The Truth about Libertarians

reply to post by Rockpuck


Nope, he gets it perfectly. I think you're the one who is confused.

There are two kinds of "libertarians" in the world. Liberals who looking to get laid by a PolySci freshman, and sociopaths.

The "Authoritarians" pass laws that let the state tell you what to do.

The Libertarians redact laws so that the wealthy can tell you what to do.

I think you summed it up perfectly. Both extremes are bad. Libertarian extremists deserve codemnation as much as authoritarian extremists, since both ideologies lead to tyranny - either state tyranny, or tyranny of the wealthiest minority.

The optimum is obviously somewhere in between.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Give all the people freedom and you will see nothing but endless chaos.

Some people are just too stupid to have that much freedom, hence the need for laws to control them.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

The "Authoritarians" pass laws that let the state tell you what to do.

The Libertarians redact laws so that the wealthy can tell you what to do.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather live in an America with a mild aroma of authoritarianism, than the libertarian dream of an America that looks like a Philippine "Free Market Zone."

Just exactly how do libertarians allow the wealthy to tell you what to do?

reply to post by whatukno


I will get to your loose interpretations soon but want to stay on track


Here is our stance on the economy

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each
person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a
legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Privite property.............

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

The enviroment, this is a long shot from the way Wuky described...........you can sue the company polluiting your water or air.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

reply to post by lastrebel

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner.

1. That is debatable.

2. Most efficient does not necessarily mean best. Sometimes it is more efficient for free market economy to let the poor starve instead of helping them, or let the ill people die if they cannot afford the treatment etc.

reply to post by Maslo


1. Then debate it

2. Just exactly how does the economy keep the poor from starving now?

reply to post by lastrebel

Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.

Compared to what? For-profit private companies? Dont be ridiculous..

reply to post by lastrebel

1. Then debate it

Large scale infrastructure investments, science and development, roads, railroads, space travel and satellites, universal public education, basic research, universities and internet are classic examples where government allocation of resources was superior to that of a free market. That doesnt mean some of these things would never arise under free market, but it would take more time. Initial bootstraping of new advanced industries and technologies - in essence,large and long term investments with uncertain payoffs - thats where the government may be superior to free market.

2. Just exactly how does the economy keep the poor from starving now?

Thats exactly my point, it doesnt. Government does - welfare, social security, public healthcare. Why do you think it would be in libertarianism?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by lastrebel

 

Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.

Compared to what? For-profit private companies? Dont be ridiculous..

Ridiculous?

Ridiculous is believing that a finite statement such as "have a terrible track record" could be interpreted as a comparison. If the best response is "Compared to what", then there really is no response. There are entire cities covered in depleted uranium. Nuclear contamination from thousands of nuclear tests. What about those folks from Area 51 that are not even allowed to sue to recover medical costs because of on the job exposure?

The government is, by far, the worst offender of just about every law. They feel above the law. Not just US government, either. It is like being the boss. You may come in late to work every day, but will still fire someone for their tardies.

Originally posted by lastrebel

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

The "Authoritarians" pass laws that let the state tell you what to do.

The Libertarians redact laws so that the wealthy can tell you what to do.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather live in an America with a mild aroma of authoritarianism, than the libertarian dream of an America that looks like a Philippine "Free Market Zone."

Just exactly how do libertarians allow the wealthy to tell you what to do?

By creating a governing system that defines rights by an individuals ability to amass resources.

If we were starting from scratch, and there was a level playing field then Libertarian ideals might make some sense. As things are now, would you not be effectively usurping the accomplishments of the people? as in:

"INFRASTRUCTURE"

The small Government you speak of as being a Police force, would be a payed mercenary force used to promote the exploitation of the not haves, by the haves.

A Libertarian US would be a Totalitarian cruel and selfish nation that would be thrown into chaos, and civil war.

I understand the "Ideals" are a study in self sufficiency, however that is easy to embrace if you already have made it.

The multi-tier caste system this would create in the US would not last 2 years before the starving masses rebelled and put your Police force to the test, and you to the guillotine..

My closest friend in the Libertarian Party and I were talking about welfare, and entitlements. He said that all entitlements should be considered charity and be optional.

Ok, so far so good right. I asked if he thought people with land and money would give to the charities, he said of course, people are stupid. I asked how much would you give? He said nothing. I asked how will it work then.

He said people are stupid, lots of people will give money. I asked what he planned to do when the poor come to his property line, he said make a stand.

