Libertarian Anarchist

[occupied]

Wait you guys need to come to a consensus here...The others are saying libertarianism has never been practiced, but here you are saying that it has been and it lead to anarchy.

You guys go huddle up, get your stories straight, and come back when you have something

Many ideas have been implemented as libertarian ideas, especially some of the anti-socialist economic policies in South America, but the problem always occurs because the people who move into a sudden power vacuum are by definition opportunists and rarely care one bit about undue exploitation, the environment or anyone's freedom, economic or otherwise. They never end up as a benefit to all, instead they turn out to be opening the door to ruthlessness and plutocratic corruption.

To be fair, those countries do NOT have a limited and enumerated set of powers as the law of the land. In other words, the only way there can be a "power vacuum" is if the power existed in the first place. In a limited government, the power is, well, limited. Therefore, it matters not who steps into the leadership position, only that he restrict himself to the powers granted in the law of the land. This is the way our libertarian influenced American experiment was supposed to work...and did until the progressives came along and decided government powers should not be limited, or at least should be greatly expanded. Only then was there the real chance of plutocratic corruption.

If it's a good idea it should work everywhere, Americans are just as fallible and greedy as any other human, nothing special about us in that way, we are humans first and Americans second. We live and die by the hierarchy, we know no other way to live, leaders will always exist and by their nature they will always seek the limits of their power and then push them, they will seek alliances with other powerful people and protect their interests over others and especially they will attempt to crush challenges to their position. I see the instinctive need for authoritarian leaders and the universal selfishness of leaders as one of the central flaws in libertarian ideology.

 

[Paulie]

Many ideas have been implemented as libertarian ideas, especially some of the anti-socialist economic policies in South America, but the problem always occurs because the people who move into a sudden power vacuum are by definition opportunists and rarely care one bit about undue exploitation, the environment or anyone's freedom, economic or otherwise. They never end up as a benefit to all, instead they turn out to be opening the door to ruthlessness and plutocratic corruption.

To be fair, those countries do NOT have a limited and enumerated set of powers as the law of the land. In other words, the only way there can be a "power vacuum" is if the power existed in the first place. In a limited government, the power is, well, limited. Therefore, it matters not who steps into the leadership position, only that he restrict himself to the powers granted in the law of the land. This is the way our libertarian influenced American experiment was supposed to work...and did until the progressives came along and decided government powers should not be limited, or at least should be greatly expanded. Only then was there the real chance of plutocratic corruption.

If it's a good idea it should work everywhere, Americans are just as fallible and greedy as any other human, nothing special about us in that way, we are humans first and Americans second. We live and die by the hierarchy, we know no other way to live, leaders will always exist and by their nature they will always seek the limits of their power and then push them, they will seek alliances with other powerful people and protect their interests over others and especially they will attempt to crush challenges to their position. I see the instinctive need for authoritarian leaders and the universal selfishness of leaders as one of the central flaws in libertarian ideology.

There's flaws in this post. First, who's instinctive need for authoritarian leaders are you talking about? Because clearly we don't want authoritarian leaders.

Second, you're ignoring the differences in government. In the US, the consitution was supposed to restrict the power of leaders which would prevent power vacuums as much as possible. It's not the fault of libertarians that the rest of society caved on those limitations.

 

[JoeB131]

This thread should be pinned.




To some of you retards' foreheads.

Libertarian = Crazy people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our founders were more libertarian than anything, with a few exceptions like Hamilton, they wanted the least government possible to maintain social order and protect the rights of the citizen. That's not anarchy, it's just not the statist BS we have now.

Our founding fathers had no other choice. The nation was bankrupt after the Revolution and impediments to transportation and communications between the states made a strong centralized government an impossibility.

Areas outside the populated urban areas did experience anarchy as the weak federal and state governments were unable to maintain control over desolate areas

A strong centralized government was never the intent, the federal government was only intended to do the things a state couldn't do on it's own, like common defense, a postal system and preventing states form taking economic advantage of each other. The federal government is still allowing anarchy to prevail in isolated areas, a prime example is the desert southwest with drug and human smuggling.

According to whom?

 

[occupied]

You can't possibly say a power vacuum would work exactly the same anywhere. Information availability and dissemination is crucial. Without it, the consumer really is at a disadvantage. We have a wealth of information available in this country and most people use almost none of it because they don't think they have to with the government "taking care of it all for them".

