Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

  • Thread starter Sage
  • 1,829 comments
  • 79,046 views
danoff
Ok so you're fine with it then, as long as your judgement is met - you don't give a rats ass what damage I think you're doing to me . Who gave you that power over me?

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about here. And yes, I do care if you think I'm doing damage to you.

Your definiton of a market failure is rather absurd. A poor person gets what he earns and you call it a market failure. Somebody pays for what they consume and you call it a market failure.

Why make that assumption? Why define market failure for me? I don't remember giving a definition for market failure, but here goes:

In economics, a market failure is a case in which a market fails to efficiently provide or allocate goods and services. In more general terms, market failures are situations where market forces do not serve the perceived "public interest". The two main reasons that markets fail are (1) sub-optimal market structures and (2) the lack of internalization of costs or benefits in prices and thus into microeconomic decision-making in markets.

Example of which include:

  • externalities
  • public goods; common property resources
  • asymmetric information (read: insider trading, and price transparency)
  • market power (i.e. anti-competitive behavior, predatory pricing, collusion)

Strategies to reduce these require the use of some form non-market entity. Or the infamous "state". :dopey:

No, I mean "How much of our taxpayers LIVES is it worth." How much of their TIME spent earning money are we going to TAKE from them and give to those of our choosing?

Only if you believe private charity is a viable solution for those that are less fortunate.

Do you think people won't pay for immunizations? Do you think they won't pay up front for the care? They will, especially if it is law to do so for children.

So now you're saying we need a law that forces people to pay for healthcare? :confused:
What do you do to the person if they cannot afford it?

You're mixing your arugments here. First you were talking about charity, now you're talking about simple proof of insurance. They aren't the same thing.

Address both, then. Will charity work? Would insurance be more important if the doctor is not required to help the patient without it?

No. Civilization is quite simply - at its core what Rand described "the process of setting man free from men."

Then let me ask you this, then:

Are there any civilized socities in the world today based on your (or Rand's) definition civilization?


Do you need me to explain to you what she means? I'd have thought you capable of figuring this out.

Yes, please explain. And don't be so condescending next time. I must've interpreted it differently than what was originally meant.

Ok now you're being closed minded. Remember what I was saying about the tyranny of the majority? And how rights prevented that? This is what I was talking about. Read it and think about it a little more carefully before you dismiss it offhand.

*going back to read*

I consider myself an honest man. I know that it is wrong for me to consume more than I produce, that in doing so I have taken what I have not earned - which is dishonest. (unfortunately for me our system isn't set up like that, and I may never know whether I've acheived that balance)

So would you consider changing the current system so that most or all forms of socialism are eliminated?

This is the purpose of government, to protect man from criminals (and similarly, agressive countries) - to fascilitate civilization which, as she defined earlier, is the process of setting man free from man. Without government, anarchy exists and freedom cannot - because man will be enslaved by force in a world of anarchy. At it's core, that is what government is for - to prevent that most basic injustice.

Maybe. Which leads me back to the market failures again. ^^

Interesting argument. That if the converse of a statement is not true, the statement must not be true.... of course that's not a logically valid argument whatsoever. Try again.

Not until you answer the question following the argument.
 
I would prefer a balance between total freedom and totalitarianism.
How ? How will you accomplish this ? You still do not get it . Who gets to decide whats right for the others ? Who gets to decide what freedom to TAKE AWAY ? Who will guarantee its fairness ?
There is no balance . You are free or you are not .
 
ledhed
How ? How will you accomplish this ? You still do not get it . Who gets to decide whats right for the others ? Who gets to decide what freedom to TAKE AWAY ? Who will guarantee its fairness ?
There is no balance . You are free or you are not .

Well, if that's the case, then I guess none of us are free.
 
me
I would prefer a balance between total freedom and totalitarianism.
ledhed
How ? How will you accomplish this ? You still do not get it . Who gets to decide whats right for the others ? Who gets to decide what freedom to TAKE AWAY ? Who will guarantee its fairness ?
There is no balance . You are free or you are not .

How to accomplish a balance between anarchy and totalitarianism -- no, that's too harsh.

How to accomplish a balance between liberty and restriction (that's better):

Give people freedom with certain restrictions. Not unlike the type of society we have today.

Who gets to decide what is right for others?

The same people that make these kinds of decisions today. I don't hear anyone else complaining about our government being a freedom-taking, fascist regime.

Who gets to decide what is right for the others?

The same people that make these kinds of decisions today.

Who will guarantee its fairness?

Same as above.

There is no balance . You are free or you are not

So the United States (and every other country in the world for that matter) is a dictatorship. Can you point to a single country on this planet that meets your criteria for a Libertarian state?

Like I said, any Libertarianism that affects our society today has absolutely nothing to do with removing restrictions on society. It has everything to do with removing restrictions on business. It's an ideology that allows the elite class to maintain their position in society, and for the poor to become humble servants of the elite. Without restrictions on business, corporations WILL abuse their power.