Sounds like a plan guys. Given that 2% of the population controls the economy, what Libertarians would like is to take this country built by all the people and make it the feudal property of the wealthy enforced by a police force.

So let's see. 2% control everything, there is a huge Police force to control the poor, and all rules end at the property line.

Sounds like now except the wealthy just get a private army.

This is going to go over like a lead balloon kiddies.

Good luck with that.

Ziggy Strange.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Ridiculous is believing that a finite statement such as "have a terrible track record" could be interpreted as a comparison. If the best response is "Compared to what", then there really is no response.

Why cant it be interpreted as comparison? Every choice is just a selection of the most optimal alternative from the possibilities. What do you propose in place of terrible government protection of the environment? No protection at all? That doesnt sound to me like better alternative.

Nuclear contamination from thousands of nuclear tests. What about those folks from Area 51 that are not even allowed to sue to recover medical costs because of on the job exposure?

Nuclear tests are a history, the government banned them.
I would like to see some links on those Area 51 cases.

The government is, by far, the worst offender of just about every law.

Currently, the worst pollution on the globe is caused by private corporations freely building factories where government environmental regulation is absent, just like you libertarians propose. See here.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Ridiculous is believing that a finite statement such as "have a terrible track record" could be interpreted as a comparison. If the best response is "Compared to what", then there really is no response.

Why cant it be interpreted as comparison? Every choice is just a selection of the most optimal alternative from the possibilities. What do you propose in place of terrible government protection of the environment? No protection at all? That doesnt sound to me like better alternative.

This is a strawman. There is 1 result that is acceptable, and everything else false outside of my acceptance. What the government does now is horrible. They do not hold themselves to any account, and refuse to disclose vital information to track their compliance with their own laws. If we are to use THAT performance in a comparative set, the end result will be useless.

When trying to make a chocolate mousse, you cannot use a turd in comparison. Not unless you have a habit of lowering the bar to disgustingly low levels.

Nuclear contamination from thousands of nuclear tests. What about those folks from Area 51 that are not even allowed to sue to recover medical costs because of on the job exposure?

Nuclear tests are a history, the government banned them.
I would like to see some links on those Area 51 cases.

That is a fallacy. Some nuclear tests are a history. But just a couple of months ago there was a subcritical mass test in Nevada. I believe it was 9-21-2010.

RE: Area 51 Workers Lawsuit

The government is, by far, the worst offender of just about every law.

Currently, the worst pollution on the globe is caused by private corporations freely building factories where government environmental regulation is absent, just like you libertarians propose. See here.

I am not a libertarian. Although i do like the platform quite a bit.

The worst polluter on the globe are the governments of the world, primarily the US. Our military machine creates enormous amounts of toxic waste, much of which sits around the US on bases. A good example is the Arkansas bird deaths..

Of course, we could quantify it if the government would just release data on their environmental reclaimation efforts. But they don't. Instead of data, we get the finger. But the nuclear waste alone is staggering. Then all the chemicls that people don't even consider, along with the bio-agents....there is just no comnparison between the US Gov and the private sector.

A Google Search On Military Pollution - Get Informed

reply to post by ziggystrange



People are not charitable because they are stupid. Your friend sounds like a swell guy.

I am a member of Rotary International. I do not make enough money to give monetary resources, but want to do something. Rotary is a great way to achieve that. I do it because i want to. In about 2 hours i will be judging a chili cookoff, a fundraiser for a Mental Health/Mental Retardation project. If i have some extra cash to spare, when there is a Rotary concession set up, i will donate a dozen cases of water to sell, so we can continue to fight polio in under developed nations. My peers in Rotary are the wealthiest people in my community. If there is a project going on to help the needy, it is always brought before our group so we can help out in some way.

I have donated to have wheelchairs bought for people who are crippled in South and Central America. Sure, it was only 1 chair...but i impacted 10 lives with that one chair as someone's family no longer has to care for the person receiving it. I have worked to promote a program called "Holden Uganda", where people are building water wells in Uganda, where the water quality is among the lowest in the world (i really recommend it, too, at holdenuganda.org). Like i said, i am not a big earner, but i have a desire to help. At at my shoulder are the "elite" of my town, doing their part to help their fellow man.

Yes, there are some heartless people out there. But humanity, on the whole, is a compassionate and loving group. A good example of mankinds kindness is the Bedouin hospitality. And examples are far better than one off stories from "friends".

