Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero.
spoken like a liberal fool with a conceptual IQ in the severely to traumatically retarded range. Here's an easy way to prove it: please state your most substantive reason for thinking libertarianism won't work. We won't hold our breath waiting for you to reply.
Yeah, you sure sound like a guy interested in having a sincere, intelligent discussion on the subject.
spoken like a liberal fool with a conceptual IQ in the severely to traumatically retarded range. Here's an easy way to prove it: please state your most substantive reason for thinking libertarianism won't work. We won't hold our breath waiting for you to reply.
Yeah, you sure sound like a guy interested in having a sincere, intelligent discussion on the subject.
please state your most substantive reason for thinking libertarianism won't work.
Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.
Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.
No one has really seen pure libertarianism in action though. We've seen random bits and pieces of it in the marketplace, if you call specifically targeted deregulations "libertarianism", but regardless it's been extremely tainted by the rest of the regulatory burden and a currency that's 100% centrally controlled.
Yeah, you sure sound like a guy interested in having a sincere, intelligent discussion on the subject.
please state your most substantive reason for thinking libertarianism won't work.
Like socialism, it[capitalism] conflicts too much with human nature.
Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.
No one has really seen pure libertarianism in action though. We've seen random bits and pieces of it in the marketplace, if you call specifically targeted deregulations "libertarianism", but regardless it's been extremely tainted by the rest of the regulatory burden and a currency that's 100% centrally controlled.
How much government regulation of business would there be under pure libertarianism?
No one has really seen pure libertarianism in action though. We've seen random bits and pieces of it in the marketplace, if you call specifically targeted deregulations "libertarianism", but regardless it's been extremely tainted by the rest of the regulatory burden and a currency that's 100% centrally controlled.
How much government regulation of business would there be under pure libertarianism?
The pure part is subjective, but putting that aside for the sake of the question I would say that most libertarians that recognize that there's a certain amount of regulation that is constitutionally authorized would probably agree universally on what would be considered common sense.
It would be time consuming but I could come up with a plethora of examples...one being that there shouldn't be any argument that food should be clearly and transparently labelled as to what exactly is in it. No one can inform themselves on what meat has pink slime in it, for instance, if companies aren't labeling it.
That's a cheap, fair regulation that benefits consumers. But the kicker is that it DOESN'T benefit big business. And that's why you don't see "pink slime" labels.
How much government regulation of business would there be under pure libertarianism?
The pure part is subjective, but putting that aside for the sake of the question I would say that most libertarians that recognize that there's a certain amount of regulation that is constitutionally authorized would probably agree universally on what would be considered common sense.
It would be time consuming but I could come up with a plethora of examples...one being that there shouldn't be any argument that food should be clearly and transparently labelled as to what exactly is in it. No one can inform themselves on what meat has pink slime in it, for instance, if companies aren't labeling it.
That's a cheap, fair regulation that benefits consumers. But the kicker is that it DOESN'T benefit big business. And that's why you don't see "pink slime" labels.
You're being far too reasonable and pragmatic to be a pure libertarian Paulie. Watch out for big ed, he's gonna lower the boom on you anytime now.
I'm a libertarian in that I value liberty above all else, but within reason, and I agree that the smallest effective government is optimal. Where I part ways with many self-professed libertarians is on what constitutes 'within reason' and 'effective government'.
I'm a libertarian in that I value liberty above all else, but within reason, and I agree that the smallest effective government is optimal. Where I part ways with many self-professed libertarians is on what constitutes 'within reason' and 'effective government'.
Liberty to live one's life how they see fit, unabated, so long as the next person's right to do so isn't being infringed upon.
It's actually a pretty simple concept.
I'm a libertarian in that I value liberty above all else, but within reason, and I agree that the smallest effective government is optimal. Where I part ways with many self-professed libertarians is on what constitutes 'within reason' and 'effective government'.
Liberty to live one's life how they see fit, unabated, so long as the next person's right to do so isn't being infringed upon.
It's actually a pretty simple concept.
Agreed. But as always, the devil is in the details.
Should your next door neighbor have the liberty to turn his backyard into a landfill?
Libertarianism is about maximum freedom for the individual, which really isn't possible without some form of government in place with the tools to protect the rights of the individual.
That used to be called Liberalism.
Liberty to live one's life how they see fit, unabated, so long as the next person's right to do so isn't being infringed upon.
It's actually a pretty simple concept.
Agreed. But as always, the devil is in the details.
Should your next door neighbor have the liberty to turn his backyard into a landfill?
Yes, until that action infringes upon my health and well being.
Agreed. But as always, the devil is in the details.
Should your next door neighbor have the liberty to turn his backyard into a landfill?
Yes, until that action infringes upon my health and well being.
Does your property value impact your health and well being?
For anyone paying attention, the conversation Paulie and I are having touches upon the core issue as to why libertarian philosophy is no more sustainable than any other. It relies on a nearly universal agreement about wildly subjective superlatives that is simply unattainable. So what happens in practice is those with the power to legislate protect the liberties they cherish and shit on the ones they don't. Eventually those guys are replaced with new guys with a different set of priorities vis-a-vis liberties that matter. And with each successive crank of the wheel, liberties are eroded, it's just a fact of existence. Libertarianism doesn't solve that riddle in the slightest. As for the small government element to the philosophy, I got a bridge to sell ya. That's asking way too much from one man intoxicated with the power to legislate, let alone most of them. Libertarianism is a beautiful utopian dream, it's not a solution to anything, unfortunately.
