Libertarianism

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You keep missing the point.

Tell me something, if you are so sure there are always people who will ignore the rules why do you think the rules will make a difference? Did you know that there is actually a branch of mathematics that deals with this whole conundrum, and that it conclusively proves that, in the long run, the best strategy is to cooperate and to make the choices that benefit everyone, not just yourself? Successful business men actually understand this, which is why the people who are willing to do whatever it takes in order to win prefer to use the government to help them win in the short term. They actually design regulations that make it easier for them to get away with doing less by forcing everyone to adopt the same safety standard, which means that they do not have to adopt things that make it safer for everyone.

Ever wonder how the owner of the building got away with ordering the workers back into the building before the collapse even though the public was warned? Do you think it is remotely possible that the local government didn't notice an extra 3 stories added onto a building even though there were no permits for it? Think about that for a bit, and get back to me.

The laws that protect those people exist because the government is bigger than it needs to be. If we had a smaller government, and fewer regulations designed to protect business owners, you would be spending a lot less time complaining about the way business gets away with hurting people.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

You are correct. Thanks for pointing out my error. My original post has been corrected as well.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 not a problem with the libertarian platform but rather your understanding of it. As other have pointed out, things like pollution etc are covered in other places. You also seem to have ignored this part:

“and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.”

To protect voluntary trade, some regulation is required. Infrastructure is also not part of this section and one of the basic jobs of government.

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.

Free markets have proven no such thing. What has proven disastrous is when government colludes with business. The example you gave is such an instance. Government makes rules and then exempts that big business from them, putting the workers in danger yet still managing to remove any alternatives or competition for that same business. THAT drives down wages by eliminating jobs, drives up price by removing competitors and ultimately ends up with a rich few and a large underclass.

Free markets do the exact opposite. We had free markets operate very successfully here for a LONG time. They vaulted us to the position that we now hold. Unfortunately, our free markets are turning into exactly what your example was about: big banks putting smaller ones out of business while the government uses your money to keep those rich people rich, car companies that do not produce a viable product propped up, new business startups being snuffed out through oppressive regulation and all around a government that looks the other way with businesses that are big enough to support the corrupt government.

 

[Circe]

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

True.

So a libertarian government would have to have strong laws and enforcement procedures for public safety. Worker safety, food safety, drug safety.

We know we can't trust business to police themselves; too many terrible "accidents" and corruptions have occurred, and not just in Bangladesh, either.

 

[Foxfyre]

While I believe our legal system, along with the government it has created, has become seriously corrupt, self serving, and dangerously coercive, I do support the right to demand and receive damages due to the intentional negligence of another. And while I resist most government mandates that order a business to do this or that, I don't have a huge problem with workers compensation laws that protect the employer as much as they protect the employee. Or even a requirement that a minimum level of general liability insurance must be maintained in order to obtain a business license. But keep this at state or local levels only. Never federal.

But because the work comp premiums. as well as general liability premiums, are in part based on experience, i.e. the number of claims filed against a policy, plus the risks of cost when sued for negligence, there is a huge incentive for employers to maintain safe working conditions and require safe working practices by the employees. And because one bad accident can wipe out all the premiums and more that the employer pays the insurance company, it is also a huge incentive for insurance companies to set their own rules for who they will or will not insure at a specific cost.

I have no problem with federal guidelines suggesting safe working practices and alerting employers to hazards. But as a libertarian, I have a huge problem with OSHA and other government agencies who presume to dictate HOW the employer must conduct his business.

Back in the days of sweat shops and deplorable working conditions, there was little or no risk of lawsuits for negligence for the employer and no insurance companies for him to keep happy. Now there are. The free market generally gets around to taking care of these things without handing over more and more power to government to dictate the sort of society we wish to have.

 

[thanatos144]

...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.

that is funny seeing as libertarians are more Democrat light then the Republicans. heck with libertarians love affair with the Confederate they are old school Democrats

 

[thanatos144]

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"

is that how you excuse you're support of abortion ?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

that is funny seeing as libertarians are more Democrat light then the Republicans. heck with libertarians love affair with the Confederate they are old school Democrats

Old School democrats? You mean as in when the democrats and republicans were one party?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

that is funny seeing as libertarians are more Democrat light then the Republicans. heck with libertarians love affair with the Confederate they are old school Democrats

Except they are not.

