Author Topic: Libertarians  (Read 139278 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,461
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2007, 02:33:34 »
>Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence.

Perhaps you shouldn't speak from such a wealth of ignorance.  As to how it is morally disgusting, please explain why a person minding his own business disgusts you and how you came to lump that in with political philosophies on the end of the spectrum occupied by people who are obsessed with controlling others.  Ponder the number of other political philosophies which lie between the people minding their own business and the people minding other people's business to the extent of democide.  Where on that morally disgusting spectrum do you sit?

As I say, the guy who spends his days obsessively counting his spare change in his attic bothers me a lot less than the people who just need the right cause to rationalize their stupidity.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2007, 08:57:26 »
>Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?

I think large numbers of people lack one or more of intelligence, education, common sense; or, even granted they have all of those, they lack the willpower to overcome their emotional and biological urges sufficiently to make rational consensual choices consistently.  As a result, large numbers of people make poor decisions.

And one could only presume that that individuals would make better* choices if they were not insulated from the consequences of their actions (i.e., settlement in the Mississippi River Basin).

-----------
*People generally act rationally: we have to be aware of what incentives exist and what any given individual's motivations are.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 09:12:06 by I_am_John_Galt »
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2007, 09:08:42 »
- You sound confused.  Pinochet a Libertarian?  I doubt it, though a lot of Libertarians no doubt 'disapeared' under his watch.
FA is right OTL: I suspect he's trying classify Pinochet as a Libertarian because of his free market economic policies (only).  Evidently the entire concept of civics is completely lost on the (original) poster.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2007, 17:46:01 »
- You sound confused.  Pinochet a Libertarian?  I doubt it, though a lot of Libertarians no doubt 'disapeared' under his watch.

 Milton Friedman was at his time the leading economic libertarian in the world. He met with and approved of the Chicago Boys (a group of Chilean economists) who at the behest of Augusto Pinochet worked to create a free market economy and decentralize economic and ultimately political power, the same goals of Libertarians. Friedman even met with Pinochet and became friends with him, approving of his government and the direction it was going. As it was at the time the closest thing to a Libertarian society. And we all know how that went.

 Another, and more realistic example of “Libertarian” policies at practice would be modern Somalia. With the “federal” government having limited if any power and only providing foreign affairs and limited military defense the structure of Somalia government today is exactly what Libertarians strive to create. Civil protection is provided by private companies (warlords) and anything else any individual wants if they can afford it they can get, and those who can’t afford it simply die off. Exactly the principles Libertarians wish to instate in what ever society they exist in.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,461
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2007, 18:00:06 »
Yes, beating in the heart of every libertarian is the bloodlust of a Somali warlord.  Are you legally mentally competent?
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #55 on: March 31, 2007, 18:07:18 »
>Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence.

Perhaps you shouldn't speak from such a wealth of ignorance.  As to how it is morally disgusting, please explain why a person minding his own business disgusts you and how you came to lump that in with political philosophies on the end of the spectrum occupied by people who are obsessed with controlling others.  Ponder the number of other political philosophies which lie between the people minding their own business and the people minding other people's business to the extent of democide.  Where on that morally disgusting spectrum do you sit?

As I say, the guy who spends his days obsessively counting his spare change in his attic bothers me a lot less than the people who just need the right cause to rationalize their stupidity.

My position on Libertarians is far from one created from ignorance. Libertarians are such an obscure and irrelevant political entity, the very fact that I know what a Libertarian is demonstrates that I am not ignorant on the philosophy.

It is morally disgusting because it advocates “survival of the fittest”. There would be no welfare, there would be no public health care, there would be no public education…. There would be no government programs at all to benefit anyone in society. The basis of Libertarism is if you can’t afford it you don’t deserve it. They believe in the “god” of the “infallible” market force. To them, those who don’t make money don’t because they do not deserve it (not smart enough, don’t work hard enough…. Ect) and therefore deserve to suffer the consequences of that.

 The poor would get poorer, the rich would get richer and the middle class would either succeed or fail in till we are left with a society of the rich elite who are capable of educating and sustaining themselves, and the poor who are forced in to “slavery” simply to survive.