Libertarians usually claim to oppose slavery (yet they want to eliminate minimum wage)... but that's awfully easy to say on this side of Civil War and the civil rights movement. The slaveowners thought they were defending their sacred rights to property and self-government too (total personal freedom, total personal responsibility).
 
I use this as a definition of liberty or freedom.
Liberty, or freedom, is a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority.
.
In the US the people we choose to limit our freedoms through the rule of law are supposed to be representatives of ourseves. so in effect we choose to limit our own freedoms . The only thing that stops the majority from tyranny over the minority is our bill of rights and our constitutional guarantees. We all give up complete freedom when we choose to join a society governed by laws . This works only when the laws are fair and applied equitably . Society breaks down when laws are seen to be unfair and arbitrary and when laws are passed that errode our rights unnecessarally .
For the most part the US lives up to the definition of Liberty. But its a constant struggle for all of us to keep it that way . you only have to look as far as our drug laws . Our laws still on the books banning certain sex acts between adults. laws limiting what we can read or watch in our own homes . at the risk of having famine have an assplosion..its true the price of liberty is eternal vigilance..someone is always looking to take it away. Even for the best of reasons and with the best intentions. it should never be easy to give up or to take away.
We must hold our law makers and our laws to the highest standards . Freedom is easy to give up but it cost blood to win back.
Libertarians usually claim to oppose slavery (yet they want to eliminate minimum wage)... but that's awfully easy to say on this side of Civil War and the civil rights movement. The slaveowners thought they were defending their sacred rights to property and self-government too (total personal freedom, total personal responsibility).
Sure and a bunch of thier fellow Americans ...brothers , fathers and neighbors came to the conclusion that they were wrong to think that way and went to war , they faught the bloodiest battles in American history amongst themselves to preserve the rights of liberty. before the civil war the abolitionist foght battles all over the country against slavery. The people of some states abolished it . And the rest fought it out in the courts. The majority in spite of the constitutional guarantees of the enslaved , continued thier tyranny until it was ended by the shedding of blood . at the start of WW II American citezens of japenese ancestry were deprived of both property and liberty and put in concentration camps in the US , Despite the fact that they had rights under the constitution . It took years of struggles to end segregation . It took years of sacrifice to improve the civil rights of minoritys . Despite the fact the bill of rights guaranteed them .
When you look back at our history its hard to understand how any one can take freedom of any kind for granted . I for one could never take the limiting of freedom lightly because of what I know of our past. I have seen with my own eyes what we are capable of. I have seen the worst of laws passed despite constitutional guarantees. You can not expect me to trust our law makers to be just . They have a very poor track record .
 
ledhed
Sure and a bunch of thier fellow Americans ...brothers , fathers and neighbors came to the conclusion that they were wrong to think that way and went to war , they fought the bloodiest battles in American history amongst themselves to preserve the rights of liberty. before the civil war the abolitionist foght battles all over the country against slavery. The people of some states abolished it . And the rest fought it out in the courts. The majority in spite of the constitutional guarantees of the enslaved , continued thier tyranny until it was ended by the shedding of blood . at the start of WW II American citezens of japenese ancestry were deprived of both property and liberty and put in concentration camps in the US , Despite the fact that they had rights under the constitution . It took years of struggles to end segregation . It took years of sacrifice to improve the civil rights of minoritys . Despite the fact the bill of rights guaranteed them .
When you look back at our history its hard to understand how any one can take freedom of any kind for granted . I for one could never take the limiting of freedom lightly because of what I know of our past. I have seen with my own eyes what we are capable of. I have seen the worst of laws passed despite constitutional guarantees. You can not expect me to trust our law makers to be just . They have a very poor track record .

First, don't think for one second Lincoln went to war to free the slaves. He went to war to reunite the Union. Slavery was a secondary issue.

Second, if you think our lawmakers are doing such a horrible job, and they sometimes do, then you have a choice. Vote for someone you believe to be better, run for a political office yourself or just get out of the USA. That's about how I see it for that situation.
 
I do not for a second think that the only reason Lincoln went to war was for slavery . I am speaking of the people who did go to war for only that reason. In fact the emancipation proclamation was used as a recruiting tool. show me in that post were I implied anything about our leaders reasons for the war .
And thats right.. thats your choice along with armed rebellion. Throw the bums out . Pay attention to whats going on . Vote for a candidate who represents your views ..get involved in government yourself . work with like minded people to lobby those in power.
Thats all the cost of freedom in America .
While we are here is anyone paying attention to whats going on in congress at this time over the federal Judges appointments ? Do we approve of our representatives being blackmailed by the republican religiouse conservatives ? Do you approve of the threatened removal of the right to fillabuster by these same radicals ? These are the people who need to be voted out of office . The new congressional elections cant come soon enough. The party did not learn from its last fiasco with the religouse extremist . its time to show them the door ...again.
 
