The irrational nature of Libertarianism

[RandomGuy]

there is a huge amount of difference in handicapping businesses with completely reasonable cir stances (diverse laws among states), and taking the property of the populous.

HHUUGGEE..

Ask the CEO of any large company that does business across more than one state line if your scenario would be "reasonable cir stances".

The ultimate aim of a free market system would be to maximize what economists call "utility".

With the example of the aforementioned insurance laws done at the state level, we have essentially federal regulation anyways.

The insurance comissioners get together and have written so-called "model laws" that are essentially passed word-for-word among the participating states' respective legislatures.

You have a base set of laws almost all states adhere to, and 48 or so different agencies enforcing those laws.

What then for the Libertarian viewpoint if a state rejects that model and voters pick to have the state agency to regulate within its borders, as opposed to "private interest groups"?

What if people decide that private interest groups don't work and WANT government agencies?

Would a ruling libertarian party allow that?

[RandomGuy]

Libertarianism is certainly an utopian ideal, unfounded as of now, and maybe ever on any grand scale.

My assertion directly.

This model might be ok for a small town with an active civic life, but would be unworkable for a nation of 300,000,000+ that spans a continent.

Deference to the founding fathers is all well and good. They were educated men and thinkers.

But they were also aristocrats and men of their time. They made mistakes.

Owing them some semi-religious deference ill-serves our needs 200+ years later. We are not a sparsely populated yeoman democracy, and stopped being that arguably almost a century ago.

[MannyIsGod]

I would tend to agree with statements of this type.

Libertarianism is certainly an utopian ideal, unfounded as of now, and maybe ever on any grand scale.

It would require a strong-willed work force, one that actively educated itself on many different principles and facets of the economy and government. Private watchdog groups would have great power and expectation vested in them.

Otherwise, said workforce would quickly find themselves governed by corporate money interests.

Libertarians are often loathe to point out that brutal fact of a near-regulation free capitalist market, in spite of it's elephant-in-the-roomness. It's really what stops libertarianism dead in its tracks. Most people prefer less liberty in exchange for less responsibility.

I agree. I also followed up with the fact that I think any society capable of libertarianism naturally gravitates to that end of the spectrum. If you're smart enough to want libertarianism you're likely smart enough to realize when you're getting a raw deal yet the fact that our country is so poor regarding civic knowledge I don't see how we could ever see them exist in a thriving libertarian society.

If they could handle it why aren't we there?

[Stringer_Bell]

I agree. I also followed up with the fact that I think any society capable of libertarianism naturally gravitates to that end of the spectrum. If you're smart enough to want libertarianism you're likely smart enough to realize when you're getting a raw deal yet the fact that our country is so poor regarding civic knowledge I don't see how we could ever see them exist in a thriving libertarian society.

If they could handle it why aren't we there?

Can people be super rich in a Libertarian society? Maybe it's just easier for people to get rich as it is now? This thread is kinda over my head, just wondering.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's RandomPropaganda for you.

Jesus, you're lazy, man...

Better to slander a poster that actually defends his points with substance than make a point or rebuttal, right?

[Yonivore]

Jesus, you're lazy, man...

Better to slander a poster that actually defends his points with substance than make a point or rebuttal, right?

This should be a forum auto post that responds to just about everyone in here.

[admiralsnackbar]

This should be a forum auto post that responds to just about everyone in here.

If nobody defended their opinion with outside information, you'd have a point. But surprisingly, most worthwhile posters actually arrive at their opinions through research. As much as I appreciate WCs role on the board, I can't say I appreciate how seldom he can provide factual justification for his positions.

[RandomGuy]

Jesus, you're lazy, man...

Better to slander a poster that actually defends his points with substance than make a point or rebuttal, right?

This should be a forum auto post that responds to just about everyone in here.

Erk.... I agree... with... Yoni....

[RandomGuy]

That's RandomPropaganda for you.

Jesus, you're lazy, man...

Better to slander a poster that actually defends his points with substance than make a point or rebuttal, right?

He gave up here a while back. I think he is a tad out of his element.

Kudos to Parker for fighting the good fight.

[MannyIsGod]

Erk.... I agree... with... Yoni....

Why? There are a good deal of people who just make noise here and there are people who post actual information and defend their views based upon said information. I think the informed posters may not outnumber the bad ones but its not hard to filter out the garbage by knowing a poster's MO.

[Parker2112]

He gave up here a while back. I think he is a tad out of his element.

Kudos to Parker for fighting the good fight.

I am very preoccupied. I also feel like I dont do the Libertarian view justice talking in hypos.

I also struggle with the wide-open free market theory, but I think it could work in theory. When I first heard the Libertarian angle, I had the same knee jerk you did RG. But its not as far fetched as you think.

BTW, I am through the firt chapter of Ron Paul's Revolution: A Manifesto. I will be getting back with you when its done. Also, dont let me speak for the party; search ron paul environment and look into more.

[RandomGuy]

I am very preoccupied. I also feel like I dont do the Libertarian view justice talking in hypos.