 There would be no minimum wage, there would be no “workers rights”, under Libertarians it would be completely legal to operate Asian style sweatshops in Canada because according to them it is the only way to make our markets “competitive” and if individuals did not like the conditions of these sweatshops they would quit.

 Public education would be eliminated, families unable to pay for education would not be able to send their children to school. Those families of poorer means would only be able to send there children to schools of lower quality…. In end the Rich would get better education where the poor would be lucky if they got any at all (Like how it was back in 14th century England).

 Libertarians don’t believe that we should have a military for anything other than our own defense. Our military would be severally under funded (since Libertarians don’t believe in the right to tax citizens there would be little if any funds for our armed forces). We would no longer participate or contribute to humanitarian missions or peacekeeping. There would be no more foreign aid to help people around the world, there would be no more UN missions to help and protect refugees. The problems of other people around the world would no longer be a concern or issue to Canadians under a Libertarian government.

At home, there would be no more restrictions on trade of any kind. Our borders would be completely open, no more taxes on foreign goods, no more tariffs. In short Canadian industrie would either have to lower it’s standards to meet that of places like south east Asia to remain competitive (paying workers 50 cents an hour in despicable conditions) or see 100% of these sectors move to 3rd world countries.

 Roads, Police, Fire….. all these services would become private. Private corporations would own roads, and you could have to pay them to use them. So simply driving to work, you would have to map out a specific path and only use those roadways you have paid to use. You would have to pay for private corporations to police and protect your nebigourhoods, private companies to protect your house against fires…

 Libertarians believe that corporations do everything better than the government, and thus everything the government does for us today, would have to be done by private corporations.

 Libertarians are morally disgusting because I believe that a society can best be judged by how we treat our poorest, worst off citizens (like a great man once said) and under a Libertarian government our poor would be left in the street to die.

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #56 on: March 31, 2007, 18:09:57 »
Yes, beating in the heart of every libertarian is the bloodlust of a Somali warlord.  Are you legally mentally competent?

Somalia is the perfect example of the ultimate evolution of a state running on Libertarian principles. There is limited if any federal government, Private enterprise is free to do what ever they want with no regulations and individuals are free to do what they want, when they want with little if any restrictions.   

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,223
  • Freespeecher
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2007, 19:02:20 »
Perhaps a little more reading and a little less trolling is in order here. Somalia is a failed state, and if it represents anything at all it is Anarchy.

In terms of what a true Libertarian society would look like; there would not be welfare, but neither would there be any restrictions on your offering charity to those less fortunate than yourself. While you object to privatization of the police, fire department etc. it should be noted that a: these are relatively modern constructs, and; b: private security firms and volunteer fire departments far outnumber "public" ones. Obviously there is a market mechanism to provide these services to those with the inclination to either buy them or provide voluntary service.

The rest of your objections (if I can use that term) are the typical track of calling regulatory failure "market failure" as justification to impose more government intrusion into private spheres. Poor children in public schools get whatever the State decides to provide, which in my experience (from dealing with recruits who have graduated from such schools) isn't much. The evidence of private industry and free trade outperforming government institutions is overwhelming, a current event is Canadian farmers attempting to free themselves from the Canadian wheat board, as evidence mounts the board sells Canadian wheat at below market prices, lowering the return of farmers who are forced to sell through the board (reducing their standards of living, taxable income etc.). Wal-Mart saves the poor millions of dollars and provides them greater consumer choice, and unlike the former Soviet Union, our groceries are not rationed, but like the former USSR, our health care is.

I believe I have spent enough valuable time on this tangent, and don't intend to "feed the trolls" any further. The facts are there for you and everyone else to examine and draw conclusions from. Don't be surprised when people come down on you for pulling erroneous conclusions out of the air.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #58 on: March 31, 2007, 19:28:23 »
Perhaps a little more reading and a little less trolling is in order here.
+1

Even the Anarcho-Capitalists argue in favour of a (mutually-agreed) legal code ... the Minarchist school of libertarianism supports a small level of government, functioning by way of a minimal level of taxation, that is responsible for an effective military, police and judicial system: Somalia has none of these ... Pinochet was a tyrant who had no respect for individual liberty.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #59 on: March 31, 2007, 20:11:49 »
Quote
Perhaps a little more reading and a little less trolling is in order here. Somalia is a failed state, and if it represents anything at all it is Anarchy

 The successful implication of Libertarian philosophy upon a society would result in effective “anarchy”. There would be little distinction between Anarchy and a full on Libertarian society beyond the few basic laws maintained (if possible) by a Libertarian government.