You cannot look at the phenomena of the secret donor super-pac and not say that ruthless opportunists would not or could not exploit power vacuums here in America, it's the clearest example of that phenomena I can think of when the SC removed laws preventing that kind of unlimited, shadowy spending. We may never know who funds large portions of our elections again.

I didn't say they wouldn't exist. I said it's not fair to compare it to a third world country.

I'm torn on super pacs. On one hand, they are simply people freely contributing their money to a politician that has their interest at heart. On the other hand, the limitless contribution does put the little guy at a disadvantage on the playing field.

BUT...

The little guy can organize and create the "little guy super pac" and as we've seen with both Paul and Obama, small donations can amount to a lot when enough people care to contribute.

That's the way it works in the real world where policy may not always be ideologically correct or pure but meant to keep some kind of balance, it may tie some hands but sometimes powerful people need some clear-cut boundaries or we risk them running over us out of exuberance if not malice.

 

[Paulie]

You cannot look at the phenomena of the secret donor super-pac and not say that ruthless opportunists would not or could not exploit power vacuums here in America, it's the clearest example of that phenomena I can think of when the SC removed laws preventing that kind of unlimited, shadowy spending. We may never know who funds large portions of our elections again.

I didn't say they wouldn't exist. I said it's not fair to compare it to a third world country.

I'm torn on super pacs. On one hand, they are simply people freely contributing their money to a politician that has their interest at heart. On the other hand, the limitless contribution does put the little guy at a disadvantage on the playing field.

BUT...

The little guy can organize and create the "little guy super pac" and as we've seen with both Paul and Obama, small donations can amount to a lot when enough people care to contribute.

That's the way it works in the real world where policy may not always be ideologically correct or pure but meant to keep some kind of balance, it may tie some hands but sometimes powerful people need some clear-cut boundaries or we risk them running over us out of exuberance if not malice.

The clear cut boundaries are the enumerated powers.

When the leaders over stepped those boundaries, it was the task of the voters to remove them from office. But instead we continue to reelect the same assholes and then complain about career politicians. How much sense does that make?

 

[occupied]

To be fair, those countries do NOT have a limited and enumerated set of powers as the law of the land. In other words, the only way there can be a "power vacuum" is if the power existed in the first place. In a limited government, the power is, well, limited. Therefore, it matters not who steps into the leadership position, only that he restrict himself to the powers granted in the law of the land. This is the way our libertarian influenced American experiment was supposed to work...and did until the progressives came along and decided government powers should not be limited, or at least should be greatly expanded. Only then was there the real chance of plutocratic corruption.

If it's a good idea it should work everywhere, Americans are just as fallible and greedy as any other human, nothing special about us in that way, we are humans first and Americans second. We live and die by the hierarchy, we know no other way to live, leaders will always exist and by their nature they will always seek the limits of their power and then push them, they will seek alliances with other powerful people and protect their interests over others and especially they will attempt to crush challenges to their position. I see the instinctive need for authoritarian leaders and the universal selfishness of leaders as one of the central flaws in libertarian ideology.

There's flaws in this post. First, who's instinctive need for authoritarian leaders are you talking about? Because clearly we don't want authoritarian leaders.

Second, you're ignoring the differences in government. In the US, the consitution was supposed to restrict the power of leaders which would prevent power vacuums as much as possible. It's not the fault of libertarians that the rest of society caved on those limitations.

The authoritarian impulse is written deep within the most primitive, reptilian parts of our brains and cannot at this time be excised or easily ignored. Do you like a president that talks with confidence and toughness or one that takes a pussy cerebral conciliatory approach to policy? A doer or a talker? I rest my case on that one.

What our constitution was meant to do is meaningless if people do not follow it, look at your own views on the amendments and case law? You would start all over with that document as your only law and soon find out that it is terribly insufficient to keep people from being the predators they instinctively are.

 

[eflatminor]

How do you intend to keep ruthless opportunists from exploiting all these regulatory holes and power vacuums you would create?

Through EQUAL justice...by ensuring everyone, be they 'ruthless' or not, be required to comply with the same, easy to understand laws. If exploiting involves taking what doesn't belong to the exploiter, it should be illegal. Any other voluntary activity between adults should not be the government's concern. If you want me to get more specific than that, pose a specific scenario you fear would come to be in a libertarian society.



False premise. In a libertarian society, workers would still be free to organize in the private sector, just like today. Involuntary exploitation would still be illegal, as would abuse. Further, no "management" would get any rights not afforded to everyone else. Meaning, nobody, manager or not, would be free to "do as they please" if it involved trampling on the rights of another.



