Libertarianism

[Quantum Windbag]

The historical record is irrelevant to the CURRENT status quo. Yes, the CURRENT GOP is pro war. Senators Graham and McCain openly advocate for a preemptive war against Iran. That is on the record. The Bush Doctrine is still very much a part of the GOP mindset.

Kerry has been pretty vocal about supporting intervention in Syria yet you continue to insist the the GOP is the problem.

Maybe the problem is authoritarianism in both parties? Just sayin.

That is my point. There are some people who insist that only the other guys are bad because they would only use ultimate power for good. The problem is when anyone thinks they know what is best for someone else.

 

[RKMBrown]

Kerry has been pretty vocal about supporting intervention in Syria yet you continue to insist the the GOP is the problem.

Maybe the problem is authoritarianism in both parties? Just sayin.

do you honestly think libertarians be different? it isn't the ideology it's the people in power. in ideology Republicans are for equal opportunity for all races and sexes and a strong respect for the Republic government from which this was founded to be. and yet when you look at many other Republicans in office they do not embody anything of the ideology

No. Thus I'm thinking about calling myself a constitutional conservative. It appears we have anarchists in the libertarian party who believe in some form of corporate authoritarianism, as if a corporate contract excuses their acts. Yeah there's no way to create a group that won't be subverted by anti-liberty folks.

 

[Dragonlady]

My issue with the libertarian platform is that is assumes that in matters of trade, employment and the environment, everyone will always do the fair and morally correct thing. The employer won't take advantage of his position in hiring, people won't cheap out on pollution control to increase profits, companies won't sell unsafe or unreliable products or any of the other things that laws and regulations currently prevent them from doing.

Enough people are greedy, or venal enough to abuse the system completely. That's why we have employment law in the first place, because companies routinely screwed over employees, companies made bad products and then went out of business to keep from being sued, and pollution killed people and destroyed communities.

Libertarianism doesn't address these issues in any way.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Kerry has been pretty vocal about supporting intervention in Syria yet you continue to insist the the GOP is the problem.

Maybe the problem is authoritarianism in both parties? Just sayin.

That is my point. There are some people who insist that only the other guys are bad because they would only use ultimate power for good. The problem is when anyone thinks they know what is best for someone else.

Yes, but with the notation that people can devise a plan to actually do good for people. But, we certainly know that the govt help is a scam of all scams.

 

[RKMBrown]

My issue with the libertarian platform is that is assumes that in matters of trade, employment and the environment, everyone will always do the fair and morally correct thing. The employer won't take advantage of his position in hiring, people won't cheap out on pollution control to increase profits, companies won't sell unsafe or unreliable products or any of the other things that laws and regulations currently prevent them from doing.

Enough people are greedy, or venal enough to abuse the system completely. That's why we have employment law in the first place, because companies routinely screwed over employees, companies made bad products and then went out of business to keep from being sued, and pollution killed people and destroyed communities.

Libertarianism doesn't address these issues in any way.

Wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most of the pro life crowd, whether libertarian or not, sees each stage of human life, even from the zygote and embrionic phases, as no less critical to a human life than is any stage outside the womb is critical to a human life. And if it comes to viability, that new born baby is no more viable without somebody else providing it warmth, nutrition, and other attendance to its needs than is the unborn child still within the womb.

This, more than anything, really pisses me the fuck off. I have argued against pro-life people here many times about abortion because the majority of them take absolutely asinine positions on what a fetus is. I support the right to choose BUT as the same time I look at that right and acknowledge that what I am supporting is the voluntary decision to kill another human for convenience. I support the right not because I think it is a ‘medical procedure’ or because I think that there is no value in the fetus. Those positions are not only wrong but they exist solely for the comfort of those that make that choice without any moral fortitude. I support it because I support rights and because the alternative is worse than the ‘solution.’

Those that try and muddy the waters by morally justifying the act through bullshit terms though are low and anger me greatly. If you have the balls to KILL your child, as that is exactly what you are doing, then at least have the balls to admit to yourself what you are doing. You have the right and you have the means – at least be honest.

No easy answers.

Not when you are talking about life and death coupled with rights over your own body. Those answers are never easy and if they become easy – watch out, you might have become a monster.

Just for clarification, the content of your post implies that you meant to say pro choice rather than pro life up there where I have it highlighted.? If you did mean to say pro life, so be it, but I wanted to give you a chance to correct that before somebody plucks that line out of context and uses it to accuse you of something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My issue with the libertarian platform is that is assumes that in matters of trade, employment and the environment, everyone will always do the fair and morally correct thing. The employer won't take advantage of his position in hiring, people won't cheap out on pollution control to increase profits, companies won't sell unsafe or unreliable products or any of the other things that laws and regulations currently prevent them from doing.

Enough people are greedy, or venal enough to abuse the system completely. That's why we have employment law in the first place, because companies routinely screwed over employees, companies made bad products and then went out of business to keep from being sued, and pollution killed people and destroyed communities.