 Anarchy and Libertarism are two shades of the same color, just like Communism and Fascism.

Quote
In terms of what a true Libertarian society would look like; there would not be welfare, but neither would there be any restrictions on your offering charity to those less fortunate than yourself.

 Show me a time in history when there have been actual laws or restrictions against giving to charity?

 I doubt there has ever been such laws, but that has never prevented mass poverty. Today as it stands the world rich could easily end world starvation and vastly improve the conditions of hundreds of millions of the world poor. But they don’t. Why would it be any different in a Libertarian society?

 Charity only goes so far, and Charitable originations only have resources and political abilities that extend so far. No origination is as effective and efficient in providing needed aid and bettering the social and economic conditions of our citizens than the government. Stopping them from doing that is morally reprehensible.

Quote
While you object to privatization of the police, fire department etc. it should be noted that a: these are relatively modern constructs

 And society evolved to create such establishments, what benefits is there in reverting to practices that our society has seen fit to eliminate?

Quote
b: private security firms and volunteer fire departments far outnumber "public" ones.

 Quality over quantity. Public departments provide equal coverage to all people. Look what happened when private fire departments were established in 17th century England. When you paid a fire department they would put a plaque up on your house indicating that you were provided coverage by a certain company. If your house was on fire and another company responded but you did not pay them, they would let your house burn.

 To say that private corporations, motivated by profit, are the best originations to protect our cities and home from fire is illogical. If you don’t pay them, there is no motive for them to protect your house. The rich would be well covered, where the poor would be lucky if they even showed up to put the fire out.

As for private security, they do nothing other than supplement public institutions. There is no situation in the western world where private institutions take over the rolls of investigation and prosecution of crimes.

Quote
Poor children in public schools get whatever the State decides to provide, which in my experience (from dealing with recruits who have graduated from such schools) isn't much.

Public education is what you make of it. We are taught the exact same things in public school as private schools.

 The fundamental issue here is that Libertarians believe only those who can afford it deserve education, and since children are depended on their parents really Libertarians believe that only those born into money deserve education, poor parents would be unable to educate their children (sins of the father).

 That is a barbaric, the cornerstone of developed society is free and universal access to education. It is morally despicable that any individual in our society would seek to deny those of lesser means their fundamental right to education.

Quote
The evidence of private industry and free trade outperforming government institutions is overwhelming

 The free market has it’s place, but it’s freedoms must be balanced with the wellbeing and needs of society. Libertarians take a free market to the extreme and advocate that it is the magical cure for everything. Unfortunately for them, the market force is not the answer for everything.

Quote
Wal-Mart saves the poor millions of dollars and provides them greater consumer choice

 Well at the same time providing workers with no benefits, as minimal pay as possible and absolutely no rights as workers (if a store unionizes, they shut the store down).

 Tell me, what do you think Wal-Mart would pay it’s employees if the government didn’t set a minimum wage as Libertarians would advoicate?

Quote
The facts are there

 I think the only fact that is ultimately relevant is the few thousand votes nationally the Libertarian party gets at best and the fact that no moral and educated society will ever embrace libertarian principles.


Quote
Somalia has none of these

 They did for many years, but like I said. Somalia today is the ultimate evolution of a Libertarian society. That small, minimally funded government was disregarded as soon as the private corporations (in this case Somalia) gained more power than the government did. Any libertarian society would go the same way, as corporations gained more and more power fueled by their need for more and more money ultimately the government would only stand in their way and they would disregard it and eliminate it.

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #60 on: March 31, 2007, 20:24:25 »
FrenchAffair: you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.  I respect this site enough to try to limit myself to posting about things that I know about.  I ask that you please do the same.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #61 on: March 31, 2007, 20:42:18 »
FrenchAffair: you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.  I respect this site enough to try to limit myself to posting about things that I know about.  I ask that you please do the same.

Attacking the person rather than the argument is a common logical fallacy. I have responded to the arguments presented against mine in turn, if you can not do the same common courtesy and professionalism would ask you to simply not respond rather than try to save face by a lack luster personal attack against me.