I do not pretend to know your beliefs but how it would work in a libertarian society is pretty simple. Don't take what doesn't belong to you. Don't hurt another unnecessarily. Respect private property and the individual rights we're all born with. If other people are involved in consensual activity between adults, it's not your business nor that of any government. That's about it.

To be specific as I can, a worker would have the right to labor for whomever he could at whatever compensation he demanded, just as employers could pay labor whatever they like and hire who they want. Each would be free to disengage if not satisfied with the arrangement.

Well intended regulations meant to prevent problems would be replaced with actual punishment for causing problems. That punishment can take the form of criminal or civil findings, just like today. What we have today however are regulations that protect the interests of the well entrenched while preventing nothing. That cronyism has no place in a libertarian world.

That's about as plain as I can put it, maybe you can be different.

Ditto!

Fair enough but that raises another question. How is after-the-fact enforcement of fraud, abuse, dangerous or exploitative workplaces and especially toxic pollution better than preventive regulation...

For a few reasons:
1) Regulations may claim to be preventative, but history suggests they are not. After over a century of exponentially increasing regulations, shit still happens. In reality, all these regulations give the polluter an "out" (by claiming compliance with 'code'), outright protection (anyone remember the $75mill oil spill cap?), and they prevent new entrants into markets by making regulations only large, entrenched companies can comply with.
2) After-the-fact enforcement allows the parties involved to deal with an actual scenario, not a "what might happen" guess.
3) Organizations fear the wrath of angry customers, lawsuits and criminal prosecution. Not so of the regulations they and their lobbies helped to write.

...and what do you think would be an acceptable method of policing and charging penalties in a court of law where a good lawyer would still be able to tie things up in court for eternity and continually set precedent for minimal and insufficient penalties?

First, not all enforcement would be civil. Criminal enforcement would be on the table in a libertarian economy. However, to your point, those lawyers are able to tie things up in court and set bad precedents do so only with the assistance of government regulators. When civil disagreements are settled by jury, we know the sky's the limit with regard to penalties. Only a lawmaker can determine a maximum penalty.

...if a factory dumps a ton of eternally toxic sludge in the woods, who eventually cleans up the sludge and how long will it take given the glacial pace of any court of law?

First, the owner of the "woods" would have an immediate cause of action, both civil and criminal. Whoever did the dumping would have to pay to clean it up.

Regarding the slow pace of our court systems, in a libertarian economy, our courts would be FAR less burdened as there would be no criminalization of consensual activity, which dominates today's courts. We'd also have far more money to expand courts as needed because government would be restricted to its enumerated powers, one of which is a court system.

It seems under your system that harm can be done all too easily...

Harm is done today, even with all the government regulations, spending, agencies, etc. There is no reason to believe all that meddling helps to reduce harm, only regulate it. Further, there is every reason to believe that when REAL ramifications are attached to evil doing, harm will be done less frequently.

 

[occupied]

I didn't say they wouldn't exist. I said it's not fair to compare it to a third world country.

I'm torn on super pacs. On one hand, they are simply people freely contributing their money to a politician that has their interest at heart. On the other hand, the limitless contribution does put the little guy at a disadvantage on the playing field.

BUT...

The little guy can organize and create the "little guy super pac" and as we've seen with both Paul and Obama, small donations can amount to a lot when enough people care to contribute.

That's the way it works in the real world where policy may not always be ideologically correct or pure but meant to keep some kind of balance, it may tie some hands but sometimes powerful people need some clear-cut boundaries or we risk them running over us out of exuberance if not malice.

The clear cut boundaries are the enumerated powers.

When the leaders over stepped those boundaries, it was the task of the voters to remove them from office. But instead we continue to reelect the same assholes and then complain about career politicians. How much sense does that make?

See my scientifically accepted views on authoritarianism and why the constitution is insufficient to curb it.

 

[eflatminor]

Many ideas have been implemented as libertarian ideas, especially some of the anti-socialist economic policies in South America, but the problem always occurs because the people who move into a sudden power vacuum are by definition opportunists and rarely care one bit about undue exploitation, the environment or anyone's freedom, economic or otherwise. They never end up as a benefit to all, instead they turn out to be opening the door to ruthlessness and plutocratic corruption.