Libertarianism doesn't address these issues in any way.

It assumes no such thing.

I haven't read the libertarian platform, but I can assure you that libertarians do think about the fact that people are not all good. Even Adam Smith recognized that some people are not good, he just argued that the invisible had of the market would actually discourage this type of behavior. Turns out that he was right about that, game theory has conclusively proven that consistently doing the right thing will actually bring better results than cheating.

 

[PaulS1950]

Well, I must say that this thread has turned out to much more civil and enlightened (my dictionary didn't think "discussive" was a word) than others I have been involved in.

More on topic:
The libertarian Platform does not take a stand on individual morality because that would infringe on the individual freedoms and rights that they hold dear. Any single Libertarian is free to hold any opinion on those issues but the party will not deal with them because it falls outside the purview of the federal powers granted by the constitution. Under the Libertarian umbrella it could be decided by the states or the individual involved but not by the federal government unless it was argued in court as a civil rights issue.

That civil rights issue business has one major stumbling block as far as definition. The documents supporting individual rights and freedoms are defined as granted by the creator at birth where we now know that the life exists long before birth. How long before birth can the rights extend is the problem - both morally and legally.

Personally I am in favor of abortion within the first trimester and in cases where the mother's health is in jeopardy after that. Cases of rape, incest and special considerations make it even more difficult to lay down concrete rules that would apply in all cases. My person convictions cannot be willfully applied to others though and I acknowledge that the individual(s) involved are the only ones who can determine what they can live with. I am diametrically opposed to abortion as a form of birth control on moral grounds but again my morals may be different from the woman involved. Women should have the option and I believe that most women are capable of responsible choices for themselves.

 

[FA_Q2]

My issue with the libertarian platform is that is assumes that in matters of trade, employment and the environment, everyone will always do the fair and morally correct thing. The employer won't take advantage of his position in hiring, people won't cheap out on pollution control to increase profits, companies won't sell unsafe or unreliable products or any of the other things that laws and regulations currently prevent them from doing.

Enough people are greedy, or venal enough to abuse the system completely. That's why we have employment law in the first place, because companies routinely screwed over employees, companies made bad products and then went out of business to keep from being sued, and pollution killed people and destroyed communities.

Libertarianism doesn't address these issues in any way.

You are making the erroneous that libertarianism is the same as anarco-capitalism. That is not true. Libertarians are not anarchists and do not want all regulation eliminated. Some buy into that but most do not go to the extreme edge.

 

[Dragonlady]

You are making the erroneous that libertarianism is the same as anarco-capitalism. That is not true. Libertarians are not anarchists and do not want all regulation eliminated. Some buy into that but most do not go to the extreme edge.

No I am quoting one of the four main planks of the party platform:

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.

There is nothing there to protect the public from unscrupulous operators, from pollution or harm by irresponsible corporations, or to protect workers from those who would take advantage of their economic position to exploit the weak.

Free markets have proven to be disastrous for anyone but the wealthy, in country after country. Free market capitalism reduces wages, while raising prices. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

And what about infrastructure? Who builds that, how is it paid for, who owns it? Without infrastructure, commerce cannot happen.

 

[Circe]

...I'm thinking about calling myself a constitutional conservative. It appears we have anarchists in the libertarian party who believe in some form of corporate authoritarianism, as if a corporate contract excuses their acts. Yeah there's no way to create a group that won't be subverted by anti-liberty folks.

Good. I was going to ask you if you thought you were a conservative of some form; I didn't see how you could be a libertarian.

Let's see, conservatives come in various flavors (as do all the other political philosophies): traditional, statist, and constitutional, I think. I'm not sure if there are others.

 

[Circe]

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.

There is nothing there to protect the public from unscrupulous operators, from pollution or harm by irresponsible corporations, or to protect workers from those who would take advantage of their economic position to exploit the weak.

That platform plank is about the role of government in the economic realm, but you are actually referring to government's role in protecting citizens from crime. That would be a different plank. If an unscrupulous company owner locks factory doors so that workers would burn up like in Bangladesh, I assume that would be a crime that the government would deal with and put him in the clink. If a company owner pollutes a river or the air people have to breathe, again, that would be an obvious crime: even China is waking up to all that, and they have a frankly cowboy economy.

I don't know what you mean by exploiting the weak, unless you mean not having a minimum wage. People can refuse the job, however. I never understand why people get upset about low wages in foreign countries --- those people STREAM in from the country fighting for those jobs! How bad can the wages be, you know? If they don't like the wages or conditions, assuming the conditions aren't frankly abusive or harmful, which would be an actionable crime, then they can choose not to work there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I must say that this thread has turned out to much more civil and enlightened (my dictionary didn't think "discussive" was a word) than others I have been involved in.

More on topic:
The libertarian Platform does not take a stand on individual morality because that would infringe on the individual freedoms and rights that they hold dear. Any single Libertarian is free to hold any opinion on those issues but the party will not deal with them because it falls outside the purview of the federal powers granted by the constitution. Under the Libertarian umbrella it could be decided by the states or the individual involved but not by the federal government unless it was argued in court as a civil rights issue.

