. Or Thatcherism, if you prefer.

It failed comprehensively (and entirely predictably) in 2008 and has been kept on life support ever since.

[Sour Mash]

What we have is a socialist style system for the establishment/elite - wealth is collected by the organs of state and redistributed to the few .. or another way of looking at it, the debts of the few have been shifted onto the masses. If you want a prima facie example of this, just look at the bailouts and NAMA in Ireland. Outright bailouts of not just the banks (including the crooks in Anglo Irish) but also the developers and builders.

For the majority of the population it's hard capitalism. Of course, some happen to have interests that benefit from measures designed to help the elite (i.e. people who borrowed to speculate on property) and have been coincidentally doing well from it. The mass media of course hails this as an example of 'success'.

The main difference with Corbyn's idea of money printing vs what has already been imposed is that the group of beneficiaries has a different footprint and he's quite open that it's simply printing money whereas the government and mass media like to hide money printing behind the smoke and mirrors of QE.

Of course the real problem is that people are simply stupid and/or lazy. All of this could be dealt with better if people took an interest in how the world works and set out to effect change in through the political process. As it is, most are blissfully ignorant and happy to gobble up the warm vomit spoonfed them by the mass media. Combined with a democratic system designed to hugely favour the established hierarchy, it's unlikely that we'll see real change any time soon, short of a really massive dislocation event.

[pig]

Pathetic. That you suggest that what we have is capitalism. Just pathetic.

We've never had 'democracy' either - whats your point ?

So we're all (mostly) ideological/pragmatic capitalists until theres a threat the foundations are going to be smashed- due to actions by said 'capitalists'. Then it gets a little complicated.

If the state steps in to 'protect' capitalism, then this is seen as,well, an act of 'statism'. Which is a bit like typical aspects of socialism. So is it a leap into 'socialism' ? Or is it just another functional 'tool' of 'capitalism' ?. Lets face it, the problem is that any Citizen Smiths left would be laughing themselves into a coronary.

The question seems to revolve around how 'capitalism' failed (in this instance I hasten to add!). Well its meant to fail every now and again and pick itself up - thats the whole point. Unless it kills itself though - no point crowing the virtues of Capitalism or the dangers of Socialism over a corpse.

However as has been pointed out above whether its 'capitalism' or 'socialism' who fecking cares ? Maybe I'm showing a bit of an anglo-american bias - but deep down I thought capitalisms ultimate victory lay in its destruction of 'abstract ideologies' in favour of 'what works'. Coming back to the 'democracy' question, what pisses people off is that perhaps what may have is a typically self-serving oligarchy.

Perhaps things weren't as bad as it was made out ? Perhaps we were all the human shield that allowed the bankster et al oligarchy (note, not socialist) to get away with daylight robbery ? Or perhaps that was/is the least of our worries.

Ultimately, if you can't tell whether its sarcastic 'socialists' accusing the financial system of 'socialism for the rich' or capitalist ideologues keen to defend 'Capitalism's virtue then maybe it has value as political rhetoric or scapegoating, but in practical terms the question seems a meaningless distraction.

Edited September 27, 2015 by pig

[PopGun]

Don't get me wrong - I understand and even enjoy the well rehearsed logic, but I just can't go along with the 'Socialism'meme (is it just hpc thing ?).

I mean if you take it literally its all a bit of ridiculous cognitive dissonance at best. "The problem is with... Socialism, don't you worry your pretty little head about Capitalism, just feck off and whip yourself into a frenzy about immigration instead".

Not simply to do with greed ? No. Not simply to do with self-preservation ? No. Not simply to do with gullibility about 'free' markets ? No. Not simply to do with how we 'regulate' the system ? No. No. especially NO ! Thats socialism ! Thats the problem !!

A democratic capitalist state is meant to have the inbuilt ingenuity to interrogate, debate, come up with ingenious solutions to make things better. And better again. What the hell has happened since 2008 ?

Instead, at least on here and out of fear, the (mental) Capitalista State steps in, and in its command economy, assigns blame resources onto 'socialism' and 'immigrants'. I mean on one level its genius, on another its just helps corrode capitalism/demcocracy's peerless ability to renew itself resulting in a doomed prolonging of criminal incompetence.

+1 socialism died circa 1979. It's amusing beyond parody that people still flog this dead horse in distraction to the outright theft of wealth.

Is it not beyond the wit of man that Corby challenging the corrupt and rotten status quo may spark something new, like a whole new way of thinking?!

Centre right neo liberalism died in 2008, yet they cling on with cold dead hands. Stating nasty socialism is the only alternative simply isn't cutting it anymore, and frankly never did.

[Killer Bunny]

What we have is a pathological variant of capitalism, the so-called 'free market'. Or Thatcherism, if you prefer.

