Friday/Weekend OT
Today is Friday the 13th . Are you superstitious about anything?
Stewart gave Cramer the business last night. Do economic cable talk shows directly effect the market?
I will be leaving for Chicago tomorrow to meet my new nephew during spring break. In other spring break news, many are not heeding the warning to stay away from Mexico . Paranoia or good advice?
What are you doing this weekend?
Submitted by Specter on Fri, 2009-03-13 12:34
Tags:
Comments :
Hey Ender
I deleted a comment from mikese in the "Favorite Athletes
" diary. It veered off topic and linked to a site selling steroids. It looked to me like one of those clever techniques to bypass the traditional spam guards. One tip off is the "Favorite Athletes" diary has been dead for a while so it is strange for a new member to comment there first.
Hope you don't mind. If we see more of these, we should delete mikese's account.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
I was amazed
at how apologetic Cramer was. He even seemed to tear up at times. I think it started to dawn on him what he had been a part of during the interview.
Masterful use of profanity by Jon Stewart.
I think Cramer
is basically a good guy. It is easy to see how some folks can get swept up by a tidal wave of profit taking that seemed never ending. It isn't like he was the only one who drank the kool-aid.
He did quit his job as a hedge funder at Goldman. (out of disgust?). He believed in the system, and forgot the fundamentals, that you can't leverage your way to way.
Hopefully he will make an effort to be a little more clear eyed in his assessments of the markets and what is really happening from now on.
I'm only half stupid
Wall Street
in conjunction with the media has pulled the wool over our eyes for far too long now. It's the greatest heist in the history of the world. They stole our 401k's, and now they want us to reimburse them for what they stole.
Ever since the Great Depression certain business 'leaders' have been furious with FDR's attack on the wealthy and the implementation of regulations and restrictions on capitalism and banks. Over the last decade the anti-FDR crowd finally had their way with our financial system.
We can ask ourselves the question as to why people in this country believed that the attacks on the World Trade Center originated from Iraq. That Saddam Hussein was the mastermind of al_Queda.
It's difficult not to say that the fourth estate fell off on the job.
I'm only half stupid
A reminder of the times we live in
This is a video made by the 14-year-old son of the marketing vice president of the Tampa Bay Lightning NHL hockey team, who was laid off.
Very touching.
www.youtube.com/watch
qui tacet consentire
Conservative vs. Liberal hypocrisy....
jonswift.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-bristol-palin-is-different.html
Jon Swift has the best post I've ever seen explaining how conservatives can condem unwed motherhood & gay/lebian motherhood while at the very same time defending conservative's unwed motherhood & conservative lesbian's motherhood. He uses Murphy Brown & Rosie O'Donnel vs. Bristol Palin & Mary Cheney as markers. Curiously. Speechwriter Lisa Schiffren is mentions & even e-mails him on the mention & Jon lists that.
The underlying explaination of it all: It's OK when conservatives do these things because they are conservatives. They will raise the children with good clean conservative values as opposed to the dirty liberal values Rosie O'Donnel & Murphy Brown would raise their children.
The thing I like the most about it is the unvarnished honesty of the statements. A very good read.
This is funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JE5SBm9UU&eurl=http://thinkprogress.org/
Shep Smith doesn't understand what the heck Glenn Beck is talking about.
I'm only half stupid
television adds 10 pounds,
television adds 10 pounds, and ten percentage points to one's ego, it would seem...
in Glenn Beck's case
television certainly isn't adding any points to his IQ.
I'm only half stupid
I disagree. But I'd be
I disagree. But I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on where he's getting things wrong.
Nationalism on steroids
Everyday is 9/12. Let's celebrate that day for the rest of our lives because being terrified as a nation was just the best day ever in our history as a country. It was awesome.
Sob! We all felt so good and so together the day after our country was attacked. It was like so beautiful man, it makes me want to cry on TV every day, so I can get better ratings, and make you afraid. Hear is a tomb of fear. Isn't it beautiful. Just like the day after 9/11 when we were all afraid. It was so great!
I'm only half stupid
Glenn is Ann Coulter except
Ann clearly doesn't believe everything she says wanting shock to be the product. Glenn, well he clearly DOES believe everything he says, and that's what is really scary.
Well neither you, nor MissL
Well neither you, nor MissL bothered to include any actualy content. Which is honestly what I expected. I won't bother to ask MissL to be more specific because she won't ever bother to be. But I'd appreciate it if you'd include some actual content to back up your shared assertion.