Democrats are diametrically opposed to libertarian thought. There is nothing similar at all between the two ideologies.

Democrats are focused on ‘society’ and governmental control over our lives. They support, in general, grater control, huge regulatory agencies and all the government size/control that comes with it. Libertarians believe in personal responsibility instead.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

that is funny seeing as libertarians are more Democrat light then the Republicans. heck with libertarians love affair with the Confederate they are old school Democrats

Except they are not.

Democrats are diametrically opposed to libertarian thought. There is nothing similar at all between the two ideologies.

Democrats are focused on ‘society’ and governmental control over our lives. They support, in general, grater control, huge regulatory agencies and all the government size/control that comes with it. Libertarians believe in personal responsibility instead.

There was a time in history that democrats believed in personal responsibility. A long time ago in a place far far away.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Okay. My bad for not fully reading that correctly. But still, there are way too many Dems at the heart of our wars for you to try and pretend that there is a stark difference. In fact, I'd argue that what the Dems do regarding wars is worse. Because they vote for the wars and then spend the entire time railing against the wars. That only puts soldiers' lives at risk and that is the height of irresponsibility.

Now, for your claim that libertarians don't know what they want regarding war; you gave no supporting details and it just seems like a frivolous claim.

As an Independent I am not about to defend the Dems. They were utterly spineless when it came to Iraq. That was unforgivable.

My apologies for giving you the wrong impression regarding Libertarians and war. I didn't mention war at all in that quote about the Irish, I only mentioned a willingness to die fighting for something they didn't understand. This is based upon the thread where they claim to hold the principle of individual rights as sacrosanct but don't do so when the rubber meets the road. If you believe in a principle you must be willing to stand for it even when it means upholding something you might personally abhor. e.g. You might personally be pro-life but in principle you still uphold the right for others to obtain an abortion.

Libertarians don't seem to have the courage of their convictions in my opinion even though they claim that they do.

You have now repeated that claim here even though it is baseless.

It has already been explained to you about the abortion issue, because you disagree with libertarian ideals does not mean that they do not hold to them. Aside from that, it is the sole issue that you have brought up against libertarian thought and not following convictions.

Essentially, your claim that libertarians ‘don't do so when the rubber meets the road’ is completely based in bias. You have not presented anything here to show that. If you have another example, then please share it but the abortion issue is not a good example of that.

Au contraire, it is the perfect example. But since you asked how about the example of universal background checks for all gun purchasers? As a Libertarian you are in favor of personal responsibility and accountability. How are you going to ensure that every single gun owner complies with that principle? If you allow just anyone to buy a gun without a background check you are enabling drug dealers, criminals and the mentally unstable to obtain lethal weapons. A real Libertarian should follow Reagan's advice of "trust, but verify". In other words you want everyone to be responsible and accountable but you know that the only way to make it happen is to apply universal background checks.

So why aren't all Libertarians 100% in support of background checks?

 

[Dragonlady]

Ever wonder how the owner of the building got away with ordering the workers back into the building before the collapse even though the public was warned? Do you think it is remotely possible that the local government didn't notice an extra 3 stories added onto a building even though there were no permits for it? Think about that for a bit, and get back to me.

The laws that protect those people exist because the government is bigger than it needs to be. If we had a smaller government, and fewer regulations designed to protect business owners, you would be spending a lot less time complaining about the way business gets away with hurting people.

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this point. I live in a country with a strong labour code and where workers have rights, and we don't see the kind of employee abuses that Americans have.

The key is "well-enforced", and while the laws existed in Bangla Desh to protect workers, they are not enforced. I can only think that either bribes were in play and/or no one enforces the building code and building owners and their tenants, do whatever they think will make them the most money.

You have vulture corporations like Monsanto which has moved many of it's more questionable operations to Third World countries where bribes are readily accepted and pollution is no big deal.

So no, I have no faith that public opinion and the market will stop this corporation from destroying food supplies for their own profit.