It failed comprehensively (and entirely predictably) in 2008 and has been kept on life support ever since.

We DO NOT have Thatcherism. What a joke.

Her fave book was The Road To Serfdom. Cameron/Brown/Blair/Major's is what do I need to do to get elected?

[Kiwi Toast]

We DO NOT have Thatcherism. What a joke.

Her fave book was The Road To Serfdom. Cameron/Brown/Blair/Major's is what do I need to do to get elected?

I think it was Constitution of Liberty.

Keynes read the The Road to Serfdom and said to Hayek, OK so you don't was socialism, so tell me what you do want. Hayek set out to answer that in the Constitution of Liberty.

[Kiwi Toast]

What we have is a pathological variant of capitalism, the so-called 'free market'. Or Thatcherism, if you prefer.

It failed comprehensively (and entirely predictably) in 2008 and has been kept on life support ever since.

We have a mixed economy.

Proponents of free markets point out that we don't have free markets. They have good reasons to believe the absence of markets is the cause of problems (planners do not have enough information to plan and interventions lead to perverse incentives). The monetary planners failed, so perhaps we should try markets (they seemed to work quite well in 1920-21 etc.).

Proponents of some different kind of mixed economy often say we have free markets. This is of course not correct (one simply has to acknowledge the existence of central banks, but there are numerous other departures). Markets are not perfect, so it is perfectly reasonable to construct an argument that markets have had negative consequences. But to be taken seriously it is important to acknowledge the mixed economy and try to explain why you believe the crises are the results of markets rather than the interventions.

[wonderpup]

Proponents of free markets point out that we don't have free markets. They have good reasons to believe the absence of markets is the cause of problems (planners do not have enough information to plan and interventions lead to perverse incentives).

Most of the living proponents of free markets were to be seen screaming for state bailouts circa 2008, so it's safe to assume that despite their rhetoric they really do not want free markets, even if such a thing were possible.

The truth is that we all want rigged markets- the only real debate being in whose interest they should be rigged. Free markets are the billy no mates of economics- no one really likes the idea at all.

[zugzwang]

We DO NOT have Thatcherism. What a joke.

Her fave book was The Road To Serfdom. Cameron/Brown/Blair/Major's is what do I need to do to get elected?

It's common knowledge that Thatcher was turned by representatives of the Mont Pelerin Society in the mid-Seventies and that the Conservative Party largely followed her example, losing its heart and mind in the process. Milton Friedman and fellow free market evangelists at the University of Chicago performed a similar whispering campaign in the ears of US republicans. That much is incontestable. A more interesting question, what was the role played by the MPS and fellow travellers after 1947 in establishing the international network of offshore tax avoidance jurisdictions, the Eurodollar deposit markets and the wholly unregulated shadow banking system which collectively blew up the world in 2008?

[pig]

We have a mixed economy.

Proponents of free markets point out that we don't have free markets. They have good reasons to believe the absence of markets is the cause of problems (planners do not have enough information to plan and interventions lead to perverse incentives). The monetary planners failed, so perhaps we should try markets (they seemed to work quite well in 1920-21 etc.).

Proponents of some different kind of mixed economy often say we have free markets. This is of course not correct (one simply has to acknowledge the existence of central banks, but there are numerous other departures). Markets are not perfect, so it is perfectly reasonable to construct an argument that markets have had negative consequences. But to be taken seriously it is important to acknowledge the mixed economy and try to explain why you believe the crises are the results of markets rather than the interventions.

Didn't the bailouts happen because of the crisis ? It would be seriously taking the p*ss to have bailouts and them blame them as 'the' problem.

Edited October 1, 2015 by pig

[wonderpup]

Didn't the bailouts happen because of the crisis ? It would be seriously taking the p*ss to have bailouts and them blame them as 'the' problem.

You're right- but even the idea of 'the crisis' is kind of strange from the point of view of a free market advocate- what could be more consistent with free market capitalism than the prospect of a bunch of incompetent investors losing their money?

The main complaint of the free market lobby in 2008 was not that Capitalism was failing but that it was working too well- so well in fact that they were about to lose their shirts! And- as Jim Cramer so eloquently(if a little hysterically) put it " This cannot be allowed to happen!!"

It's just that circumstances had unraveled so quickly the Mad Money host knew aggressive action was needed. Cramer felt the 'let-the-market-handle-it' crowd had to be stopped.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100398172

So as soon as serious losses loomed those who believed that the free market should be left to operate without interference were suddenly recast not as wise oracles but as an unruly 'crowd' of dangerous eccentrics that had to be 'stopped'.

And the Champion of this socialist intervention? None other than Jim Cramer himself, performing not so much a U turn as an on screen evisceration of everything he had formally claimed about the need for the market to be allowed to function free of state manipulation.