ledhed
I do not for a second think that the only reason Lincoln went to war was for slavery . I am speaking of the people who did go to war for only that reason. In fact the emancipation proclamation was used as a recruiting tool. show me in that post were I implied anything about our leaders reasons for the war .
And thats right.. thats your choice along with armed rebellion. Throw the bums out . Pay attention to whats going on . Vote for a candidate who represents your views ..get involved in government yourself . work with like minded people to lobby those in power.
Thats all the cost of freedom in America .
While we are here is anyone paying attention to whats going on in congress at this time over the federal Judges appointments ? Do we approve of our representatives being blackmailed by the republican religiouse conservatives ? Do you approve of the threatened removal of the right to fillabuster by these same radicals ? These are the people who need to be voted out of office . The new congressional elections cant come soon enough. The party did not learn from its last fiasco with the religouse extremist . its time to show them the door ...again.

And the right wing liberals are better? Blackmail is bad, period. Of course, I think fillabustering is just as stupid. Are you saying you're dissatisfied with our system of gov't or just the people?

This post here sounds rather implied to me. But I could be reading it wrong...
fathers and neighbors came to the conclusion that they were wrong to think that way and went to war , they fought the bloodiest battles in American history amongst themselves to preserve the rights of liberty. before the civil war the abolitionist foght battles all over the country against slavery.
 
The people swift . Our system of government is set up to work . But the people are responsible for the results . They can be changed. they want to discard a parlimentry proceedure because it is standing in thier way. They need to find new jobs. the sad thing is they will cost the Republican party dearly in the next elections . ( not sad if you are a Democrat ) . They did not learn from the mistakes of the recent past.
 
Second, if you think our lawmakers are doing such a horrible job, and they sometimes do, then you have a choice. Vote for someone you believe to be better, run for a political office yourself or just get out of the USA. That's about how I see it for that situation.

Swift and Brian. I want you two to read this next statement very carefully because I’ve said it 15 times already and you both seem to miss it every time.

Rights and freedoms cannot be determined by the majority.

Wow, it’s surprisingly short when you don’t explain it. What you’re advocating Swift with the above statement, and what Brian advocates when he says that the people decide what freedoms are taken away, is that freedoms be determined by the majority. But that system – a pure democracy, is doomed to failure. Why? because nobody has any rights when the majority can simply overrule them… and they will. History has shown that the majority will oppress the minority at every turn when given the power to. A system like the US, in which the majority can vote away the money (property) of the minority, or vote away the right of the minority to behave a certain way in the privacy of their homes will eventually be unfree. Liberty is removed in small pieces, not all at once.

Let’s say you have 3 people in a room. One has blond hair, one has 20 dollars, and the other likes to listen to bad music. They can set any rules with a simple majority vote. What do you think the result would be? The bad music gets turned off (by the other two), the 20 dollars is taken and distributed (by a different two), and the one with blond hair has to do all the work (because the other two happen not to like people with blond hair).

Edit: Interestingly enough all three of them have less freedom then when they started, because in different instances each of them is in the minority. This is the way with majority rule. Different majorities restrict the rights of different minorities until eventually very little freedom exists at all.

There are no rights when the minority is at the whim of the majority. That is why the founding fathers of our country set up a constitution and bill of rights.

So at the very core of this discussion is what issues should be off the table for the majority . In other words, what “rights” do we have as American citizens?

Libertarians usually claim to oppose slavery (yet they want to eliminate minimum wage)... but that's awfully easy to say on this side of Civil War and the civil rights movement. The slaveowners thought they were defending their sacred rights to property and self-government too (total personal freedom, total personal responsibility).

Don’t mix the minimum wage and slavery arguments. One violates a basic human right, the other does not. You do not have a right to earn a certain amount of money. Why? Because you do not have a right to take my money for yourself. Why? Because my money is my property – it represents part of my productivity – my life spent earning that money.


ledhed
its true the price of liberty is eternal vigilance..someone is always looking to take it away.

While this is true, if you set up the system carefully to protect the rights of the minority from the beginning, this isn’t so much of a problem.

brian
Only if you believe private charity is a viable solution for those that are less fortunate.

Regardless of whether it is viable (which it is), charity is the ONLY solution for those less fortunate. Everything else is theft. If you care deeply about the “less fortunate” then feel free to give whatever you can afford – but don’t put a gun to my head and force me to give my property to those you deem worthy of my productivity – that violates my rights as a human being.

So now you're saying we need a law that forces people to pay for healthcare?
What do you do to the person if they cannot afford it?

I believe we have a law the forces people to pay for healthcare for their children and rightly so. If they cannot afford it they should not have children or give their children to someone who can afford it. We have a law the forces people to pay for food for their children, the same consequences apply.
 