 

[RKMBrown]

As an Independent I am not about to defend the Dems. They were utterly spineless when it came to Iraq. That was unforgivable.

My apologies for giving you the wrong impression regarding Libertarians and war. I didn't mention war at all in that quote about the Irish, I only mentioned a willingness to die fighting for something they didn't understand. This is based upon the thread where they claim to hold the principle of individual rights as sacrosanct but don't do so when the rubber meets the road. If you believe in a principle you must be willing to stand for it even when it means upholding something you might personally abhor. e.g. You might personally be pro-life but in principle you still uphold the right for others to obtain an abortion.

Libertarians don't seem to have the courage of their convictions in my opinion even though they claim that they do.

You have now repeated that claim here even though it is baseless.

It has already been explained to you about the abortion issue, because you disagree with libertarian ideals does not mean that they do not hold to them. Aside from that, it is the sole issue that you have brought up against libertarian thought and not following convictions.

Essentially, your claim that libertarians ‘don't do so when the rubber meets the road’ is completely based in bias. You have not presented anything here to show that. If you have another example, then please share it but the abortion issue is not a good example of that.

Au contraire, it is the perfect example. But since you asked how about the example of universal background checks for all gun purchasers? As a Libertarian you are in favor of personal responsibility and accountability. How are you going to ensure that every single gun owner complies with that principle? If you allow just anyone to buy a gun without a background check you are enabling drug dealers, criminals and the mentally unstable to obtain lethal weapons. A real Libertarian should follow Reagan's advice of "trust, but verify". In other words you want everyone to be responsible and accountable but you know that the only way to make it happen is to apply universal background checks.

So why aren't all Libertarians 100% in support of background checks?

That's right we can't trust everyone so we need to make slaves of everyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that is funny seeing as libertarians are more Democrat light then the Republicans. heck with libertarians love affair with the Confederate they are old school Democrats

Except they are not.

Democrats are diametrically opposed to libertarian thought. There is nothing similar at all between the two ideologies.

Democrats are focused on ‘society’ and governmental control over our lives. They support, in general, grater control, huge regulatory agencies and all the government size/control that comes with it. Libertarians believe in personal responsibility instead.

There was a time in history that democrats believed in personal responsibility. A long time ago in a place far far away.

I would settle for them going back to believing in personal freedom.

 

[RKMBrown]

Except they are not.

Democrats are diametrically opposed to libertarian thought. There is nothing similar at all between the two ideologies.

Democrats are focused on ‘society’ and governmental control over our lives. They support, in general, grater control, huge regulatory agencies and all the government size/control that comes with it. Libertarians believe in personal responsibility instead.

There was a time in history that democrats believed in personal responsibility. A long time ago in a place far far away.

I would settle for them going back to believing in personal freedom.

Ask not what your country can do for you... has changed to:

I want what's mine, take it from that guy over there...

 

[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"

is that how you excuse you're support of abortion ?

I don't excuse my stand. I believe that women should have the choice but not for the purpose of birth control. We have reliable methods of birth control that prevent conception. We don't need to use abortion for birth control. If a young girl becomes pregnant before she can support (mentally and emotionally) a baby then abortion should be an option. If there is a risk to the mother's health or the pregnancy is due to illegal behavior on the part of the father then divorce should be an option.
It is less that I support abortion and more that I believe a woman should have the choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As an Independent I am not about to defend the Dems. They were utterly spineless when it came to Iraq. That was unforgivable.

My apologies for giving you the wrong impression regarding Libertarians and war. I didn't mention war at all in that quote about the Irish, I only mentioned a willingness to die fighting for something they didn't understand. This is based upon the thread where they claim to hold the principle of individual rights as sacrosanct but don't do so when the rubber meets the road. If you believe in a principle you must be willing to stand for it even when it means upholding something you might personally abhor. e.g. You might personally be pro-life but in principle you still uphold the right for others to obtain an abortion.

Libertarians don't seem to have the courage of their convictions in my opinion even though they claim that they do.

You have now repeated that claim here even though it is baseless.

It has already been explained to you about the abortion issue, because you disagree with libertarian ideals does not mean that they do not hold to them. Aside from that, it is the sole issue that you have brought up against libertarian thought and not following convictions.

