The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[Oddball]

Has the starter of this threat learned that what he thought was a flaw in libertarinism is not a flaw?? Gee he seemd so sure of himself.

The big flaw in libertarianism is that the guy who started this thread gets a headache when he tries to think for himself.

I heard he doesn't get headaches himself, but he is a carrier.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seems you missed my point, which is just that libertarianism won't work if people don't appreciate liberty.

Wrong. The butcher doesn't need to appreciate liberty to be a good butcher. Freedom works whether people believe in it or not. Of course, those who don't believe in it will attempt to undermine it. That's the reason for the existence of the Democrat Party.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seems you missed my point, which is just that libertarianism won't work if people don't appreciate liberty.

Wrong. The butcher doesn't need to appreciate liberty to be a good butcher. Freedom works whether people believe in it or not. Of course, those who don't believe in it will attempt to undermine it. That's the reason for the existence of the Democrat Party.

The butcher at least gets up off his butt and supplies something others want.

What he's saying is that there's a class of people out there who are perfectly happy being serfs and good little wards of the state....And he's right.

 

[The T]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seems you missed my point, which is just that libertarianism won't work if people don't appreciate liberty.

Wrong. The butcher doesn't need to appreciate liberty to be a good butcher. Freedom works whether people believe in it or not. Of course, those who don't believe in it will attempt to undermine it. That's the reason for the existence of the Democrat Party.

The butcher at least gets up off his butt and supplies something others want.

What he's saying is that there's a class of people out there who are perfectly happy being serfs and good little wards of the state....And he's right.

And have swallowed the line taught to them without forethought...or afterthought precisely what Gubmint schrools WANT.

Good citizens/Workers and don't dare question.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seems you missed my point, which is just that libertarianism won't work if people don't appreciate liberty.

Wrong. The butcher doesn't need to appreciate liberty to be a good butcher. Freedom works whether people believe in it or not. Of course, those who don't believe in it will attempt to undermine it. That's the reason for the existence of the Democrat Party.

The butcher at least gets up off his butt and supplies something others want.

What he's saying is that there's a class of people out there who are perfectly happy being serfs and good little wards of the state....And he's right.

That is the whole basis of free market libertarianism. As Adam Smith said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (Working from memory so I hope that is rightl. The point is certainly accurate.) The butcher may not know you, like you, or care whether you have dinner tonight or not, but by simply doing his job to put dinner on his own table, he makes it possible for you to put dinner on yours.

Those 'wards of the state' only drain the resources of society and contribute nothing to it. When there are more of them than there are of us, it becomes far too tempting to become a ward ourselves rather than bear the ever increasing load and responsibility to take care of everybody else. And once few are working, there is poverty and misery for everybody. And there, in a nutshell, is why socialism eventually fails wherever it is tried, and totalitarian communism is a certain prescription for massive human misery.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

Libertarianism doesn't assume that, so your claim is wrong. of course, there are plenty of authoritarians who will do anything to prevent a libertarian society from coming into existence, but that doesn't mean that if it somehow overcame these obstacles that it wouldn't be a good social arrangement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seems you missed my point, which is just that libertarianism won't work if people don't appreciate liberty.

Democracy doesn't work if people don't appreciate democracy either, that does not justify totalitarianism. Libertarians, over all, tend to be very pragmatic, and understand that most people do not understand liberty, or appreciate it. That will not stop us from fighting for it every chance we get. Nor does it justify not moving toward that goal. If they don't like it after we get it up and running they are free to move out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has the starter of this threat learned that what he thought was a flaw in libertarinism is not a flaw?? Gee he seemd so sure of himself.

The big flaw in libertarianism is that the guy who started this thread gets a headache when he tries to think for himself.

I heard he doesn't get headaches himself, but he is a carrier.

That explains a few things.

 

[Erand7899]

There is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians and which many posters dodge like hell. So if there are any Libertarians who would like to take a crack at responding directly to a point, I'd like to hear their views. Of course, if they all use the same dodges and analogies I got from another Libertarian, then quit asking why no one takes you guys seriously.
Here it the central economic theory I've heard from Libertarians and why I dispute it:

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't.
Without government regulation, companies hurt people (e.g. unsafe working conditions, denial of health benefits, toxic dumping, unsafe oil rigs etc...).
They make harmful products (e.g. dangrous drugs, cars that blow up etc...).
They treat employees horribly (e.g. discrimination, wrongful term, etc...).
And no - those companies don't disappear if they are bad because "the Magical Market Corrects All".
The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.
So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

This is why a strong centralized government and reasonable level of regulation is necessary to the well-being of citizenry.