The constitution is a guarantee of rights but in the past that did not stop the government from denying those rights to a minority. The people who picked up the guns gave them thier rights.
" A covenant without a sword is just words "
 
danoff
Swift and Brian. I want you two to read this next statement very carefully because I’ve said it 15 times already and you both seem to miss it every time.

Rights and freedoms cannot be determined by the majority.

Well then. I guess that leaves only 1 solution:

  • Rights and freedoms are determined by an elite minority

If each individual is given the opportuniuty to determine their own rights and freedoms, don't you think people that share common interests will band together? Rival factions... civil war... confederate states...

But that system – a pure democracy, is doomed to failure. Why? because nobody has any rights when the majority can simply overrule them… and they will.

Correct. However, in a system where money rules, nobody has any rights when the elite can simply exploit... and they will.

History has shown that the majority will oppress the minority at every turn when given the power to.

I agree. History also shows that the elite minority will oppress the poor majority at every turn when given the power to.

A system like the US, in which the majority can vote away the money (property) of the minority, or vote away the right of the minority to behave a certain way in the privacy of their homes will eventually be unfree. Liberty is removed in small pieces, not all at once.

Are there any countries on this planet that even remotely resemble your idea of a Libertarian government?

Let’s say you have 3 people in a room. One has blond hair, one has 20 dollars, and the other likes to listen to bad music. They can set any rules with a simple majority vote. What do you think the result would be? The bad music gets turned off (by the other two), the 20 dollars is taken and distributed (by a different two), and the one with blond hair has to do all the work (because the other two happen not to like people with blond hair).

There are no rights when the minority is at the whim of the majority. That is why the founding fathers of our country set up a constitution and bill of rights.

The Constitution was set up as a case for strong government. The Bill of Rights was set up to prevent tyranny of the marjority. The Federalist Papers were the argument FOR the Constitution rather than the "weak" Articles of Confederation.

Don’t mix the minimum wage and slavery arguments.

It's all about removing government restrictions on business. They are one in the same.

One violates a basic human right, the other does not.

Wages will drop if the minimum wage is cut or eliminated. That is why the government placed a price floor on wages. If you would like, I can show you a real life example of this happening, AND I can show you what would happen to the US economy if minimum wage laws were repealed.

You do not have a right to earn a certain amount of money. Why? Because you do not have a right to take my money for yourself. Why? Because my money is my property – it represents part of my productivity – my life spent earning that money.

How would you explain inheritance then? Technically a person who gets a $4,000,000 estate doesn't "earn" it either. Yet under a Libertarian law, there would be little if any tax on it.

Regardless of whether it is viable (which it is), charity is the ONLY solution for those less fortunate.

It's been tried before; and as the rich were getting richer, they kept it in their pockets. Marxism at its finest. :dopey:

Everything else is theft.

"Theft" is such a harsh word. :sly: How about "mandatory charity"? :D

If you care deeply about the “less fortunate” then feel free to give whatever you can afford – but don’t put a gun to my head and force me to give my property to those you deem worthy of my productivity – that violates my rights as a human being.

Statistically, charity doesn't work. So is it fair to violate the rights of another human being in the interest of saving a few extra dollars every week (or 2 weeks)? Don't try to twist this and make me sound like a Socialist/Communist. That's the same bull 🤬 that happened in the last thread (only on the opposite side of political scale). I'm only trying to provide a counter point. Is it fair for the wealthy to STEAL money from the poor? I don't see the CEO of Verizon working at the top of of telephone pole in the middle of winter when it's 12 F outside. It seems as if the WORKER contributes more to the economy than the elite. I'm not saying rich people don't work (or that they don't contribute to the economy), but do you really think someone that plays basketball :dunce: for a living should earn $55 million while a TEACHER/PROFESSOR earns $55,000/yr? Who is REALLY contributing more the economy?

Here's a fun fact:

In the 1970s, the average CEO made about 45-50x the pay of the average employee. Today, that number is closer to 500x. If I were a CEO, I wouldn't collect a salary (and I'm not just "saying" this; I mean this). If were CEO, I would ONLY collect stock options (because the stock price is WHOLLY dependant on my management of the company). [/rant]

If they cannot afford it they should not have children

It's a basic human right to have children! Which is why liberals always confuse me... they don't believe in the death penalty, but they're pro-choice. :dunce:

or give their children to someone who can afford it.

OK. 👍
 
Well then. I guess that leaves only 1 solution:
• Rights and freedoms are determined by an elite minority

If each individual is given the opportuniuty to determine their own rights and freedoms, don't you think people that share common interests will band together? Rival factions... civil war... confederate states...

I’m not advocating that each individual be given the opportunity to determine their own rights and freedoms. I’m advocating that the maximum freedom possible be given to people – possible being determined logically, not by the majority. At least what I propose has some basis of objectivity. You still cling to this idea that democracy can determine rights, I’ve heard nothing else from you – and I’ve proven why it won’t work.

