Let's talk about Libertarianism. (Ron Paul, enemy, illegal, drugs)

[dunks_galore]

Disclaimer:I'd really appreciate real responses here. If you respond with a stupid one-line post, I will probably just ignore you or sarcastically mock you.

I've seen a number of people on this board mention that they identify as Libertarians, and I think it's a very interesting philosophy, although I'll put it out there right now that I strongly object to it.

Usually, people here put forth their Libertarianism in a social context. They are for legalizing drugs, they are for gay marriage, they are for removing government from people's personal business. All of these notions, I agree with. In fact, if we were talking solely about Social Libertarianism, I think that I would align myself with that philosophy.

My problem, however, comes in when we move to Economic Libertarianism. Economic Libertarianism extols the free market, rejects government intervention, you know the deal. My issue is that I find this to be completely antagonistic to the personal freedom that seems to be promoted by Social Libertarianism.

I think the "free market" leads inevitably to monopolies and exacerbates corporate control over our government. It seems to me that many markets, even with regulation, are being increasing consolidated. For instance, if we look at mass media, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, GE, and CBS are rapidly cornering the market.

Doesn't this decrease our freedom and our range of choices? Look at the broadband market and the situation with net neutrality. All that's happening is that a number of hugely powerful corporations forcing us to suck it up, bend over, and ask for more. I could move to a number of different markets, most importantly privatized prisons, to point out how this is a terrible change, but I digress. What I'm getting at is that I think that this would drastically heighten the economic stratification that is going on right now, with the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer. That's not freedom, in my eyes, especially since it severely limits opportunities (imagine privatized schools and the race to the bottom that would entail)

Additionally, this isn't necessarily natural. Capitalism is currently extremely regulated; if we look at the World Bank, the IMF, these are all multinational groups that oversee the direction in which the markets will go. Do Libertarians want to do away with these organizations? How do Libertarians envision the Free Market operating? How does Economic Libertarianism coincide with Social Libertarianism?

edit: I forgot to add, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, anyone? Isn't this just a case of "New boss, worse than the old boss?" See: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Electio n_Commission (broken link)

[bpbdrummer]

I'll take a stab at part of it...

Big Corporations fear free market competition because true competition forces them to regulate prices and sell for fair market value. With competition these companies are forced to provide a product that people want and not just a half assed product where they control the entire market. Most of the current regulation is to protect the corporate giants, they spend billions to lobby for protection by the government.

Look at GM, the government bailed them out, they were making an inferior product that nobody wanted, in a true free economy they would have failed as a business, the way it should be.

In other words, Most of the giant corporations that dominate the market only do so because of government intervention and not because they're providing a good product or service at a fair price.

[Marksman84]

I'm an ex-Libertarian due to its poor stance on Border Control. As much as I want government out of our lives, it cannot let the illegals run rampant - there are adverse effects beyond comprehension in terms of a social, economic and municipal standpoint.

[swagger]

Balance. None of the political party platforms are a good idea if they were to be implemented in a purely fundamental fashion. One can be a Libertarian and not want all government regulations removed.

[dunks_galore]

Originally Posted by swagger

Balance. None of the political party platforms are a good idea if they were to be implemented in a purely fundamental fashion. One can be a Libertarian and not want all government regulations removed.

Care to expound on this? Ron Paul, for instance, wants to minimize market interference, and I've never heard any Libertarian candidate speak to the necessity of current government regulations. All I hear is "small government," and although I admire the consistency, I don't understand how an eviscerated national government could effectively regulate our multinational corporations, especially if we were to follow even half of the economic positions advocated by Paul.

If you were to remove all market regulations at the current moment, how would "competition" reign in the enormous corporations, which have certainly benefited from favorable treatment from our corporatist government? It seems as though the "free market" is a fantasy, and I have considerable doubts that we would move to a more competitive market state via deregulation, as opposed to one which allows for further consolidation and manipulation.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by dunks_galore

Disclaimer:I'd really appreciate real responses here. If you respond with a stupid one-line post, I will probably just ignore you or sarcastically mock you.

I've seen a number of people on this board mention that they identify as Libertarians, and I think it's a very interesting philosophy, although I'll put it out there right now that I strongly object to it.

Usually, people here put forth their Libertarianism in a social context. They are for legalizing drugs, they are for gay marriage, they are for removing government from people's personal business. All of these notions, I agree with. In fact, if we were talking solely about Social Libertarianism, I think that I would align myself with that philosophy.

My problem, however, comes in when we move to Economic Libertarianism. Economic Libertarianism extols the free market, rejects government intervention, you know the deal. My issue is that I find this to be completely antagonistic to the personal freedom that seems to be promoted by Social Libertarianism.

I think the "free market" leads inevitably to monopolies and exacerbates corporate control over our government. It seems to me that many markets, even with regulation, are being increasing consolidated. For instance, if we look at mass media, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, GE, and CBS are rapidly cornering the market.

Doesn't this decrease our freedom and our range of choices? Look at the broadband market and the situation with net neutrality. All that's happening is that a number of hugely powerful corporations forcing us to suck it up, bend over, and ask for more. I could move to a number of different markets, most importantly privatized prisons, to point out how this is a terrible change, but I digress. What I'm getting at is that I think that this would drastically heighten the economic stratification that is going on right now, with the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer. That's not freedom, in my eyes, especially since it severely limits opportunities (imagine privatized schools and the race to the bottom that would entail)

Additionally, this isn't necessarily natural. Capitalism is currently extremely regulated; if we look at the World Bank, the IMF, these are all multinational groups that oversee the direction in which the markets will go. Do Libertarians want to do away with these organizations? How do Libertarians envision the Free Market operating? How does Economic Libertarianism coincide with Social Libertarianism?

edit: I forgot to add, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, anyone? Isn't this just a case of "New boss, worse than the old boss?" See: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - ScotusWiki (http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Electio n_Commission - broken link)

Good post, and a pretty good explanation of why Libertarianism is basically a failed political belief that has never been implemented at any substantial level.

