Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if this is outside the topic parameters, but it may be an interesting discussion as to how Libertarianism and Anarchy differ.
The philosophical debate surrounding anarchy can go in a number of directions. Marx advocates a stateless system as the ultimate end of Communism...a state(less) system would be synonymous with anarchy. So that is anarchy by definition from the far-left. Libertarianism seldom advocates a complete abdication of all laws because an ideal society for a Libertarian would include the federal government behaving as a body that exists to protect liberty (national defense), to protect personal property rights, and to act as an impartial mediating body for contractual disputes.
Libertarianism is further from anarchy than Communism in theory. I know that seems a little counterintuitive at first glance, but if you read through what Marx wanted as his utopia...a stateless society was his goal.
The philosophical debate surrounding anarchy can go in a number of directions. Marx advocates a stateless system as the ultimate end of Communism...a state(less) system would be synonymous with anarchy. So that is anarchy by definition from the far-left. Libertarianism seldom advocates a complete abdication of all laws because an ideal society for a Libertarian would include the federal government behaving as a body that exists to protect liberty (national defense), to protect personal property rights, and to act as an impartial mediating body for contractual disputes.
Libertarianism is further from anarchy than Communism in theory. I know that seems a little counterintuitive at first glance, but if you read through what Marx wanted as his utopia...a stateless society was his goal.
Those three things are wide concepts and many smaller things fit underneath those categories.
For example, in order to settle contractual disputes more efficently, drug manufacturers put warning labels on bottles. It then becomes a contract of sorts between you and the manufacturer that you will take the medication as indicated on the label. If you do not and you get sick, and then sue the manufacturer, the manufacturer said they gave you sufficient warning regarding the medication.
My question does libertarianism (as you have described it) differ from the system we have now?
Those three things are wide concepts and many smaller things fit underneath those categories.
For example, in order to settle contractual disputes more efficently, drug manufacturers put warning labels on bottles. It then becomes a contract of sorts between you and the manufacturer that you will take the medication as indicated on the label. If you do not and you get sick, and then sue the manufacturer, the manufacturer said they gave you sufficient warning regarding the medication.
My question does libertarianism (as you have described it) differ from the system we have now?
The example you gave is a fair example. So it wouldn't differ in that case.
Libertarianism supports gay marriage.
Would decriminalize marijuana.
Libertarians support abortion. Don't think it should be used as birth control though.
Get rid of or massively reduce the size of the TSA, ATF, FCC, FDA and USDA.
Those three things are wide concepts and many smaller things fit underneath those categories.
For example, in order to settle contractual disputes more efficently, drug manufacturers put warning labels on bottles. It then becomes a contract of sorts between you and the manufacturer that you will take the medication as indicated on the label. If you do not and you get sick, and then sue the manufacturer, the manufacturer said they gave you sufficient warning regarding the medication.
My question does libertarianism (as you have described it) differ from the system we have now?
Yes...remarkably so. When I listed those things in the previous post, I mean those to indicate that being all that the federal government should do. That is...a very limited federal government...especially in the realm of social services. Local and state governments would step into this role. I.e., The Department of Education is unnecessary bureaucracy. Each and every state has it's own DOE...we don't need a federal one. All that it does is set arbitrary tests which induce "teaching to the test," and dolling out pell grants. The Pell Grant money should be funnelled into each state DOE and issued accordingly. The federal DOE is simply waste.
Yes...remarkably so. When I listed those things in the previous post, I mean those to indicate that being all that the federal government should do. That is...a very limited federal government...especially in the realm of social services. Local and state governments would step into this role. I.e., The Department of Education is unnecessary bureaucracy. Each and every state has it's own DOE...we don't need a federal one. All that it does is set arbitrary tests which induce "teaching to the test," and dolling out pell grants. The Pell Grant money should be funnelled into each state DOE and issued accordingly. The federal DOE is simply waste.
So you want the federal education money, you just don't want them to have any oversight of it?? That is, until some corruption is discovered and then the cry will be, "why didn't Obama know about this?"
Canada has no national department of education. Education is directed at the provincial level. Yet they are getting better test results than the US (and spending less money per student).
But back on topic, the US was largely libertarian during the 19th century, at least as long as you were a white male. Drugs were legal until around 1914. No federal income tax til 1913. No social security, medicare, FBI, or DOE (either education or energy, take your pick).
It was not a perfect society but I think it did work. By 1900 we were already a center of innovation, with people like Whitney, Edison, Wrights, John Browning, etc.
Then you're just creating a market to startup competition. People will startup a business just so you will buy them up. How long do you figure you will be able to keep that up?
almost indefinitely - or at least until the market is saturated.
but my cash levels will keep increasing as I'll be making more and more sales with each business I buy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