Political ideologies, their differences and applications in the world has been the main field that I have studies in university for the last 2 years so your outlandish claims that I am uninformed it baseless. With out doubt there are individuals who know plenty more than I do, and if you happen to be one of those people then an exchange of arguments would be the course of action to take. But if all you can do is attack my person, and like you claim have respect for this site. Then respect this site by not sinking to the level of personal attacks.

Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM!"- Seth Finkelstein

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #62 on: March 31, 2007, 22:31:52 »
"You obviously have no idea what you are talking about" is not an ad hominem: it is a statement of fact.  If you feel the need to compare credentials, one of my degrees is in Political Economy.  Economics covers the sphere of production, where Politics studies the mode of distribution: Political Economy is the study of the interaction of the two.  Libertarianism is a philosophy of Political Economy.  While you seem to have (very) superficial understanding of some of the economic aspects of libertarianism, the political, and political economy aspects are apparently completely beyond you.  You don't seem to understand the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism nor, ironically, between Libertarianism and Authoritarianism.  Your arguments aren't being refuted directly not because we disagree, but because they are nonsensical: you might as well be arguing that the Air Force has outdated submarines.  Mr. Majoor gave you some very good advice ... I suggest you read some of what he, I, and others have written here on the subject, because your idea of what Libertarianism is flat out wrong.  Here's a primer from the Cato Institute: Key Concepts of Libertarianism.

In particular, I draw your attention to:
Quote
The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Limited Government. To protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is a dangerous institution. Libertarians have a great antipathy to concentrated power, for as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thus they want to divide and limit power, and that means especially to limit government, generally through a written constitution enumerating and limiting the powers that the people delegate to government. Limited government is the basic political implication of libertarianism, and libertarians point to the historical fact that it was the dispersion of power in Europe -- more than other parts of the world -- that led to individual liberty and sustained economic growth.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2007, 00:02:39 »
Quote
"You obviously have no idea what you are talking about" is not an ad hominem: it is a statement of fact.

 It is a subjective opinion. I’m going to assume based on your name and defense of these principles that you adhere in some form to the philosophies of Ayn Rand and thus your perspective is going to be one of pro-libertarian. An individual who subscribes to another philosophical and political standing might agree with what I am saying. So instead of delving into accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about, if you from your perspective disagree with what I (or anyone) says you are fully welcome to state your case and I am fully open to read and debate any issues of this. How ever lets keep mature about this, if I don’t know what I am talking about, you can easily demonstrate that by a simple and well placed counter argument. Logical and reason will stand clear from illogical and the irrational, so there is no need for accusations.

Quote
Libertarianism is a philosophy of Political Economy

 It is far more than just that. It is a all encompassing political philosophy. It embodies a broad, but limited (in numbers) spectrum of groups that share similar theories on not just economic issues, but as well social and moral.

 Libertarians seek to install social and moral policies just as much as economic ones.

Quote
You don't seem to understand the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism nor, ironically, between Libertarianism and Authoritarianism.

I fully understand the differences on paper, but in practical application those differences are a lot smaller than Libertarians would like us to believe.

 Libertarianism is vastly similar to Anarchism in it’s approach to many issues, creating what we can call somewhat “regulated anarchy” which would ultimately lead to circumstances that can be described in no other way than authoritarianism.

 Libertarians would effectively give corporations a free hand, with no regulations upon business, no regulations upon workers rights or standards these corporations would eventually have a over dominating control of society, especially for the workers depended on them for their very survival (remember, there would be no social programs to help the unemployed or exploited) and would become slaves in everything but name. Enslaved by the conditions created by Libertarian policy.

Quote
Your arguments aren't being refuted directly not because we disagree, but because they are nonsensical

They are based on the simple conclusions that can easily be come to simply by looking at what Libertarians support and though rational thought seeking what the conclusion of those policies would be upon a developed nation. The vast majority (over 99.98% to be exact) of Canadians came to the same conclusion so unless you are claiming that all but a few accost this broad nation are “nonsensical” your claims are incorrect.

Quote
Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

 Which can be boiled down to the commonly quoted phrase of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”, and as long as what you do does not infringe upon another right to those three things you can do it. How ever it does nothing to address what I speak of, which is the corner stones of civilized society, which would be removed under a libertarian government.