I would welcome any commentary from Libertarians on this and will not stoop to the petty insults, labeling etc... that the weak use as their only means of debate. However, I will challenge you if your reasoning is flawed! Cheers, FS

Although I am not a libertarian, I do hold a lot of the same views on private markets, and do believe that, over the long haul, markets will correct for deficiencies, including badly managed companies. American history includes a long list of large companies that no longer exist, and government regulation had little to do with their demise.

Perhaps you have forgotten all of the automobile and truck manufacturers who no longer exist, or the fact that the big three American automakers have considerable competition from foreign owned manufacturers. Government did not cause this market reorientation. In fact, the big three were getting a whole lot of support from government, but the people who buy the automobiles held a different point of view.

Badly managed enterprises attract competition, and unless they alter their ways, the competition usually pushes them out of the market. The vast majority of consumers are not as dumb as liberals make them out to be. Government can do little to help protect the rest.

I am not opposed to reasonable government regulation that ensures a free market for all comers, but I am opposed to a nanny style regulatory system that attempts to control markets, regardless of how worthy the government believes their actions to be. They almost always skew markets to the benefit of some players, and the detriment of others.

 

[bobgnote]

Free-market libertarianism would be desirable, but no media can get us there, from here.

The Libertarian Party and the Green Party need to merge, or I will stay away, from both, since Ralph Nader lost interest. Parties want money, to run kinda funny. None will come from me.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

The Libertarian Party and the Green Party need to merge,

sounds idiotic since libertarians are for limited government while Greens want Nazi-like central government to impose their goofy green agenda on us now!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Free-market libertarianism would be desirable, but no media can get us there, from here.

The Libertarian Party and the Green Party need to merge, or I will stay away, from both, since Ralph Nader lost interest. Parties want money, to run kinda funny. None will come from me.

Bob, your head and your rectum need to "de-merge."

 

[flacaltenn]

.

The Libertarian Party and the Green Party need to merge,

sounds idiotic since libertarians are for limited government while Greens want Nazi-like central government to impose their goofy green agenda on us now!!

We actually have common causes in the ballot access issues and have coordinated outreach and resources to get our candidates on every state election. But merge??

Not bloody likely.. I appreciate them for being HONEST and OPEN socialists. But don't want them as kissing cousins..

 

[LibertyForAll]

Free-market libertarianism would be desirable, but no media can get us there, from here.

The Libertarian Party and the Green Party need to merge, or I will stay away, from both, since Ralph Nader lost interest. Parties want money, to run kinda funny. None will come from me.

Parties don't need money they need voters. The money is just so they can sway undecided voters by financing media campaigns. The internet is eliminating the need for it and the media is losing the sway they once held since more and more people are getting news from alternative sources. They are also vetting them by comparing them to other sources. This coupled with video sharing and online streaming is way more accurate these days than what they feed you.

 

[bripat9643]

Democracy doesn't work if people don't appreciate democracy either, that does not justify totalitarianism. Libertarians, over all, tend to be very pragmatic, and understand that most people do not understand liberty, or appreciate it. That will not stop us from fighting for it every chance we get. Nor does it justify not moving toward that goal. If they don't like it after we get it up and running they are free to move out.

Democracy doesn't work, period.

 

[bripat9643]

Free-market libertarianism would be desirable, but no media can get us there, from here.

The Libertarian Party and the Green Party need to merge, or I will stay away, from both, since Ralph Nader lost interest. Parties want money, to run kinda funny. None will come from me.

Anyone who thinks the libertarian party has anything in common with the Green Party doesn't know the slightest thing about libertarians.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anyone who thinks the libertarian party has anything in common with the Green Party doesn't know the slightest thing about libertarians.

Or Greens (watermelons.)

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll admit, I haven't been able to come up with ANY correlation between the Greens and libertarianism, so that comment was a bit mystifying.

 

[The T]

Anyone who thinks the libertarian party has anything in common with the Green Party doesn't know the slightest thing about libertarians.

Or Greens (watermelons.)

a.k.a. Communists like Van Jones.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'll admit, I haven't been able to come up with ANY correlation between the Greens and libertarianism, so that comment was a bit mystifying.

All I can think of is the both are against the 2 mainstream parties warmongering foreign policy.

 

[Polk]

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't ...[because]... The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

That's a beautiful counter. You know he won't be able to come up with CURRENT examples. Of course, that's because we have tons of laws protecting consumers from predatory monopolies.