To be fair, those countries do NOT have a limited and enumerated set of powers as the law of the land. In other words, the only way there can be a "power vacuum" is if the power existed in the first place. In a limited government, the power is, well, limited. Therefore, it matters not who steps into the leadership position, only that he restrict himself to the powers granted in the law of the land. This is the way our libertarian influenced American experiment was supposed to work...and did until the progressives came along and decided government powers should not be limited, or at least should be greatly expanded. Only then was there the real chance of plutocratic corruption.

If it's a good idea it should work everywhere

It would work if they had a law of the land that limited their powers.

I see the instinctive need for authoritarian leaders and the universal selfishness of leaders as one of the central flaws in libertarian ideology.

Which is why we seek to limit their powers to a few, well defined areas. That way, they can be as selfish as they like. After all, if an authoritarian has no ability to meddle in your life, who cares how selfish he is?

 

[eflatminor]

That's the way it works in the real world where policy may not always be ideologically correct or pure but meant to keep some kind of balance, it may tie some hands but sometimes powerful people need some clear-cut boundaries or we risk them running over us out of exuberance if not malice.

The clear cut boundaries are the enumerated powers.

When the leaders over stepped those boundaries, it was the task of the voters to remove them from office. But instead we continue to reelect the same assholes and then complain about career politicians. How much sense does that make?

See my scientifically accepted views on authoritarianism and why the constitution is insufficient to curb it.

Then you may agree with many libertarians who would support the idea of an amendment to the Constitution defining the commerce and general welfare clauses to their original intent. In other words, the Constitution can be made sufficient to curb authoritarianism. It's been the most effective document in history at doing so but it doesn't mean it's perfect from the get go...which is why we can amend it.

 

[occupied]

Harm is done today, even with all the government regulations, spending, agencies, etc. There is no reason to believe all that meddling helps to reduce harm, only regulate it. Further, there is every reason to believe that when REAL ramifications are attached to evil doing, harm will be done less frequently.

Shortened because I feel all your arguments have the same flaw, money talks and it will talk pretty loud in your libertarian society. We had pollution laws much the same as you describe before the EPA, we had a useless patchwork of state laws that really did not work across state lines or have the legal clout to do a damned thing. Our rivers caught fire, the landscape was dotted with untraceable toxic dumps off the side of the road, smokestacks belched heavy metals and sulfates across several states and into the next country. It absolutely sucked and it took decades to recover losses if ever, mostly because it was so hard to prove. Love canal is still hazardous, the soil still saturated with PCBs. Cannot see how your system would not make that crap return right away.

The other regulatory agencies you probably dislike were originally created because of similar messes in our country, it was an attempt to a least provide a uniform legal framework where these people can be charged with a crime and make it stick.

 

[OKTexas]

^y0!...

When you get a second.



peace...

The government intended by the founders via the constitution is the best answer I can give you. When you read their writings along with it, it's clear they didn't intend for the enumerated powers to be interpreted as carte blanche to regulate infinitely.

I've read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers... True Story.

Did the Founders Practice what you Beleive they Intended?...

And I'm Relatively Certain that they didn't Agree with one another on many Issues...

Correct?



peace...

Yep, they had disagreements, hence the 3/5ths of a person for slaves, to deny the south of representation, some didn't want them counted at all for the same reason. They came together, put something together they thought would work and wrote it down. Hamilton wanted a very powerful central government, he lost the debate and the debate was verified by the first congress and the states with the passage and ratification of the bill of rights. Then more than a hundred years later SCOTUS ignored the intent of the Constitution and the 10th admendment and gave Hamilton his victory.

 

[mal]

The government intended by the founders via the constitution is the best answer I can give you. When you read their writings along with it, it's clear they didn't intend for the enumerated powers to be interpreted as carte blanche to regulate infinitely.

I've read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers... True Story.

Did the Founders Practice what you Beleive they Intended?...

And I'm Relatively Certain that they didn't Agree with one another on many Issues...

Correct?



peace...

Yep, they had disagreements, hence the 3/5ths of a person for slaves, to deny the south of representation, some didn't want them counted at all for the same reason. They came together, put something together they thought would work and wrote it down. Hamilton wanted a very powerful central government, he lost the debate and the debate was verified by the first congress and the states with the passage and ratification of the bill of rights. Then more than a hundred years later SCOTUS ignored the intent of the Constitution and the 10th admendment and gave Hamilton his victory.

So in Practice, say the first 20 years after the Constitution... How did the Founders do with whatever you Believe their "Intent" was?...



peace...