That civil rights issue business has one major stumbling block as far as definition. The documents supporting individual rights and freedoms are defined as granted by the creator at birth where we now know that the life exists long before birth. How long before birth can the rights extend is the problem - both morally and legally.

Personally I am in favor of abortion within the first trimester and in cases where the mother's health is in jeopardy after that. Cases of rape, incest and special considerations make it even more difficult to lay down concrete rules that would apply in all cases. My person convictions cannot be willfully applied to others though and I acknowledge that the individual(s) involved are the only ones who can determine what they can live with. I am diametrically opposed to abortion as a form of birth control on moral grounds but again my morals may be different from the woman involved. Women should have the option and I believe that most women are capable of responsible choices for themselves.

Where does it say rights begin at birth?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are making the erroneous that libertarianism is the same as anarco-capitalism. That is not true. Libertarians are not anarchists and do not want all regulation eliminated. Some buy into that but most do not go to the extreme edge.

No I am quoting one of the four main planks of the party platform:

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.

There is nothing there to protect the public from unscrupulous operators, from pollution or harm by irresponsible corporations, or to protect workers from those who would take advantage of their economic position to exploit the weak.

Free markets have proven to be disastrous for anyone but the wealthy, in country after country. Free market capitalism reduces wages, while raising prices. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

And what about infrastructure? Who builds that, how is it paid for, who owns it? Without infrastructure, commerce cannot happen.

That is because they are not talking about pollution there, they are discussing economics. This is what they say about the 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.

 

[RKMBrown]

...I'm thinking about calling myself a constitutional conservative. It appears we have anarchists in the libertarian party who believe in some form of corporate authoritarianism, as if a corporate contract excuses their acts. Yeah there's no way to create a group that won't be subverted by anti-liberty folks.

Good. I was going to ask you if you thought you were a conservative of some form; I didn't see how you could be a libertarian.

Let's see, conservatives come in various flavors (as do all the other political philosophies): traditional, statist, and constitutional, I think. I'm not sure if there are others.

Yeah I just can't support the republicans. Way too many democrats wearing republican hats. Way to many war hawks. Way to many religious right trying to make their religion the law of the land. Way to many Bushes and Romneys and McCains.

 

[PaulS1950]

In the federal papers it states the we are born with our rights, that they do not come from position, wealth or the government.

Look at what I wrote - "in the supporting documents"

 

[Circe]

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.

I would guess the bolded sentence is the enforcement clause, that government can stop people using common resources up and destroying them to the harm of everyone else. It is true that private industry has an AWFUL record of polluting if they can get away with it; so does government, for that matter.

I am very interested in the issue of what should be defined as "harm to others" in a libertarian system. Creating a Love Canal so polluted that people who live there get cancer from it, has to be stopped by government. But the government insisting that no one develop land because there is a rare slug in a cave on the land? Or some bats? Or some little fish nobody cares about and that isn't important to the ecosystem, but happens to be rare? Hmmmmmm. That's probably government gone wild to control everyone and everything out of business.

 

[Circe]

Let's see, conservatives come in various flavors (as do all the other political philosophies): traditional, statist, and constitutional, I think. I'm not sure if there are others.

Yeah I just can't support the republicans. Way too many democrats wearing republican hats. Way to many war hawks. Way to many religious right trying to make their religion the law of the land. Way to many Bushes and Romneys and McCains.

Conservative but not Republican. Got it. I tried out being a traditionalist conservative when I gave up on the Republicans in 2006, but that isn't working for me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the federal papers it states the we are born with our rights, that they do not come from position, wealth or the government.

Look at what I wrote - "in the supporting documents"

"Born with" does not mean they begin at birth, it just means they do not come from other sources.

 

[Dragonlady]

I haven't read the libertarian platform, but I can assure you that libertarians do think about the fact that people are not all good. Even Adam Smith recognized that some people are not good, he just argued that the invisible had of the market would actually discourage this type of behavior. Turns out that he was right about that, game theory has conclusively proven that consistently doing the right thing will actually bring better results than cheating.

I agree that the majority want to "do well by doing good" as the exxpression goes, but there are enough people who will do whatever they can get away with unless their are consequences to actions in which people strive to take advantage of wealth and position and nowhere does that happen more frequently than in unregulated free markets, the incidents in Bangla Desh being the most recent examples.

The laws to protect the workers existed in Bangla Desh, as do building and zoning regulations but in actual practice are never enforced because they get in the way of companies doing business. Hours before it happened, engineers warned that the building could collapse at any time and ordered everyone out, and yet employers forced their workers to remain. Look at the incidents in North America during the Industrial Revolution when there were no workplace health and safety regulations in place and see how many workers were killed by the machinery, or in workplace fires.

Wherever and whenever business is unencumbered by well enforced health and safety regulations, workers die in large numbers.