I don't watch Glenn's show, but I see the clips on the web.
Glenn has repeatedly suggested that citizens should consider armed insurrection of the Obama government, and we aren't even two months into that.
Beck is over the edge crazy. Fox only cares about ratings. When Beck is finally institutionalized for what ever reason, Fox will just get another raver to coddle that section that brooks no other...conservatives.
Seriously, where would you consider compromising? On abortion rights? On foreign policy? On National Health or the rights of workers to unionize however they choose, rather than how the company chooses? You wouldn't compromise on any of these areas. That's why that section won't be a party to making policy for a while.
Shep Smith doesn't get it either
We can take comfort in the fact that not everyone is brain dead.
I'm only half stupid
Shep Smith was just mad that the new guy was taking the spotligh
n/t
Right justify it that way
It couldn't possibly be that Glenn Beck is manic/depressive viagra popping paranoid promoting
Chinese capitalism (Rupert says) as a way to protect your freedom to not have to pay a single dime of your money that you made
into social security taxes or an unemployment fund.
I'm only half stupid
what the hell are you talking about?
n/t
Freedom of the Press and Our Future
Kathleen Parker asks what will happen if all the newspapers disappear. Tells Rush Limbaugh to stop bashing newspapers.
While bloggers do serve a roll in journalistic circles, most of the sources bloggers link to are from print journalism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302273_2.html
Dittohead Alert!!
I'm only half stupid
Why privatizing water is a bad idea
Chilean waters wars bring us a glimpse into the future.
Companies buying up water rights, on the free market system, ignore the social consequences of drying up the rivers, where local residents find themselves without drinking water. Private interests take priority over those of the townfolk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/world/americas/15chile.html?_r=1&hp
"Quillagua is among many small towns that are being swallowed up in the country’s intensifying water wars. Nowhere is the system for buying and selling water more permissive than here in Chile, experts say, where water rights are private property, not a public resource, and can be traded like commodities with little government oversight or safeguards for the environment.
Private ownership is so concentrated in some areas that a single electricity company from Spain, Endesa, has bought up 80 percent of the water rights in a huge region in the south, causing an uproar. In the north, agricultural producers are competing with mining companies to siphon off rivers and tap scarce water supplies, leaving towns like this one bone dry and withering."
I'm only half stupid
That's a shame.
Privatisation has two distinct meanings:
1. to take a public monopoly and turn it into a private one.
This is the shady one and can turn into an exploding cigar. The most common and dicy instance of it is with resources for the public welfare...like water. Simply privatizing it doesn't necessarily solve any problems. True monopolies...public or private...need special rules. That doesn't mean it can't work. It just means that the nature or regulation of it can very easily make it not work.
2. to take a public monopoly and basically dissolve it and allow private entrepreneurs to fill the void in open competition.
eg: A one government corporation makes all the shoes in a country. The corporation is abolished and private actors can freely start companies to create shoes.
This is the good version of privatization. Unfortunately, it's limited in use in that you cannot really apply it to services like water...at least not in a way that I can see. As soon as you hand out a limited number licenses to control turf with no competitors, you're blocking entry into the market and the benefits of privatizing are instantly limited if not cancelled out.
Calling this affair in Chile "free market" is actually kind of misnomer for these reasons. It's a private market, yes, but not truly "free" since it's about ownership of limited number of licenses.
Free market seems to have little to do with the water shortage
According to that article, the origins of the problems have nothing to do with the water trading system
First, there's the diversion of 2/3 of the water. I couldn't find any more information on this policy, but it doesn't sound like a free market policy to me. If the government were just interested in creating a water market, they would have given all of the permits to the local residents to use/sell as they saw fit. Instead, it seems like the government simply stole the water from the locals.
Next, there is the pollution issue...which originated from a state-owned company. Furthermore, if they had a proper property system, that would be considered a crime and the company would be held accountable for the damage done.
Finally, it looks like other companies are simply stealing the water.
It seems that the water-trading system only gets involved because the locals can't recover their water without violating that system. It seems like the establishment of the system was as much about helping the governmental elite plunder the country as it was about creating a market for efficient allocation of resources.
I think a fair water trading system would keep enough water in the river to maintain ecosystem services, then partition the remainder among the locals. It may even be good to reallocate those permits to the residents on a regular basis, so that poor judgement in an abstract financial market doesn't leave a man (or his heirs) without any water to drink.
This type of system could be implemented without gutting the current water rights system -- just impose a tax on the deeds and allocate the proceeds to the ecosystem and the residents. Slowly increase the tax until it recovers the vast majority of the value of the water.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Well.....