 

[eflatminor]

Shortened because I feel all your arguments have the same flaw, money talks and it will talk pretty loud in your libertarian society. We had pollution laws much the same as you describe before the EPA, we had a useless patchwork of state laws that really did not work across state lines or have the legal clout to do a damned thing. Our rivers caught fire, the landscape was dotted with untraceable toxic dumps off the side of the road, smokestacks belched heavy metals and sulfates across several states and into the next country. It absolutely sucked and it took decades to recover losses if ever, mostly because it was so hard to prove. Love canal is still hazardous, the soil still saturated with PCBs. Cannot see how your system would not make that crap return right away.

The other regulatory agencies you probably dislike were originally created because of similar messes in our country, it was an attempt to a least provide a uniform legal framework where these people can be charged with a crime and make it stick.

All those toxic ills you described happened before AND after the EPA. They are less common today not because of government regulation but because of technological advances and consumer demand for a cleaner environment. Given that technology advances best in a free, competitive market, the EPA has not helped anything, only slowed our rate of progress.

Bottom line, libertarians do not look to central planners to solve societal ills. We look to individual freedom and free markets, which we believe are better solutions. In other words, I'd rather have millions of consumers acting as regulators than an all powerful agency pretending to look out for the interests of others.

 

[OKTexas]

Shortened because I feel all your arguments have the same flaw, money talks and it will talk pretty loud in your libertarian society. We had pollution laws much the same as you describe before the EPA, we had a useless patchwork of state laws that really did not work across state lines or have the legal clout to do a damned thing. Our rivers caught fire, the landscape was dotted with untraceable toxic dumps off the side of the road, smokestacks belched heavy metals and sulfates across several states and into the next country. It absolutely sucked and it took decades to recover losses if ever, mostly because it was so hard to prove. Love canal is still hazardous, the soil still saturated with PCBs. Cannot see how your system would not make that crap return right away.

The other regulatory agencies you probably dislike were originally created because of similar messes in our country, it was an attempt to a least provide a uniform legal framework where these people can be charged with a crime and make it stick.

Guess you didn't get the memo, most of the Love canal area is back in use. No system is prefect, even today there are cheaters out there that thumb their noses at the law, all anyone can do is their best to catch them. Jail, not fines should be in order.

 

[eflatminor]

Gotta go occupied but I hope I've addressed your points with specificity, logic and reason...and without a personal attack. Even if you continue to be skeptical, I think we demonstrated a reasonable level of consistency in libertarian ideas. I wish you the best in your quest for knowledge.

 

[Paulie]

That's the way it works in the real world where policy may not always be ideologically correct or pure but meant to keep some kind of balance, it may tie some hands but sometimes powerful people need some clear-cut boundaries or we risk them running over us out of exuberance if not malice.

The clear cut boundaries are the enumerated powers.

When the leaders over stepped those boundaries, it was the task of the voters to remove them from office. But instead we continue to reelect the same assholes and then complain about career politicians. How much sense does that make?

See my scientifically accepted views on authoritarianism and why the constitution is insufficient to curb it.

I saw them. I don't see a need for a president to "talk tough" just to talk tough. I always liked the speak softly, carry a big stick mentality.

I'm fine with being armed to the bone and ready. I'm not fine with world conquest, which is what we seem to be doing.

 

[occupied]

All those toxic ills you described happened before AND after the EPA. They are less common today not because of government regulation but because of technological advances and consumer demand for a cleaner environment. Given that technology advances best in a free, competitive market, the EPA has not helped anything, only slowed our rate of progress.

Bottom line, libertarians do not look to central planners to solve societal ills. We look to individual freedom and free markets, which we believe are better solutions. In other words, I'd rather have millions of consumers acting as regulators than an all powerful agency pretending to look out for the interests of others.

The second paragraph of your reply is a good example of an empty ideological response that is more attack on the status quo than a real answer, the first is just not correct. Even if factories fled to countries that allow more toxic pollution the EPA had the effect intended. I am old enough to remember before and after, sulfates were not curtailed until they were forced to, phosphates were still in soap until banned, lead was still in gas until banned, CFCs were still in spray cans until banned. No state agency or court of law had the authority to effect such beneficial changes and frankly, changing to what came next was a major driver of technology also.

 

[occupied]

Gotta go occupied but I hope I've addressed your points with specificity, logic and reason...and without a personal attack. Even if you continue to be skeptical, I think we demonstrated a reasonable level of consistency in libertarian ideas. I wish you the best in your quest for knowledge.

You at least gave it an effort and I thank you but I am no closer to accepting that this voodoo is not potentially fraught with unintended consequences.