The fascinating thing is that for people like Cramer there seems no inconsistency at all in keeping all your winnings while dumping all your losses on the taxpayer- this, it seems, is their definition of free market capitalism.

Edited October 1, 2015 by wonderpup

[Kiwi Toast]

I'm glad we agree that Jim Cramer isn't an advocate of a market economy.

What do you think about the vision set out in Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman? I think he has the pdf on his website.

[wonderpup]

What do you think about the vision set out in Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman? I think he has the pdf on his website.

The argument is absurd and contradictory from the outset.

Line four of the introduction says this;

We also reject the idea that people have an enforceable claim on others, for anything more than being left alone.

This makes no sense- if you reject the idea that a person can have an enforceable claim on another person you cannot then demand that that person must leave you alone, because if you do make such a demand you are attempting to make an enforceable claim on that person, something that you explicitly reject.

On the other hand if you accept that you have an enforceable claim to be left alone then you have violated your first principle that no such claims are valid.

What the libertarians are trying to propose is the absurd proposition that they have a moral right for their amoral position to be respected- they are in effect saying this;

'I reject the concept of obligations of any kind between human beings and you have the obligation to respect this position by leaving me alone.'

Seriously?

And then there's this- again from the introduction;

But nobody would have a right to force his way of life upon his neighbor.

Or- put another way- everyone has an obligation to leave his neighbor alone if he wishes to be left alone.

The problem of course is that you can't have rights on one side without there being obligations on the other- so my right to be left in peace imposes an obligation on you to respect that right.

In visual terms the libertarian landscape is a flat amoral plain as far as the eye can see- a world in which no one owes any obligation to anyone else- but with one glaring anomaly- astride this vast desert of amorality sits a single solitary peak of moral implacability- that 'right' to be left alone. But what is the basis of this 'right'? Does it have it's origin in a shared network of mutual aid and obligation? No it does not. Where then does this 'right' come from? Well no where- it's just been tacked on in a totally arbitrary way.

Imagine a society in which it is morally acceptable to leave a strangers child dying in the street for lack of care on the basis that you owe no obligation to anyone but not morally acceptable to trim your neighbors hedge without their consent on the basis that they have the moral right to be left alone on their property.

This is the laughable basis upon which the libertarians have constructed an entire mountain of humbug. They want to have their amoral cake but add a moral cherry on the top- this is the kind of thinking that gets discarded by five year old's in favor of something a little more sophisticated and coherent.

[Kiwi Toast]

What I was getting at is how could it (the market economy) or would it function or fail to function?

For instance if one could not conceive of money except that issued by state institutions then clearly a market economy without state institutions would be contradictory. Are there any such contradictions?

If it is not contradictory, what might it be like?

[PopGun]

The argument is absurd and contradictory from the outset.

Line four of the introduction says this;

We also reject the idea that people have an enforceable claim on others, for anything more than being left alone.

This makes no sense- if you reject the idea that a person can have an enforceable claim on another person you cannot then demand that that person must leave you alone, because if you do make such a demand you are attempting to make an enforceable claim on that person, something that you explicitly reject.

On the other hand if you accept that you have an enforceable claim to be left alone then you have violated your first principle that no such claims are valid.

What the libertarians are trying to propose is the absurd proposition that they have a moral right for their amoral position to be respected- they are in effect saying this;

'I reject the concept of obligations of any kind between human beings and you have the obligation to respect this position by leaving me alone.'

Seriously?

And then there's this- again from the introduction;

But nobody would have a right to force his way of life upon his neighbor.

Or- put another way- everyone has an obligation to leave his neighbor alone if he wishes to be left alone.

The problem of course is that you can't have rights on one side without there being obligations on the other- so my right to be left in peace imposes an obligation on you to respect that right.

In visual terms the libertarian landscape is a flat amoral plain as far as the eye can see- a world in which no one owes any obligation to anyone else- but with one glaring anomaly- astride this vast desert of amorality sits a single solitary peak of moral implacability- that 'right' to be left alone. But what is the basis of this 'right'? Does it have it's origin in a shared network of mutual aid and obligation? No it does not. Where then does this 'right' come from? Well no where- it's just been tacked on in a totally arbitrary way.

Imagine a society in which it is morally acceptable to leave a strangers child dying in the street for lack of care on the basis that you owe no obligation to anyone but not morally acceptable to trim your neighbors hedge without their consent on the basis that they have the moral right to be left alone on their property.

This is the laughable basis upon which the libertarians have constructed an entire mountain of humbug. They want to have their amoral cake but add a moral cherry on the top- this is the kind of thinking that gets discarded by five year old's in favor of something a little more sophisticated and coherent.

Don't forget the state has to be small, but still big enough to protect their interests...