Correct. However, in a system where money rules, nobody has any rights when the elite can simply exploit... and they will.

Sure, but that’s not a libertarian society is it? Money doesn’t rule in a libertarian society, law does. But more than anything, you rule yourself protected from those who would make you a slave by law.

I agree. History also shows that the elite minority will oppress the poor majority at every turn when given the power to.

Which is why they wouldn’t have the power to if we shrunk government, but as it is they have the power.

Wages will drop if the minimum wage is cut or eliminated. That is why the government placed a price floor on wages. If you would like, I can show you a real life example of this happening, AND I can show you what would happen to the US economy if minimum wage laws were repealed.

More people would have paying jobs if minimum wage were eliminated. The reason is because people would actually be getting why they earned. Unemployment because someone is forced to be overpaid is not good.

How would you explain inheritance then? Technically a person who gets a $4,000,000 estate doesn't "earn" it either. Yet under a Libertarian law, there would be little if any tax on it.

Some libertarians will argue for no income tax. They’re dreaming, to do that we’d have to have a much smaller government. I’m fine with an income tax if our government really has to cost as much as it does. Things wouldn’t work with a strict consumption tax. However, you’re looking at the estate issue from the wrong person’s point of view. Look at it from the point of view of the person who earned all that money so that his kids could have a better life.

It's been tried before; and as the rich were getting richer, they kept it in their pockets. Marxism at its finest.

Some of the richest people in this country donate billions to charity – literally. Don’t give me this crap that charity has to be forced. It’s not charity if it’s forced it’s theft…. And you ignored my argument that regardless of whether it is viable, it is the only moral solution.

"Theft" is such a harsh word. How about "mandatory charity"?

Oxymoron.

I'm not saying rich people don't work (or that they don't contribute to the economy), but do you really think someone that plays basketball for a living should earn $55 million while a TEACHER/PROFESSOR earns $55,000/yr? Who is REALLY contributing more the economy?

Yes. A person who plays basketball for a living entertains millions of people on a weekly basis, while a teacher teaches 30 for a year. A person who plays basketball is doing something that only a handful of people in the world are capable of, teaching is relatively easy in comparison – tens of thousands can qualify with little education.

Teaching is an easy job to get into and contributes relatively little due to the scope of a classroom. It shouldn’t be paid more than the market can bare (which is not the case now).

In the 1970s, the average CEO made about 45-50x the pay of the average employee. Today, that number is closer to 500x. If I were a CEO, I wouldn't collect a salary (and I'm not just "saying" this; I mean this). If were CEO, I would ONLY collect stock options (because the stock price is WHOLLY dependant on my management of the company)

The average CEO has a ton more responsibility for the risk, and a lot more to do with the direction of the company. The average CEO makes sure that the average employee keeps getting a paycheck. You’re somehow equating physical labor with real work and mental labor with fake work – which one is harder? I’ll give you a hint, mental.

It's a basic human right to have children! Which is why liberals always confuse me... they don't believe in the death penalty, but they're pro-choice.

That’s because they don’t believe that abortion terminates a life, they believe that it prevents one from starting - much different. If you want to argue abortion we should take it to the abortion thread.
 
Well, I was camping for a the weekend, and I checked in to see if there was any progress.

There wasn't. I'm leaving this thread; my head is bleeding from banging it against a big thick stone wall.

1) Brian, you sincerely need to examine thoroughly your definition of "rights".

2) Remember: the majority will always vote themselves bread and circuses. Always.
 
Duke
Well, I was camping for a the weekend, and I checked in to see if there was any progress.

There wasn't. I'm leaving this thread; my head is bleeding from banging it against a big thick stone wall.

1) Brian, you sincerely need to examine thoroughly your definition of "rights".

2) Remember: the majority will always vote themselves bread and circuses. Always.

Well, I know how you feel. Though I don't totally agree with your point of view.
 
If a centralized governemnt causes more problems than good, why are businesses run like little "dictatorships" with a centralized leadership?

You could use the same argument for military. The answer is that it is more efficient to run like a dictatorship for a task of limited scope, but it requires voluntary participation.

Working is very different from living in general. When I'm at work, I volunteer to take orders. I choose to work on a particular project when requested. At home, I do not expect to be requested by my government to work on a particular project. I do not expect to take orders from the government - nor is that reasonable.

I can quit my job. My only alternative to government is to flee the country.


Edit: You know as well as anyone that a centralized leadership could never get the price of bread for example right. It's much more efficient for larger scopes to allow the market to create order.
 
danoff
You could use the same argument for military. The answer is that it is more efficient to run like a dictatorship for a task of limited scope, but it requires voluntary participation.

So based on your beliefs as to the size government should be (very small), should the government run like a dictatorship? Wouldn't a small government have "tasks of limited scope" and voluntary participation?

Working is very different from living in general. When I'm at work, I volunteer to take orders. I choose to work on a particular project when requested.