Your analysis does bring into focus that there really is no such thing as free markets and your solution to getting to a more fair market situation, involves imposing a tax, which we can assume would mean a government tax, or centralized control to create a more equitable system.
I'm only half stupid
markets, price control, anarchy
The solution that I suggested comes from the classical liberal tradition (specifically, Thomas Paine and Henry George)-- which is the basis for mainstream modern libertarianism. It relies on markets to set prices for goods, including productive inputs, but relies on the government to establish a fair property system that underlies the market.
Likewise, the "ecosystem service" issue is just a special case of a public good. Public good arguments play a big role in neo-liberal thought (mainstream modern "entrepreneurists"). They are "socialistic" in a sense, but they are still are far way from a centrally planned or heavily regulated economy.
My proposal is even pretty far from a welfare state, though the idea of permanent equal rights to access natural resources does share some similarities to a welfare state -- but it does have a different ideological basis which limits the extent that it can impact the distribution of wealth.
Finally, modern markets and financial institutions can't exist without a state to enforce absentee property rights and provide insurance. I think anarchy would be more like the geo-libertarian system that I outlined than it would like the current (apparently exploitative) capitalist system.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Will good Ol' Henry George ever make a comeback?
I hadn't thought of your idea in a geo-libertarian way but I guess that's exactly what it is.
Good work.
what else would it be?
I'm really a one-trick pony...
I just haven't bothered much with the Georgist stuff of late.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Quite the opposite:
Actually Adam's idea was:
and
and
It's decentralized in terms of operation and is a libertarianish market based solution to an inherently un-free service. Water is Water. Land is Land. Air is Air. The "central" part is more to enforce laws and special rules...which it should always be doing anyway.
I'm not sure if I agree totally with what Adam said...or even disagree with. I haven't given it enough thought to try and visualize it. I'm just clarifying the nature of it.
Like I said above, it's hard to have a free market with something like water. Possible? I suppose....but very difficult. The best you can do is to come up with special rules that harness some attributes of a free system in a system that cannot be free.
I'm not sure I agree with myself either :^)
I'm actually not certain about perpetual redistribution of water rights to the local residents, since it could encourage people to live in this area simply to get a share of a valuable natural resource. One of the issues is whether the local population pre-dates the privatization of the water, or whether it is a geographically mobile population. With a geographically mobile population, it would be better for the local resource fees to be thrown into a national pool, so that the dividend does not vary based on where a person lives.
I'm not going to take for granted the idea that this valley needs to be kept as agricultural land, or that this town needs to stay inhabited.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Adam, thought you might this interesting
Karol Boudreaux
.
It's a video.
It's not about water and it's not Chile. It's actually from Namibia in Africa on "Community-based Natural Resource Management"...something along the lines you were discussing.
what do you want from non-private water systems?
I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly...
I'm assuming that the alternative to a private water market is a system where water is supplied by a public utility with price controls (and possibly subsidies), as is common in the USA.
If that is so, then when it comes to drinking water, I agree that it is a good idea to establish a system that directly serves the consumers, rather than treating the water system as something that should be manipulated to maximize profits.
However, with bulk water that will be used for agriculture or industry, I think it is important to promote market pricing...as long as the water rights can be established before the water is needed, and there aren't monopolies in the distribution system.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I appreciate
everything you have said very much, in terms of explanation.
I was just taking issue with your initial reaction that that free markets had nothing to do with the situation, by stating that in essence there really is no such thing as a free market. The term free markets has been abused and over used and has too many meanings. The article used the term to describe water up for sale.
I was also delighted to see that your original solution involved taxes, which have been much demonized in some political circles. Though no one like taxes they can serve a good and reasonable purpose.
I believe there are a few water facilities in California that have been privatized much to the detriment of the cost and the quality of the drinking water. I am very much in favor or keeping water in the public domain.
Water rights are a whole drama unto themselves. The water in the Colorado River is accounted for and studied down to the molecule. One dry winter will cause a lot of problems down river.
I'm only half stupid
while we're talking about monopolies...
I assume you heard about the case before the SCOTUS a few weeks ago involving the WV Supreme Court.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428760750
Had you heard what the original case was?
One mining company basically strangled another company by buying up all of the land around it, and preventing goods from passing in or out of the victim's site.
Or that's how I understand it...but I can't find a good description of it online.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
who cares about that when we have a real issue at hand.