I also struggle with the wide-open free market theory, but I think it could work in theory. When I first heard the Libertarian angle, I had the same knee jerk you did RG. But its not as far fetched as you think.

BTW, I am through the firt chapter of Ron Paul's Revolution: A Manifesto. I will be getting back with you when its done. Also, dont let me speak for the party; search ron paul environment and look into more.

I will probably read the book this weekend at the library. I'll let you know.

[LnGrrrR]

A bit late to the party, but I'd say I'm libertarian when it comes to civil liberties issues and socially, and somewhere between libertarian and liberal when it comes to economics. (There's tension between my set of first ideal principles and national utilitarianism.)

[LnGrrrR]

RG, since you stated you were actually curious about libertarianism philosophy (and since I feel a good online debate could help strengthen/weaken my own ideas), a question:

Do you think taxation is morally correct? I think that's the true line that determines how libertarian one is.

[Parker2112]

RG, since you stated you were actually curious about libertarianism philosophy (and since I feel a good online debate could help strengthen/weaken my own ideas), a question:

Do you think taxation is morally correct? I think that's the true line that determines how libertarian one is.

[I'm not RG, but...] Its hard to justify tax rates above 10%, IMHO. Even then, I think thats too much. 2-5% would be excusable as incedental mandatory contributions, and rates that low would definitely cap wealth redistribution through govt.

And in reality, the wealthiest pay way less than that. from 2008...

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which got $10 billion and debt guarantees from the U.S. government in October, expects to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007.
The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1 percent

[Th'Pusher]

[I'm not RG, but...] Its hard to justify tax rates above 10%, IMHO. Even then, I think thats too much. 2-5% would be excusable as incedental mandatory contributions, and rates that low would definitely cap wealth redistribution through govt.

And in reality, the wealthiest pay way less than that. from 2008...

I find it amusing that you understand the banks are in complete control of the only government you have and your solution to deal with this is to give less money to the agency that exists in America to control and regulate them.

And the redistribution of wealth? The free market unfettered redistributes wealth upward. How do you suggest we deal with the Rothschilds? Shotguns?

[Parker2112]

I find it amusing that you understand the banks are in complete control of the only government you have and your solution to deal with this is to give less money to the agency that exists in America to control and regulate them.

And the redistribution of wealth? The free market unfettered redistributes wealth upward. How do you suggest we deal with the Rothschilds? Shotguns?

Power to the states. Instead of centralizing power and serving it up on a plate, reduce the power and scope of federal govt and allow states to govern their residents on a more local level.

Will they still be prone to corruption? Yes. BUT: Are state govts more apt to have to answer to voters? yes.

[Th'Pusher]

Power to the states. Instead of centralizing power and serving it up on a plate, reduce the power and scope of federal govt and allow states to govern their residents on a more local level.

Will they still be prone to corruption? Yes. BUT: Are state govts more apt to have to answer to voters? yes.

I agree all politics are local, but you do not seem to be grasping the depth or breadth of the problem. We're in a global economy centered around wealth controlled by very few.

The only way to address this is to continue to fight for the middle class through regulation and the redistribution of wealth through a centralized federal government. I can guarantee you that deregulation and tax cuts for the said few will only return more of the same and that's what you seem to be endorsing.

[Parker2112]

its not deregulation. its regulation at the state level. and as for redistribution of wealth, that usually ends up in bad news for middle/lower class. Whatever system you can put in place at a federal level, it will be corrupted/undermined.

[Th'Pusher]

its not deregulation. its regulation at the state level. and as for redistribution of wealth, that usually ends up in bad news for middle/lower class. Whatever system you can put in place at a federal level, it will be corrupted/undermined.

You're going to have to explain to me why giving states the right to fight the financial interests would be better than the federal government (even corrupt). We're in a global economy and you're suggesting the States control our financial interests? How is that compe ive?

[Parker2112]

Sorry, but that would require me to be up for a while. And Im almost down for the count.

IMO, it can be done. But Im not expert enough to iron out the details of the effect of de-centralization on international economics.

[Th'Pusher]

Sorry, but that would require me to be up for a while. And Im almost down for the count.

IMO, it can be done. But Im not expert enough to iron out the details of the effect of de-centralization on international economics.

Well when you are expert enough, explain it to us all. I'd love to hear some thoughts on the de-centralization of international economics.

[Parker2112]

Well when you are expert enough, explain it to us all. I'd love to hear some thoughts on the de-centralization of international economics.

are you in the US?

[Th'Pusher]

are you in the US?

Of course. Right here in Texas.

[Parker2112]

Of course. Right here in Texas.

All I will say is that looking to the federal govt for protection at this point is like the chicken going to the fox to protect it from the hounds.

If the hounds owned the foxes.

And if you can find an honest politician to send to Washington, they can be bought in less than the time it will take to do anything worthwhile. And they will.

We have long been led to believe that we NEED federal intervention in our lives for one reason or another. and yet our country was originally designed to be free from this very concentration of power, because the founding fathers knew that it resulted in the same type of tyranny that English kings had wielded over their subjects, and from which settlers had fled.

We dont need a mother in washington. we can govern ourselves, and if we are to retain our freedoms, we must.