 “Each man for himself” is the only appropriate moto for Libertarians, and it charactizes the philosophy entirely and nothing I have claimed is contrary to what Libertarians propose.

 If you wish I can quote the Libertarian platform where they seek to eliminate government mandated minimum wage, or public health and education… or even the basic government institutions that ensure minimum standards of workers rights (since of course the “market force” will make it all work out for the best)

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,929
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #64 on: April 01, 2007, 03:19:39 »
I can't see how a small dose of Libertarianism would ultimately lead to a calous anarchy any more than Canada's present over-regulated social welfare paradise will eventually lead to all out Communism ...

... wait a minute...
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2007, 11:08:09 »
Those that claim that hedonism, selfishness and anarchy are not what Libertarianism is about are absolutely correct, however...

I can not believe that any ideology which claims to have liberty as it's driving force would or could believe that unfettered business and an unregulated economy would somehow lead to more individual liberty.  All you have to do to see the fallacy of this argument is look back into history.  Sweat shops are a direct result of unregulated business.  The illiberal practices of the so called company towns in the old west were another, indentured servitude was the practical outcome, though it was never called that. 

All this liberty of business and economy does is redirect the power away from elected governments (in a democratic system) to unelected businessmen who's only responsibility is to make money for himself, the company and if there are any, shareholders.  It's the final triumph of the oft' perverted "Golden Rule", you know the one that goes "He who has the gold, makes the rules."  I for one would not want to live in a society in which that was more of a fact than a clever turn of phrase.

I can almost hear the argument now... "But if workers are treated poorly then they can go work somewhere else."  A common refrain, but largely unlikely and impractical in a libertarian society.  Without any social programs anyone who does not work is reduced to the status of beggar at best.  Debtors prisons, another result of pay as you go liberty. 

Another libertarian argument is that if the people don't like what the company does then they can buy their products elsewhere.  Except for the small omission that Libertarianism has absolutely no problem with monopolies.  Just imagine what an unscrupulous Bill Gates could do with enough money to buy an entire nation.  Can you say corporate state?

Buy the police, fire departments, the military.  The few existing politicians would be easily bought if not out-right then by proxy (if you own everything then your power in an economic and practical sense is unlimited). 

Think of the POWER!  When the only obstacle to power is money there is literally no obstacle to someone with enough money.

Of course none of this is what Libertarianism is all about... in the same way that Stalin's purges, gulags and the iron curtain are not what communism is about.
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,461
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #66 on: April 01, 2007, 13:32:00 »
>I have responded to the arguments presented

You have not.  You have re-created the same straw man as many others who object to libertarian principles.  Libertarianism is not the absence of law and government.  Safeguarding the rights of individuals and the commons are expected functions of a libertarian government.  All of the failings being pointed out are the failings of people.  People do not magically shed their weaknesses when they take up politics or careers in public service.  The ultimate short cut to money and power is government and employment in government service.  Where should we expect people long on desire but short on willpower and industriousness to seek their aims?

Yes, people working privately can foul up the lives of others.  But no-one can **** up the economy, people's investments and livelihoods, the environment, or the well-being of entire cultures and groups of people so fast and on such a scale of magnitude as governments, even governments with noble intentions.  You don't need to look outside the borders of Canada to find government abuses that far outweigh anything people acting privately could aspire to.  Find a private company which has done anything as vile over the past century as the way Canada has positioned its aboriginal population.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,223
  • Freespeecher
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #67 on: April 01, 2007, 23:29:03 »
Rather than spending our valuable time sweeping straw men out of the room, we really should be concentrating on how to institute Libertarianism as a viable political philosophy. The Dead Hand of Socialism and the Grasping Hand of government are certainly doing their best to arm wrestle the Invisible Hand of the market to the ground (although the true result is the growth of unintended consequences as market forces continue to operate in the new and distorted environments). Blogging seems to be a good starting point, as it is an unfettered medium with low entry barriers, and has the added bonus of being linkable to kindred spirits, and is also a two way medium, thus available to educate people.