Soon the good people of New Jersey won't be able to get waxed
!
AIG breaks contracts for pension funds
but not for bonus compensation.
The depths of hubris.
AIG is the poster child that gives unregulated free market capitalism a huge black eye.
I'm only half stupid
a typing contradiction
You continually swap your understanding of the existance or non-existance of the free market. You've said in the past that the free market does not exist (you agreed with me when I made that assertion). Now you claim that somehow what AIG did or has done is somehow an example of it. It leads people like me to believe you've no interest in truth; only an interest in whatever it takes to sensationalize your topic-of-the-moment. You seem to be the poster child that gives credible progressive liberals a huge black eye.
meh
People are still insisting that free markets are the be all and end all to get rid of 'collectivist' interests, like government, and regulations and taxes.
If it doesn't exist then why do people still insist on axioms, like let the magic of the free markets free us from too much government intrusion. To most folks it just means business or commerce.
The phrase means different things to different people, I suppose. To some libertarians it means unfettered capitalism to preserve the freedom of the individual.
I agree that free markets do not exist. AIG was an example of what happens when you layer free market ideology into a long standing institution.
CDO and CDS's were first created from the RTC to unwind the first Bush (Neil) Savings and Loan Crises. The creator of these sophisticated instruments begged Alan Greenspan to regulate and guard them. Greenspan opined that these CDS's were so sophisticated that only knowledgeable investors would use them, that the CDS market was capable of regulating itself (in the name of markets do it better).
So yeah, if I seem a bit obsessed about this market meme, I am. AIG is the poster child for why free markets don't work. All that happened is a few people got very very rich, and the rest of us are stuck with the mess.
Stop using the words free markets equal free people. Everyone is confused by the phrase, and it seems to come down to a reality that free markets allow a small number of folks to get extremely rich at the expense of the rest of us. It is the ideology that represents the tyranny of the minority (albeit an extremely wealthy minority).
I'm only half stupid
Right off the bat...
You set the context for discussion in hyperbolic, strawman territory. Very broad, very vague and very presumptuous.
If out and out anarchism was truly a credible position in any relevant debate, that statement would hold water but it isn't.
Where the rubber meets the road, the debate is not that clear cut and hence renders such statements useless in backing up any assertions.
If the previous thread on water with Adam should have showed you anything is that real discussion on these matters is about rules:
which rules and which rules coupled with which rules to achieve a certain effect and what cost and with what foreseeable side-effects. Such realms of real debate have no place for broad-brushed hyperbole about taxes and regulations in any absolute or quantitative sense.
That's nice.....
Rules are good. Glad to see you showing some pushback, that rules are good.
I have never heard you mention one single thing about rules.
Tax create bigger government is a constant meme. Regulations have unintended consequences is a constant meme.
Such broad brushes are an outcropping of past discussions.
Yet you yourself stated that some resources need rules, in certain situations where free markets don't apply to certain resources.
To me this is just another example of once the rubber meets the road the goalposts are moved by those who prescribe to certain branches of libertarian thought.
It is just one is never clear which branch of libertarianism is being applied at which time. At least that is the way it seems to me.
The back lash from what AIG did to the markets will last a long long time.
We can look at AIG at the Weapon of Mass Destruction in relation to the global financial system.
As I mentioned, violating pension contracts is OK, but violating bonus compensation contracts is unthinkable? That is just idiotic. These folks are blackmailing us.
Like I said above, it's hard to have a free market with something like water. Possible? I suppose....but very difficult. The best you can do is to come up with special rules that harness some attributes of a free system in a system that cannot be free.
I'm only half stupid
??
And then you proceed to mention an instance where I did just that in this very thread. And if you can't recall the many other instances where I've made these points then you aren't really paying attention.
Who's moving the goal posts? If this is an example of "certain branches libertarian thought" moving the goal posts, then I must be part of those branches, right? Meanwhile, I'm clearly not an anarchist or an anarcho-capitalist...branches, neither of which, is in any position of power or numbers in any true debates in this country....as I mentionned above.
well,
Let's see:
http://swordscrossed.org/story/20090223/monday-open-thread#comment-106180
http://swordscrossed.org/story/20090223/monday-open-thread#comment-106183
http://swordscrossed.org/story/20090223/monday-open-thread#comment-106183
http://swordscrossed.org/story/20090225/wednesday-thursday-open-thread#c...
That's just for starters and is very recent.
The only thing addressed
to me was that you don't associate taxes as being socialism.
Good.