Interesting...

At home, I do not expect to be requested by my government to work on a particular project. I do not expect to take orders from the government - nor is that reasonable.

I can quit my job. My only alternative to government is to flee the country.

An alternative is better than no alternative... If you don't like the way things are run here, you are free to move to a country where Libertarian ideals are more popular. I've asked several times for a country that most closely represents a Libertarian society and I have yet to hear of a single country. So you, and all the other Libertarians, feel the need to change things here, right?

Edit: You know as well as anyone that a centralized leadership could never get the price of bread for example right. It's much more efficient for larger scopes to allow the market to create order.

I love this argument. The markets create order and the government destroys the economy. You know something, you're right! Here are a few examples of the market creating order:

  • In the 1850s, Southern slaveowners started to recognize the fact that their region of the country was lagging behind the Industrial North. Cognizant of the fact that slavery was hindering the agrarian economy, slaveowners began freeing their slaves and single-handedly avoided a bloody civil war.
  • In the 1890s, wealthy industrialists saw the horrid conditions under which employees worked. They too were cognizant of the fact that their interests were also served when workers had more cash in their hand (to buy the goods produced by aforementioned industrialists) and had enough food to eat (making them more productive). Thus, the robber ba -- err -- industrialists embarked on a crusade to provide workers with a minimum wage and created new safety standards too! So labor unions and progressive laws to provide workers with reasonable pay and safe conditions were rendered obsolete. Great job, market!
  • In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the American public, aware of the injustice towards Blacks (who served their country faithfully during the Civil War, WWI and WW2) who had no choice but to send their children to substandard segregation schools, began to take their children from the segregated public schools and send them to integrated private schools. As you can see, the market once again single-handedly enabled the country to avoid factious legal battles.
  • In the early 1960s, businesses all over the country began to realize untapped labor resources represented by minorites and women. Thus they began hiring and compensating both groups without regard to race or gender. Amazing how quickly the market can adapt!
  • And finally. In the late 1960s, businesses began to to actively invest in millions of dollars in R&D to decrease the amount of pollutants contaminating our country's air and water. Similarly, the logging industry realized the importance of maintaining our forest resources as a source of economic and evironmental wealth for future generations. Thus, the market single-handedly created cleaner water and air, and protected natural resources for future generations. The government never had to intervene... not ONCE.

So you see, Dan. You're absolutely right. The market does create order. The market corrects itself, solves all problems -- the market is a panacea!
 
An alternative is better than no alternative... If you don't like the way things are run here, you are free to move to a country where Libertarian ideals are more popular. I've asked several times for a country that most closely represents a Libertarian society and I have yet to hear of a single country. So you, and all the other Libertarians, feel the need to change things here, right?

This is pretty much as close as it gets, especially if you're looking for a major economy as an example.

So based on your beliefs as to the size government should be (very small), should the government run like a dictatorship? Wouldn't a small government have "tasks of limited scope" and voluntary participation?

Government is inhernetly involuntary, and the fact that the entire country participates makes it large (even if the actually number of people, legislation, and budget of the government is small).

* In the 1850s, Southern slaveowners started to recognize the fact that their region of the country was lagging behind the Industrial North. Cognizant of the fact that slavery was hindering the agrarian economy, slaveowners began freeing their slaves and single-handedly avoided a bloody civil war.

Hmmm... slavery has more to do with violation of basic human rights than market.


* In the 1890s, wealthy industrialists saw the horrid conditions under which employees worked. They too were cognizant of the fact that their interests were also served when workers had more cash in their hand (to buy the goods produced by aforementioned industrialists) and had enough food to eat (making them more productive). Thus, the robber ba -- err -- industrialists embarked on a crusade to provide workers with a minimum wage and created new safety standards too! So labor unions and progressive laws to provide workers with reasonable pay and safe conditions were rendered obsolete. Great job, market!

Yea, the minimum wage laws suck, as do laws protecting unions. Great job government!

* In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the American public, aware of the injustice towards Blacks (who served their country faithfully during the Civil War, WWI and WW2) who had no choice but to send their children to substandard segregation schools, began to take their children from the segregated public schools and send them to integrated private schools. As you can see, the market once again single-handedly enabled the country to avoid factious legal battles.

Racism can't be faught by the market, but public schools segregating is a major problem because public schools are funded by the public (of all colors). Great job government!

* In the early 1960s, businesses all over the country began to realize untapped labor resources represented by minorites and women. Thus they began hiring and compensating both groups without regard to race or gender. Amazing how quickly the market can adapt!

Ok, actually women started entering the workplace earlier and it was a result of the market.

* And finally. In the late 1960s, businesses began to to actively invest in millions of dollars in R&D to decrease the amount of pollutants contaminating our country's air and water. Similarly, the logging industry realized the importance of maintaining our forest resources as a source of economic and evironmental wealth for future generations. Thus, the market single-handedly created cleaner water and air, and protected natural resources for future generations. The government never had to intervene... not ONCE.