Reccesoldier brings up some interesting observations, but I suspect the best answers to his examples are rooted in history. Many of the examples he brings up represent a time and place where the choices were limited (i.e. frontiers and company towns, where there was only one employer). Law and legal institutions were also poorly developed in many of these settings. In a more developed society where there is a larger and developed infrastructure, more choice is available.

WRT monopolies, in a free market the existence of a monopoly can only take place for a limited time, as the example of the monopolist gathering monopoly rents encourages the growth of competetors who are eager to cash in. Even now, if you don't like Windows, use LINUX in one of its many forms. Government monopolies are pernicious because they use the power of the State to maintain themselves. In my home town the worst substandard housing is owned and operated at taxpayer expense by the city; and the existence of such a large bloc of subsidized housing discourages the establishment of rental housing. Now the call has gone out for subsidized low income housing to be built by the city or province, so home builders are reacting to the establishment of a unscrupulous monopolist by moving out of the low cost housing industry en mass and concentrating on "executive" homes. The market is there, but government has undercut their ability to service the market at a profit...........
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline JesseWZ

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 29,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 415
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #68 on: April 02, 2007, 00:11:01 »
Quote
Anarchy and Libertarism are two shades of the same color, just like Communism and Fascism.[
Not unless the shades of color you refer to are black and white...
Fascism is  nationalistic  and veheminently anti-communist. Its like the farthest right you can get on the political spectrum. Communism on the other hand is quite the opposite.
I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #69 on: April 02, 2007, 00:17:00 »
Quote
I can not believe that any ideology which claims to have liberty as it's driving force would or could believe that unfettered business and an unregulated economy would somehow lead to more individual liberty.

Then it would seem you have yet to delve far enough into the illogical and delusional world of Libertarians.

 I quote you from the Libertarian Parties platform

”Replacement of all government-granted monopolies and subsidies with deregulated free markets

“we oppose all intervention by government into the area of economics.”

“The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights”


Libertarians believe that all woes of the world will be solved though the magical “market force”. To them, sweatshops exist only because of government interference into the market place. To them, the unregulated economy is the unfailable solution to every problem.

Libertarians also have no issue with sweatshops. For them to interfere in private business is against the fundamental principle of their philosophy. The answer a Libertarian would give as to this situation is that if the workers do not like the conditions that they are working in they can quit and find a new job.

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #70 on: April 02, 2007, 00:23:45 »
Not unless the shades of color you refer to are black and white...
Fascism is  nationalistic  and veheminently anti-communist. Its like the farthest right you can get on the political spectrum. Communism on the other hand is quite the opposite.

Communism and Fascism are practically the same in essence. Communism creates an authoritarian dictatorship, putting the “people” above all other, and Fascism creates an authoritarian dictatorship, putting the “state” above all other.

 In practice, Fascism and Communism are very similar. Fascism can not be “right wing” as the “farther right” ones goes on the spectrum the less government involvement, the more individual freedoms one has. The extreme form of the “right wing” is Anarchy. Fascism and Communism are both aspects of extreme “left wing” philosophies.

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #71 on: April 02, 2007, 00:38:59 »
Quote
Safeguarding the rights of individuals and the commons are expected functions of a libertarian government.

 How ever, the definition of “rights” to a Libertarian is far from what most people in our society would define them as.

 Libertarians do not believe in the right to education, health care, food, shelter…. To a Libertarian all those things depend on the basis of if or if not you can afford them.

Quote
Find a private company which has done anything as vile over the past century as the way Canada has positioned its aboriginal population.

 Are you joking me. Walmart and Nike, two of the largest corporations in America, even the world run of sweatshops that practically enslave poor, uneducated people who would be put on the streets to starve (with their families) if they did not work in the horrible conditions for minimal pay.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,223
  • Freespeecher
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #72 on: April 02, 2007, 04:39:48 »
Not unless the shades of color you refer to are black and white...
Fascism is  nationalistic  and veheminently anti-communist. Its like the farthest right you can get on the political spectrum. Communism on the other hand is quite the opposite.

Actually Jesse, I think that is a common misconception, but read Politics with more dimensions http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23744.0.html to see how the one dimensional "left/right" divide distorts political thinking.

You might also like the thread on the Euston Manifesto http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,42161.0.html which looks at quite a few competing ideas in the realm of politics and ideology. Many of our better posters participated in that one, and I thought it was a good debate.