The other comments were for someone else, and I confess I hadn't seen them.
So we can say you are a libertarian who believes in some regulations then.
The big big big problem is that libertarianism which I associate with the Ayn Rand ideal of free markets solve all problems, has as I mentioned previously has so many different offshoots.
The geo-libertarian, the anarchist-libertarian, the neo-libertarian, the Austrian theories. Rothbard, Henry, etc. On and on it goes.
I associate libertarianism with this.
http://www.lpdallas.org/
and statements like this
"Yaron Brook
"Atlas Shrugged" is coming true. How do we get out? How do we escape? Unfortunately, there is no escape. Businessmen are panicking, and I think they should be panicking. Many of them understand that this was not a crisis of free markets. There was no free market to fail. What we have is a regulated market, and the regulated market has failed. -- Yaron Brook"
Now I suppose you are gonna say that this is a different kind of libertarianism.
But you get my drift here. If you want to make each libertarian independent and a different branch then every other libertarian, well that is confusing. And obviously any time one is pinned down on a certain issue one can say, "oh no, I am a (_____) libertarian.
I feel a bit similar when I hear the words 'free markets'. What does that mean exactly. Well obviously it is a moving target that you can never quite pin down, that is therefore absolved of accountability, essentially because free markets do not exist. Such a thing is a myth, and the words are used to disguise all kinds of unethical behavior, such as the financial division at AIG. They deplored regulations scoffed and stuck their rich noses in the air at the notion that anyone can rein them in, regulate them, or hold them accountable for their grossly irresponsible actions.
I'm only half stupid
Just because all of the
Just because all of the people, with all their differing views, identify themselves as Democrat or Republican doesn't mean that every democrat or republican share an identical view. They need for people to discredit Libertarianism because it's not as adherent to labels serves no purpose. Your inability to grasp it is no one's problem but your own.
I get that
and I do grasp it.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with defining generally what libertarian means.
I would think that Yaron Brook is the original true form of libertarianism, but I am just guessing.
I don't define myself as a typical democrat, either but just generally associate myself more with the democratic parties ideas.
I am definitely NOT a Republican! Yuck!
Besides if you described libertarians as a group that would be a 'collectivist' which goes against the very grain of libertarism. Each libertarian should be a soviergnty unto himself. (Just having fun and kind of kidding with that.)
I'm only half stupid
most basic, broad and general way of seeing
libertarians:
fiscal conservative, social liberal.
From there, we can get more specific and varied.
Just like a Republican is generally a fiscal and social conservative and a Democrat is liberal on both counts.
Even if we get rid of the party labels:
Giuliani, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Huckabee are all "conservative" more or less.
But I see very different people on many counts.
same goes liberals.
Maxine Waters vs. Bill Clinton. My god.
Big Tent
Aren't democrats known as the party of the big tent, you know, herding cats. ;-)
I know people that call themselves fiscally conservative, and socially liberal and democrats. I like that. themselves democrats.
On the R side the inflexibility of the social conservatives is killing the party while at the same time it is the base. It doesn't help that the long standing modus operandi of R's is to mock strawmen to demonize their opponents.
If libertarians could embrace somehow a more liberal, generally, social policy such as supporting unemployment, and some safety nets they would do a lot to help themselves build a stronger coalition.
In many ways libertarians seem as inflexibile on fiscal policy as socons seem on religious morality.
I like the word progressive, because it means you analyze a problem each step of the way and adopt to changes as needed. Personally I am a strong believer in safety nets that provide access to opportunities. Not a hand out, but a hand up.
I'm only half stupid
Well there...
There's a difference between doctrinaire philosophy in the abstract and actual policy discussions.
You need to distinguish between the two. There's a difference between declaring one's abstract and preferred positions and discussing what to do in a real life context.
Snoop around places like DKos for a while and you'll some ardent liberals supporting things that most liberals would shy away from as being too idealistic or too extreme.
Nuance is very important. For every caricature one can find, one can also find more mainstream and reasonable people. The key is recognizing that one is indeed a caricature and the other is more mainstream...and widespread.
If you think libertarians, as a rule, do not support any of those measures in some absolute sense, you're not getting around enough.
Both Friedman and Hayek support safety nets in the context of the ensemble of policy positions they held. Friedman himself even invented the negative income tax....lest we forget that.
and there it is again!
A free market system, in my opinion, will not eliminate the efforts of the tyrannical to wield power. It simply tries reduce a market system as close to the individual as possible in the interest of respecting their right to property, including themselves. So I take your conclusion about the purpose as misguided (from my viewpoint).