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

This is a strawman. There is 1 result that is acceptable, and everything else false outside of my acceptance. What the government does now is horrible. They do not hold themselves to any account, and refuse to disclose vital information to track their compliance with their own laws. If we are to use THAT performance in a comparative set, the end result will be useless. When trying to make a chocolate mousse, you cannot use a turd in comparison. Not unless you have a habit of lowering the bar to disgustingly low levels.

Turd or not, it shows that private companies do in fact polute the environment quite thoroughly without laws preventing them. I am not saying gov does not polute, that is of course not true. But compared to private poluters, it is not any worse.

That is a fallacy. Some nuclear tests are a history. But just a couple of months ago there was a subcritical mass test in Nevada. I believe it was 9-21-2010. RE: Area 51 Workers Lawsuit

The test was non-poluting, conducted underground, precisely because of international law banning poluting tests. I dont have any problems with non-poluting nuclear tests.

occur at deep depths, at about 1,000 feet underground, so radioactive hot gases would likely not reach the surface and wouldn't be picked up by the radiation monitoring network of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO).

The worst polluter on the globe are the governments of the world, primarily the US. Our military machine creates enormous amounts of toxic waste, much of which sits around the US on bases. A good example is the Arkansas bird deaths..

There is no evidence linking those bird deaths to that army base, just speculation.
I would also like to see some evidence that the burning of nerve and mustard agents is poluting to the environment. According to your link, the army itself reported to the media about the burning of those substances, so it may be a standard way of disposal of such substances.
This is hardly a good example of military polution, IMHO.

Of course, we could quantify it if the government would just release data on their environmental reclaimation efforts. But they don't. Instead of data, we get the finger. But the nuclear waste alone is staggering. Then all the chemicls that people don't even consider, along with the bio-agents....there is just no comnparison between the US Gov and the private sector.

Biggest producer of nuclear waste is currently nuclear energy industry. Not that it is something bad, I do support nuclear energy. Military was the biggest poluter in the past during cold war arms race, and the sites are being cleaned now.

reply to post by Maslo


Seem you may have slipped off rail. There is no dispute that, a) the private sector pollutes, and b) the current level of pollution is completely unacceptable.

Having said that, there is some level of accountability for the private sector. In the government, however, there is not. They don't even acknowledge vast amounts of pollution.

RE: nuclear pollution, see this:

www.prop1.org...

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You ignore the post and concentrate on an example.

I'm not going to rattle off what my businesses give as charity. I can state as a person that knows, and works with wealthy people, that the last thing most of the ones I know care about is the plight of the little people. Sure they will give to their favorite charity to send their tax dollar where they personally want it to go, and where they can personally benefit from it. I call that an investment, and P.R. So do their Accountants.

But hat was not the point of my post.

The point was that just because something sounds reasonable, it's not a a given that it is. Libertarian ideals are admirable on paper but flawed in practice. Monopolies give unlimited market power. We've been there.
Large government is a bad thing, nobody is questioning this.
Government is wasteful, it's corrupt, and unjust.

Adopting the Libertarian platform is not the answer. Deregulation only leads to abuse. The idea that self interest will keep businesses from decimating their sources of income "the consumer" is anathema to Corporate thinking.

I'm a businessman I have nothing against making a profit, but I'm not on a get all I can and to hell with everyone else trip. I believe people can advance their positions in life through hard work. I also understand that not all people can make it on their own for many reasons. I feel we need to help those people. Not as a choice given to the whim of the populace. But as a principle by which we live as a free ethical people.

We live in a country where getting sick can undo the work of a lifetime due to the cost of health care. We can lose all our savings due to an economic collapse caused by profiteering by banking institutions, and illegal stock trading practices. Not to mention wars with no purpose. We have issues in this country and we need to see what those issues really are, and address them. If we become a bunch of fear based factions we are not going to fare well.

reply to post by ziggystrange


I fully addressed your post, via your example.

I think what you may have illustrated here is the moral difference by region. Out here in West Texas, people are very friendly with each other. I see, with the exception of the Indian doctors (who feel that they are from a higher caste than us "undisciplined Americans") the upper crust of my community doing what it takes to help their fellow man.

What other town would you see 2 dozen millionaires serving Thanksgiving Dinner to the homeless and mentally ill?

Care and concern are a cultural value. If there isn't any in the culture you live within, it is the values of the people involved. which is kind of the point of my response to you: you gave an anecdote as if that is the brush which will paint your picture.