Essentially, your claim that libertarians ‘don't do so when the rubber meets the road’ is completely based in bias. You have not presented anything here to show that. If you have another example, then please share it but the abortion issue is not a good example of that.

Au contraire, it is the perfect example. But since you asked how about the example of universal background checks for all gun purchasers? As a Libertarian you are in favor of personal responsibility and accountability. How are you going to ensure that every single gun owner complies with that principle? If you allow just anyone to buy a gun without a background check you are enabling drug dealers, criminals and the mentally unstable to obtain lethal weapons. A real Libertarian should follow Reagan's advice of "trust, but verify". In other words you want everyone to be responsible and accountable but you know that the only way to make it happen is to apply universal background checks.

So why aren't all Libertarians 100% in support of background checks?

This is another example of you using the government to impose your personal religious beliefs on others.

Personal responsibility does not mean the government can force people to prove they are innocent of any wrongdoing before they do something that is legal. Doing so is no different than requiring people to prove they are not braking the law before you allow them to vote. My guess is you would, rightfully, raise holy hell states started requiring background checks before they let you vote.

You, of course, see one of those things as not being like the other, even though they are identical.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ever wonder how the owner of the building got away with ordering the workers back into the building before the collapse even though the public was warned? Do you think it is remotely possible that the local government didn't notice an extra 3 stories added onto a building even though there were no permits for it? Think about that for a bit, and get back to me.

The laws that protect those people exist because the government is bigger than it needs to be. If we had a smaller government, and fewer regulations designed to protect business owners, you would be spending a lot less time complaining about the way business gets away with hurting people.

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this point. I live in a country with a strong labour code and where workers have rights, and we don't see the kind of employee abuses that Americans have.

The key is "well-enforced", and while the laws existed in Bangla Desh to protect workers, they are not enforced. I can only think that either bribes were in play and/or no one enforces the building code and building owners and their tenants, do whatever they think will make them the most money.

You have vulture corporations like Monsanto which has moved many of it's more questionable operations to Third World countries where bribes are readily accepted and pollution is no big deal.

So no, I have no faith that public opinion and the market will stop this corporation from destroying food supplies for their own profit.

What country do you live in? I only ask in order to prove to you that things are actually worse for workers wherever it is than you think they are here.

By the way, what imaginary abuses of employees do you think occur here?

 

[Foxfyre]

When did we stop being a country that strictly enforced freedom of religion and instead became a country in which government permits freedom of religion unless certain people don't like it?

When did we stop being a country that strictly enforced free speech and instead became a country in which free speech is strictly enforced IF it is politically correct? That we have a free press but the privacy of those who make their living that way are subject to intense government scrutiny and possible retribution?

When did we stop being a country that defended a right to bear arms and instead became a country in which the government increasingly encroaches on those rights except for those the government controls?

When did we stop being a country in which each citizen had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and instead became a country in which the government increasingly assigns the quality of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that we are required to have and forces us to provide that to others?

How much of the libertarian ideals and spirit remains, and how much of our liberty has been confiscated, never to be restored? And who believes that the government will not continue to chip away at our liberties until none are left?

 

[PaulS1950]

There are always going to be employers that do not follow the rules. I know because I worked for one, in a union shop, that completely disregarded the safety rules that our state has. I worked with the safety committee, the union, and the managers (the owner was an alcoholic and was never...available) for a period of over three years to correct the safety concerns. The answer I always got back was, "we've done it this way for twenty years and we aren't going to change it now." For every issue I found I also found an inexpensive repair that would solve the issue - I am not a complainer - I tend to solve problems. After three years of getting nowhere and three near fatal incidents I call the Labor and Industries and filed a request for an audit based on the issues that I had been listing for three years. The audit identified a lot more issues that were ordered corrected than I had asked for but the issues I had raised we solved with my recommended fixes. The company fixed the issues and paid no fine. I was provided with every sh!t job for the next year and when work slowed I was the one that didn't work. I got a better paying job as quickly as I started looking for one in another union shop that actually cared about the working conditions and their employees.
You don't need a big government to solve issues - all you need is someone who has the desire to do something to make things better. Most people would rather just complain.