If equality doesn't exist then why do people still insist on it's axioms? That's a silly point you're trying to make. And I think I understand what you mean. But you need to spend a bit more time in thought when you try to say things like this. And most folks do have a poor understanding of what free market means. But it's through the influence of people who do not believe that individual liberty is the best possible solution to inequality. It has nothing to do with the idea itself. Even yourself, a person who enjoys learning about economics (of your own specific interest only, unfortunately) continually defines it incorrectly.
Here you've contradicted yourself immediately after your first statement. Your misunderstanding of the free market ideology means that you continually believe that deregulation and the manipulation of governmental policy somehow conforms to a free market. It does not, by definition. There is no one "aspect" of a free market that somehow makes a corporatist mixed economy free. It's kind of an all or nothing scenario in so far as the "teeter-totter" of a mixed market cannot be 51% free market policy and suddenly al Libertarians will shot for joy. It's not an election. It's a philosophy in practice. You're not a nihilist just because you don't care how your hair looks or what other people think about how your hair looks (analogy-ho! Attack!).
Failing businesses are not an example of why free markets don't work. Likewise, failing businesses are not an example that keynesian policies don't work, or that a mixed economy doesn't work. Those kind of accusations are to simple and don't really analyize anything more than the surface. The only reason the rest of us are truely "stuck with the mess" is because The One, along with our Congress, has chosen to elongate the popping of the "bubble". And your attempts at partisan finger pointing at the past will do nothing but make you feel better about your party of choice's bad decisions. You continually bend definitions to fit whatever sensational story of the week you've chosen. Just as I said before.
You've got that backwards. Which is your main problem. Free people will result in a free market. When you think of it from that direction, you'll begin to understand what all of our fuss is about. It doesn't mean you have to agree, but at least it'll leave me the impression that your not a brick wall (mentally, not literally). You keep describing the pitfalls of a corporatist state. One that favors, legislatively, the power of the few in the name of re-election. This is a problem with your definition. Not the principles of a free market philosophy.
As usual your definition
of free markets is what lacks consistency. Whenever push comes to shove, 'the real' definition is elusive.
That is just my first (brick wall) thought.
I will think about this more, meanwhile I have errands
I'm only half stupid
oh really?
How EXACTLY has my definition of the free market been elusive?
It's never where she wants it to be
...regardless of the fact that your definition never changes.
Voluntary Exchange, instead of Free Markets
The term "Free Markets" carries political baggage, and any debate typically gets side tracked around endless straw man arguments. I think the more accurate term, a clarifying term, is "Voluntary Exchange."
Libertarianism can be cast as the "negative right" to engage in the voluntary exchange of ideas as well as goods and services. "Negative right" means that such are not positively correlated to any impersonal duties or coercive claims imposed by others. For example, the "right to free speech" is not contingent upon any duty to the State(for example, I can only enjoy the right to free speech only if, say, I obligate my duty to serve in some mandated national service program).
Libertarianism DOES NOT CLAIM that voluntary exchange, whether in ideas or goods, cannot result in negative externalities. However, it does generally claim that enforcement based on a sound implementation of property rights will best internalize such externalities. However, I should point out, there can divergences within libertarianism, both with respect to property rights applied to natural resources (Rothbard vs George, for example) and the nature of the enforcement mechanism(the State vs Anarchism). However, libertarians are pretty unified in the opinion that the Regulatory State hardly serves to internalize such externalities, and actually, can often serve to amplify them. Public Choice, Regulatory Capture, and the Knowledge Problem describe the problem of the regulatory state in a scientific, peer-reviewed manner.
Now, if we stick to using the term "Voluntary Exchange," and the likes of Missliberties want to argue that voluntary exchange between individuals carries with it the imposition of impersonal duties or coercive claims by others, then it's fairly illuminating as to the moral philosophy ML espouses. Personally, I equate Commuitarianism with moral thuggery. It replaces the enlightenment notion that humans are born with natural liberty with the notion that humans instead are born into collective obligation. At it's core, communitarianism + monopoly enforcement implies a dystopian type of collectivism, the type popularized by Orwell's Animal Farm. Typically,communitarianism will try to soften itself by positing certain positive liberties, but such are only ad hoc added in. If you reject the notion of the individual outside any scope of "the community," then the voluntary exchage of ideas would have to be restricted by community standards, speech codes, "political correctness" and the like. It's no surprise that "Political Correctness" emanates from progressives and group identity politics.