The market doesn't solve polution problems. I'll be the first to admit that. You know what? It also doesn't provide for police or the military. It also doesn't provide for a limited government or freedom.

When are you going to get it through your head that I'm not an anarchist.
 
danoff
When are you going to get it through your head that I'm not an anarchist.

I never said you were an anarchist. I'm implying that Libertarianism and the political party have its roots in anarchism.

Again, there are different types of Libertarians:

There are some minarchists, like you, who are intelligent enough to realize that the government has some purpose. I may not agree with you on HOW MUCH government is needed, but that's beside the point.

Then there are the natural-law Libertarians and the anarcho-capitalists etc. and the list goes on...

I'll respond to the rest of your comments later in this post...

*edit*

Haha. It's funny you should say that! Now you know how I felt in the Drugs thread. :dopey:
 
I never said you were an anarchist. I'm implying that Libertarianism and the political party have its roots in anarchism.

Again, there are different types of Libertarians:

There are some minarchists, like you, who are intelligent enough to realize that the government has some purpose. I may not agree with you on HOW MUCH government is needed, but that's beside the point.

Then there are the natural-law Libertarians and the anarcho-capitalists etc. and the list goes on...

I'll respond to the rest of your comments later in this post...

People who call themselves libertarian are lying if they don't think government has any place - they're anarchists. Libertarians all understand a need for government, even if the amount isn't agreed upon.
 
MrktMkr1986
An alternative is better than no alternative... If you don't like the way things are run here, you are free to move to a country where Libertarian ideals are more popular. I've asked several times for a country that most closely represents a Libertarian society and I have yet to hear of a single country. So you, and all the other Libertarians, feel the need to change things here, right?
Yes – From what I know, America is closest to the Libertarian ideal than any other country (why do you think Ayn Rand moved here?). It's far from ideal for us, but there's no better alternative.

I've always said that if I could, I'd find an uninhabited (large) piece of land and establish a Libertarian society there – alas, I think Antarctica is the only sizable piece of land up for grabs, but who the hell wants that? :D There's currently a movement (the Free State Project) to move as many Libertarians to New Hampshire as possible, but that's really the only "alternative", per se, that we have right now. (And it's not exactly the greatest alternative – for example, danoff has a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, so there are only a few states that he can live in and maintain his career.)
 
I have my own ideas about Ayatoll -- err -- Ayn Rand. First of all, she wrote a book called:

"The Virtue of Selfishness"

That's saying a lot about Libertarianism.

All of her fictional work is based on her philosophy of objectivism. The principles of this philosophy seem to be made up of two things: "objective reality" (no wonder she didn't have any kids) and an unhealthy obsession with capitalism. Even though she believes selfishness is a moral obligation (unlike Marxists who belive in gifts), it seems to me as if she's desparately trying to justify a fear of Communism.

In regard to "objective reality", her view of nature is absurd. She seems to believe that its only purpose is to provide raw materials for factories. :dunce: Never mind the fact that we need to breathe -- that's optional! :lol:

And Dan... I did not enjoy "Atlas Shrugged" as much as I thought I would. Please change your location. :sly: The more I read about Libertarianism, the more I don't like it -- and if the United States is the best example you can up with for a Libertarian society, then I have a ton of work to do.

*edit*
Sorry, Dan -- getting late. Will edit previous post in response to your post tomorrow -- rather, later on today. :dopey:
 
Of course you wouldnt like it..judging by your post you lean towards an authoritarian type government while most would lean towards a more libertarian government . Just like the one in the US.
 
MrktMkr1986
I have my own ideas about Ayatoll -- err -- Ayn Rand. First of all, she wrote a book called:

"The Virtue of Selfishness"

That's saying a lot about Libertarianism.
Have you read it? Didn't think so. There's a reason it's titled in such a deliberately polarizing manner.
All of her fictional work is based on her philosophy of objectivism. The principles of this philosophy seem to be made up of two things: "objective reality" (no wonder she didn't have any kids) and an unhealthy obsession with capitalism.
Duh. The 'fiction' is merely a framework to illustrate Objectivism.
Even though she believes selfishness is a moral obligation (unlike Marxists who belive in gifts), it seems to me as if she's desparately trying to justify a fear of Communism.
Perhaps - just maybe - that's because she grew up in Soviet Russia and saw first-hand what it was like and what it does to people. Perhaps.

Also, since I'm fairly sure that you haven't read The Virtue of Selfishness or even Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, you've entirely missed the concept of "rational self-interest" that she espouses. You see "selfishness" and because you're predisposed to it, you read that as "dog-eat-dog anarchy". If you'd actually take the time to understand it instead of fighting so hard to insist you already know what it's about, you'd realize that rational self-interest falls very closely parallel to the morality of Libertarianism that we've been describing all along: voluntary interaction between free human beings.