Enjoy!
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,436
  • Crewman
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #73 on: April 02, 2007, 07:55:13 »
Are you joking me. Walmart and Nike, two of the largest corporations in America, even the world run of sweatshops that practically enslave poor, uneducated people who would be put on the streets to starve (with their families) if they did not work in the horrible conditions for minimal pay.

Really?  Are you talking about what amounts to a very minimal pay here in Canada, or fairly high wages for their country?  A little perspective may be in order.  Now I am sure that should.....say the "Unions" move into these places,..........you'd see even more changes............but that would throw this discussion about "Libertarians" right out the window.  These nations will soon overtake ours with their manufacturing and become the World's producers, while we devolve into States where 'Tourism' will be our only 'Seasonal Employment'.  The "Money" is on the move.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #74 on: April 02, 2007, 08:44:47 »
Reccesoldier brings up some interesting observations, but I suspect the best answers to his examples are rooted in history. Many of the examples he brings up represent a time and place where the choices were limited (i.e. frontiers and company towns, where there was only one employer). Law and legal institutions were also poorly developed in many of these settings. In a more developed society where there is a larger and developed infrastructure, more choice is available.

But in the ideal libertarian society there would be significantly less law (and I would argue order) than there is today.  Imagine the actions and methods of drug dealers in Toronto in the absence of legislation.  Do you honestly believe that their methods would change if the drugs suddenly became legal.  Unfettered access to our children and no recourse for Joe and Jill six pack.

Quote
WRT monopolies, in a free market the existence of a monopoly can only take place for a limited time, as the example of the monopolist gathering monopoly rents encourages the growth of competetors who are eager to cash in. Even now, if you don't like Windows, use LINUX in one of its many forms. Government monopolies are pernicious because they use the power of the State to maintain themselves. In my home town the worst substandard housing is owned and operated at taxpayer expense by the city; and the existence of such a large bloc of subsidized housing discourages the establishment of rental housing. Now the call has gone out for subsidized low income housing to be built by the city or province, so home builders are reacting to the establishment of a unscrupulous monopolist by moving out of the low cost housing industry en mass and concentrating on "executive" homes. The market is there, but government has undercut their ability to service the market at a profit...........

In theory... again just like the behemoth communism, libertarianism sounds great on paper.  Remember communism was supposed to set people free.  The ultimate goal was to enable people to work as and when the spirit called them, at whatever they wished, for the good of all.  In reality the command economy led to unending menial labour for all and replaced the "upper class" with the apparatchik. 

In theory the free market would lead to unrestricted competition and monopolies would be a fleeting thing as you say but I can just as easily see the rise of what I called the corporate state which controls not through the mechanism of legislation but through the much broader and much more invasive use of market domination. 

How can a mom and pop business exist in a market dominated by such a corporation?  How long until the mom and pop can't find suppliers because they are all owned by the corporation? Mom and pop have to import their resources from far away because the monopoly owns all the required resources near them, this drives mom and pop's price up and they can not compete and they go out of business, or perhaps better yet the corporation buys them out and continues running mom & pop's business making the same product giving an illusion of competition where there really is none.  The corporation has done nothing wrong, in fact by ensuring their survival they have done everything right according to the market.  Now imagine a corporation that could do that in any and all markets.  Not only do they rule the forestry sector but the petro chemical sector, security industry, fire/rescue services, housing, grocers.  No one works, purchases or manufactures anything which can not be controlled by the corporation through the "free" market.

Before you begin countering this theory, I would remind you that your scenario too is just a theory.  Neither of them can be proven or has been proven to date so the surety with which you counter the assertions of those like FrenchAffair and I is a fallacy predicated on theory, that's it, that's all.

My mother is a wise woman, she always called for me to exercise restraint. "Moderation in all things"  she would say.

I can agree with many Libertarian principals but I'm looking for a balance, somewhere between the Libertarian and modern liberal society.  Our society the thing we call Canada and our identity would not exist without at least a portion of what we call the nanny state, our freedoms would never have been guaranteed if some among us had not been forced or coerced into accepting them. 

I will never be able to swallow the Libertarian ideal whole there is just too much theory, not enough practical application, too much belief, not enough proof.


"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE