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.
In any libertarian society, a small group of people will eventually become very wealthy at the expense of the majority. Said people will eventually get wealthy enough to buy the government, further entrenching their privileged position. At that point, the society is no longer libertarian, but plutocratic.
My question for libertarians: how could a plutocracy be prevented? Wouldn't there need to be some kind of government intervention to keep a small cohort of wealthy individuals from buying politicians?
Its a shame that the critics of libertarianism, don't understand its actual flaws.
The main flaw in libertarianism, is that it will always tend towards tribalism, and ultimately, disintegration/disunion. Not because libertarianism is flawed, but because people are flawed.
Libertarianism is forever incompatible with cities/dense populations. Once you reach "Dunbar's number", all societies must become hierarchical, and in order for them to be sustained, you need something to hold them together.
Libertarianism provides no mechanism for holding a society together, except force. The only reason society is maintained as it is, is because people with money and influence, want to maintain their wealth and social-status, and so they brainwash the people into believing that they are either getting a good deal, or that they have a social-obligation(IE social-contract) for maintaining the system as it is, or they simply scare the people with an outside threat, whereby if we don't cooperate as a society, we will all be in danger.
Libertarianism is utopian, because it ignores the fact that humans are by their nature tribal. Without "forced-integration", there can be no society, no civilization, no government, no libertarianism.
Libertarianism is not anarchy, nor is it plutocracy. And it would not lead to plutocracy, it would lead to disunion/dysfunction. Because on what basis does any government, within any imaginary borders, have the right to exist?
Actually, that is not the idea, the idea is that there needs to be a balance.
On the red, the same could be said of corporations/businesses (i.e. "the free market"). Both government and markets can potentially damage society. Neither is better. Balance is the key.
Just like an all encompassing government is "bad" (i.e. Communism) and all encompassing capitalist free market system is "bad" (i.e. Libertarianism).
Extremes never work out well. There always needs to be a balance.
On the red, couldn't agree with you more!
And I don't know how many times I have tried to explain the exact same thing, with those exact same words!
I'm aware of Jared Diamond and his books. It's also kind of obnoxious when I keep getting the same tired and predictable arguments from people who act like they're the first to introduce the ideas to me.
And what I was saying is that it's only possible to get wealthy in a free market if people voluntarily give you their money. You provide a good or service that people want, and they choose to pay you for it or not. There's nothing unfair or exploitative about that. It becomes exploitation when you use the law to rig things in your favor and get an unfair advantage - that disrupts the balance of natural market forces.
But honestly, I'd rather talk to people who are respectful and actually seem worth the effort.
I'm trying, but how can you be so blind to the obvious examples that make your comments impossible to consider seriously?
There are countless examples of how people, businesses, companies have used their particular advantage and/or leverage to make money at the expense of those who don't so much "voluntarily give you their money." Yet, you forever try to fabricate this make-believe world in which all works out nicely for all involved if simply left free to do so.
I suppose one aspect of why this is so frustrating is because it is so frustrating to deal with all the needs to correct wrong doing in the vacuum of regulations, oversight and laws that help to keep those wrongs from becoming rampant and/or even lethal. Also to simply dismiss books like "Collapse" without a word as to why or how.
You are "aware of Jared Diamond and his books," but have you read any? In particular, have you read "Collapse?" Why are so many of those great examples, contrary to your beliefs, so easily dismissed? How?
PS: you can talk with whomever you like, of course, but in this forum, you might say at least part of the idea is the exchange of ideas. Accordingly, I normally engage with people who DO NOT share my views, because that is where and how our views are properly tested. True, however, I should probably tone down my judgement in these regards. My bad, my apologies, but your views do tend to get under my skin some...
Again and as noted by someone else, "balance is key." Your view seems way out of balance to me when reality is also weighed in...
The so called child labor laws are from the condescending and presumptuous liberals who can't see beyond their illogical feelings.
The place I grew up, poor children couldn't work to make money because child labor laws, and of course, the lovely communist government didn't care about anybody. What did they do? They ate off the nearby garbage dumps.
Here too, "what's wrong with child labor?" Hard to fathom these sorts of questions as being serious...
One thing is to consider the child that comfortably does a job of their choosing to make a little money, even to help ends meet, but can it be that yet again there is no awareness as to so many cases of abuse?
For starters, children are generally not considered old or wise enough to avoid being exploited when even adults can be forced into unsafe and/or unhealthy working conditions when there are no laws to prevent exploitations of labor. Sure, if you only look at if/when there is no such exploitation, like the shop keeper who might let a kid sweep the shop floor for some money. No problem. Of course not.
But what of poor kids, hungry kids, who are used to work in horrible conditions that affect their safety or health, for little-to-no pay, simply because they are too young or dumb to know better, or have no choice? For the love of reason, you don't give children those jobs that make them old and sick before their time just so they can eat! You give them food!
And you make it the law that employers provide all employees safe healthy working conditions and allow kids to go to school instead of reporting to a textile plant. Right?
Or does this too just get kicked to the curb as just more liberal thinking? I think even most conservatives know this to be basic common sense and/or "what's wrong with child labor."
I actually used to think that way to some degree and thought it was the unbiased and reasonable way to be, but not anymore.
Also, if I may respectfully point out...
You forever make this comment about what you once thought but no longer do, as if your change of thinking is therefore correct thinking or more likely to be more correct. However, it is the merit of one's argument now, regardless of history, that determines what makes good sense rather than nonsense. If you feel your view is not biased, for example, again with all due respect, you should maybe think still some more...
Yes, many regulations are completely unnecessary and they are burdensome to the consumers and the corporations.
For example, the currently proposed maternity leave is stupid and unnecessary in the eyes of most libertarians. It goes against the belief of non-violence/no coercion.
At least here we have an example! My compliments, but please explain...
What of the flip side when it comes to a woman (or parents) having a baby? I remember when we had our first and how utterly difficult it was to turn care of our newborn over to a child care facility, essentially a stranger. We managed, because we were fortunate enough to be in a position to allow mom to quit her job and stay home, but is that really a fair "choice" for all mothers/parents?
Is it considered a "choice" by libertarians for a parent to stay home with a baby or quit their job, or be fired for raising an infant? And what of children that are not born entirely healthy, like our little girl born a bit pre-maturely...?"
The reason you have these sorts of laws and regulations that allow people to experience what most modern countries consider basic human rights is because if not all companies provide these sorts of allowances and/or benefits, then those companies who don't comply will have an unfair advantage competing in the market place with companies that better shoulder these sorts of responsibilities.
I know this from experience, when I had my own company and strictly abided by the law when it came to hiring only legal aliens while my competition didn't. In the same way, other countries grumble about competing with the United States that does not provide the same sorts of benefits for its workers as they do.
These considerations are generally what has Libertarians "get off the bus," simply because they hang onto the belief that everyone is somehow better off if all is left free to free enterprise, but that is so wrong for so many reasons well proven over and over, here and all over the world.
Hard to explain how Libertarians don't seem to get this, but given only about 4 percent of Americans who subscribe to Libertarianism, I suppose there are always some people who will believe anything, right or wrong.
Many of you on the left think "free market" means free to do whatever you want. That's not true at all in a libertarian society. There's a crucial condition: one can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't create harm to others.
Free market does not mean one can pollute the environment, force people to work long hours or bribe the politicians at will. All of those examples create actual harm to either individuals or the people as a whole.
No, libertarianism is not anarchism.
Okay, but who and how is "judge and jury" when it comes to "creating harm to others?"
How bad does air need to be polluted before laws are passed and enforced to clean up gas emissions? A question I remember well having grown up in L.A. where the air was brown before I started working for an energy company and the EPA forced the reformulation of gasoline. Then came the leaking underground storage tank problems, for millions of service station operators all across the country. Think they might all replace those things at great expense voluntarily? Put simply, no, they wouldn't/didn't.
How many people need to suffer from food poisoning, I mean literally what is the number, before laws are created and enforced to insure food manufacturers don't "cut corners" to compete with cheaper products by spending less money on quality control?
Of the millions of people driving, how many people need to be killed because of a faulty auto part before thousands if not millions of vehicles are recalled at great expense to that company? Anybody think auto companies would let these numbers be known or be "forthcoming" to do these recalls if it were not for laws and regulations that force them to do so?
Here too, the argument is NOT that all business people or believers in free enterprise think that business people are evil or uncaring. The problem is that competing -- succeeding -- in business is very VERY difficult and the pressures to "cut corners" are sometimes damn near impossible to avoid. Even good people can find good ways to justify bad or unsafe behavior, especially when these choices become "do or die" decisions for a company to remain in business.
Its a shame that the critics of libertarianism, don't understand its actual flaws.
The main flaw in libertarianism, is that it will always tend towards tribalism, and ultimately, disintegration/disunion. Not because libertarianism is flawed, but because people are flawed.
Libertarianism is forever incompatible with cities/dense populations. Once you reach "Dunbar's number", all societies must become hierarchical, and in order for them to be sustained, you need something to hold them together.
Libertarianism provides no mechanism for holding a society together, except force. The only reason society is maintained as it is, is because people with money and influence, want to maintain their wealth and social-status, and so they brainwash the people into believing that they are either getting a good deal, or that they have a social-obligation(IE social-contract) for maintaining the system as it is, or they simply scare the people with an outside threat, whereby if we don't cooperate as a society, we will all be in danger.
Libertarianism is utopian, because it ignores the fact that humans are by their nature tribal. Without "forced-integration", there can be no society, no civilization, no government, no libertarianism.
Libertarianism is not anarchy, nor is it plutocracy. And it would not lead to plutocracy, it would lead to disunion/dysfunction. Because on what basis does any government, within any imaginary borders, have the right to exist?
Libertarianism is flawed because people are flawed, and/or Libertarianism simply does not take reality into proper account (nor history it seems). The singular focus on what fits the Libertarian narrative at the expense of all else is much like the devoutly religious are inclined to adopt in order to maintain what they want or need to believe, regardless the truth. What matters most is only that which supports the narrative and all else is simply ignored.
Libertarianism is flawed because people are flawed, and/or Libertarianism simply does not take reality into proper account (nor history it seems). The singular focus on what fits the Libertarian narrative at the expense of all else is much like the devoutly religious are inclined to adopt in order to maintain what they want or need to believe, regardless the truth. What matters most is only that which supports the narrative and all else is simply ignored.
Problem is that if people are flawed, then why would we give a select few a set of powers that we do not permit everyone else. Do we think those select few are somehow paragons, not retaining the flaws of the unselected many?
If there are no people unflawed enough to permit such powers individually, then whatever constraints are placed will eventually be bypassed or lifted.
If there are then a populist election process is a grossly flawed form of selection of them.
That's not religion, it's logic. Religion is founded on faith, faith would be that larger numbers of people have fewer flaws than one person. Is that a fair belief?
Problem is that if people are flawed, then why would we give a select few a set of powers that we do not permit everyone else. Do we think those select few are somehow paragons, not retaining the flaws of the unselected many?
If there are no people unflawed enough to permit such powers individually, then whatever constraints are placed will eventually be bypassed or lifted.
If there are then a populist election process is a grossly flawed form of selection of them.
That's not religion, it's logic. Religion is founded on faith, faith would be that larger numbers of people have fewer flaws than one person. Is that a fair belief?
Good question(s), but...
Fact is, there are many ways we judge our fellow people, from those with many years in public office or in the public eye (good and bad) all the way down to those we throw in jail. We judge, judge, judge, just as we do these comments and ideas.
Accordingly, we try to bring those with the greatest promise to roles of leadership, whether it be in politics, business, sports -- all things, and judge we must, because leadership is a must when it comes to whatever direction our society and/or groups of people may pursue, follow.
That some people are flawed or that all people are flawed does NOT mean that all people are the same in these regards, quite the contrary. Some people are quite a bit more great or not depending on a wide variety of complex genetic and environmental factors, all that leaves the general populace with the task of taking advantage of its "best and brightest."
We judge and we select accordingly; our POTUS, our Congress, our mates, for better or worse.
In any case, as with most things, the fact that flaws exist does not mean the entire group or process or goal is flawed. After all, what is free of any flaw? Our banking system is flawed, but we need banks, credit. Our energy system pollutes, but we need energy. Our political system is flawed, but we cannot do without politics.
Put another way, progress is forever the goal of overcoming our flaws and/or no progress can be made if we let our flaws and shortcomings keep us from doing what we can do, hopefully for the better, despite our flaws.
Right?
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.