For what it's worth, Rand widely and roundly disliked Libertarians.
In regard to "objective reality", her view of nature is absurd. She seems to believe that its only purpose is to provide raw materials for factories. :dunce: Never mind the fact that we need to breathe -- that's optional! :lol:
Let's see, her novels were written in what, the late '40s and early '50s? Did anybody think about the environment then? No.
And Dan... I did not enjoy "Atlas Shrugged" as much as I thought I would. Please change your location. :sly: The more I read about Libertarianism, the more I don't like it -- and if the United States is the best example you can up with for a Libertarian society, then I have a ton of work to do.
The more you write, the more you expose yourself as an authoritarian control freak.
 
Hi Duke, thought you were going to leave this one bud.

Danoff, I might be missing or have missed it in this thread. But what's the difference between rights and freedoms? You say them like they are seperate things so I'd like to know what exactly you mean.
 
I'm trying to cut down, but I can't sit by and watch Brian state misinformation.

[edit] By the way, here's a link to correct information about The Virtue of Selfishness.

"Rights" are natural things that you posess from birth. They are sociolegal attributes that each and every human being owns merely by virtue of being born human.

Fundamentally, you have the right to own your own life, to own the fruits of your labor and other property, and the right to not have violence initiated against you, including theft and fraud. Fundamentally, these are it.

That serves as a basis for your freedom. Freedom is the tool you use to make use of your rights; the way you implement your rights.

Many people here and else where have a very mistaken impression about what "rights" are. I see the term misused heavily. Many people insist that all humans have a 'right' to whatever they need for survival: food, shelter, health care, etc. They confuse the right to OWN those things with the assumption that those things should be PROVIDED to every human being.

Food, shelter, and health care are not rights. They are conditions of survival, yes, and you have the right to your free pursuit of meeting those conditions for yourself and your family. But there is no 'right' that guarantees that these things will be provided to you. You have no right to take those provisions away from someone else by violence, threat, or fraud.
 
ledhed
Of course you wouldnt like it..judging by your post you lean towards an authoritarian type government while most would lean towards a more libertarian government . Just like the one in the US.

...and...

Duke
The more you write, the more you expose yourself as an authoritarian control freak.

...are typical Libertarian responses. I'm not at all surprised. Like I said before, anyone that is opposed to Libertarianism or tries to argue certain points is automatically labelled a statist or an authoritarian. Yet bring up the word anarchist and they all (well...most) throw tantrums.

Duke
For what it's worth, Rand widely and roundly disliked Libertarians.

I think I can see why.

To be honest, I'm tired of going back and forth over comflicting ideologies. You continue to believe what you want, and I'll continue to believe what I want. However, I'm not finished with this thread. Origianlly, the thread was supposed to be about the Libertarian Party -- so I'll try to stick with that. Now, I can no longer be accused of "stating misinformation" because everything I talk about from now on will be directly from the Party itself.

Why didn't I think of this before?! :dunce:

Before I go into my next set of criticisms about the party though, I will conclude with my opinion of Libertarians:

Libertarianism appeals to 2 different types of people. Thugs, who idolize the already successful and have nothing but disdain for the powerless and the poor, and narcissists. If it's not money and property they worship, it's themselves. It's hard to read Libertarian rhetoric without concluding that these people have never left the country -- except of course when they spend tens of thousands of dollars on vacation. :rolleyes: They don't know what Latin American rule by the elite looks like, they don't know what an actual oppressive government looks like, they've never experienced a depression, they've never lived in a slum, never faced racial discrimination, probably never even left suburbs (except for aforementioned vacations). Yet at the same time they have this overwhelming sense of entitlement -- a feeling that they've somehow earned the wealth that they were born into, they owe nothing to the community, they deserve to have whatever they want in the form of "total personal freedom", and that no one should stand in their way. If I'm the authoritarian, then they're the spoiled 5 year old that kicks and screams whenever they don't get their way.

DISCLAIMER: Not all Libertarians are the same. Some people, are attracted to SOME parts of the Libertarian ideology (and there's nothing wrong with that) but intelligent enough to ignore its implicit "morality".
 
Libertarianism appeals to 2 different types of people. Thugs, who idolize the already successful and have nothing but disdain for the powerless and the poor, and narcissists.

I think you'll probably lose most of your readers with this obvious generalization. You say that Duke and I are different because we only adopt part of the party platfrom, but I think you'll find that we agree with almost all of what is posted. This kind of mudslinging is not going to get this discussion anywhere and until you shake this view that libertarians have disdain for the powerless or are narcissistic, you're not going to be able to understand the point of view.

Libertarians want freedom for everyone and power for the powerless. Not freedom for themselves at the cost of others.

Thugs says "stupid immoral person" to me. But how is it immoral to want what's fair? How is it moral to want what is not fair?
 
Back