[lndigo]

To add to that, fiscal libertarianism is the perfect way of raping Mother Earth. It operates on the idea that pursuing the "best" for one's self ultimately benefits the interests of society as a hole. In practice, however, there are factors which may be of interest to the individual but which harm society as a whole (which is why we have regulations in the first place). If I'm a corporation, for example, it may benefit me to pollute the environment. In doing so, I reap the immediate benefit of the monetary gain yet I experience virtually no ill effect of the pollution myself because the amount is too miniscule for any of my employees to even perceive in day-to-day life. Now imagine a LOT of corporations doing the same thing. . . You get the picture. These things which go unaccounted for in the free market ultimately act upon us for the worse in that their prices won't reflect their true negative value. Pollutants may be MUCH cheaper than they should be in the most objective sense because there's a heavy bias placed on their positive aspects (the money they bring to the corporation) over the negative aspects. Thus, pollutants are used more liberally. The most efficient way to account for these bad attributes (which are called negative externalities in economics) is by having SOCIETY as a whole place a value on them and acting accordingly (the former by way of government and the latter through intervention).

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by dunks_galore

Disclaimer:I'd really appreciate real responses here. If you respond with a stupid one-line post, I will probably just ignore you or sarcastically mock you.

I've seen a number of people on this board mention that they identify as Libertarians, and I think it's a very interesting philosophy, although I'll put it out there right now that I strongly object to it.

Usually, people here put forth their Libertarianism in a social context. They are for legalizing drugs, they are for gay marriage, they are for removing government from people's personal business. All of these notions, I agree with. In fact, if we were talking solely about Social Libertarianism, I think that I would align myself with that philosophy.

My problem, however, comes in when we move to Economic Libertarianism. Economic Libertarianism extols the free market, rejects government intervention, you know the deal. My issue is that I find this to be completely antagonistic to the personal freedom that seems to be promoted by Social Libertarianism.

I think the "free market" leads inevitably to monopolies and exacerbates corporate control over our government. It seems to me that many markets, even with regulation, are being increasing consolidated. For instance, if we look at mass media, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, GE, and CBS are rapidly cornering the market.

Doesn't this decrease our freedom and our range of choices? Look at the broadband market and the situation with net neutrality. All that's happening is that a number of hugely powerful corporations forcing us to suck it up, bend over, and ask for more. I could move to a number of different markets, most importantly privatized prisons, to point out how this is a terrible change, but I digress. What I'm getting at is that I think that this would drastically heighten the economic stratification that is going on right now, with the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer. That's not freedom, in my eyes, especially since it severely limits opportunities (imagine privatized schools and the race to the bottom that would entail)

Additionally, this isn't necessarily natural. Capitalism is currently extremely regulated; if we look at the World Bank, the IMF, these are all multinational groups that oversee the direction in which the markets will go. Do Libertarians want to do away with these organizations? How do Libertarians envision the Free Market operating? How does Economic Libertarianism coincide with Social Libertarianism?

edit: I forgot to add, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, anyone? Isn't this just a case of "New boss, worse than the old boss?" See: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - ScotusWiki (http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Electio n_Commission - broken link)

Well, I'll take a stab at this .. though I consider myself a conservative constitutionalist .. libertarians have a lot in common.

The first point is that the alternative to free markets is some form of socialism/communism .. and in spite of the utopian promises of such, every single example has proven to be a disaster, and has led to massive enslavement and murder of the population by governments.

I suppose the confusion you have exists in your misunderstanding of what free markets are ... as we really don't have such under the current system now, given the monopoly on the monetary system by private international bankers which precludes that possibility. He who controls the money, controls the markets .. and controlled markets are not free. OK? The monopolies exist today because of the monopoly of the central bankers who control the flow of capital and the rates of that capital. Of course, if a purely legal application of the constitution would take place, a private central bank would no exist, and that is the first step to restoring free markets.

This idea that "government" can or would fix anything by its own control of a thing ignores the history of everything the government has touched. Granted, there is a need for limited regulation of free markets insofar as the means to ensure applicable laws are followed by all, thereby protecting the interests of the people by preventing the subversion of the markets by criminal elements. And that would also include such things as environmental protections which is in everyones best interests. But these controls should be limited to necessity, to ensure that the markets serve society rather than society serving the markets. The markets would thereby serve their own best interests long term by providing value.

In true free markets, the "monopoly" is a self correcting phenomenon, as small and sleek will out maneuver and be more efficient than the large and lumbering, so long as the field remains level and the deck is not stacked for the monopoly men behind the scenes.

The return to a constitutional form of government would cure the majority of what ails the country today ... less government ... not more, and certainly a limited authority. Big, all powerful government is the enemy of freedom, and a government powerful enough to give the people everything is also powerful enough to take everything away.

[melinuxfool]

Originally Posted by dunks_galore

Disclaimer:I'd really appreciate real responses here. If you respond with a stupid one-line post, I will probably just ignore you or sarcastically mock you.

I've seen a number of people on this board mention that they identify as Libertarians, and I think it's a very interesting philosophy, although I'll put it out there right now that I strongly object to it.

Usually, people here put forth their Libertarianism in a social context. They are for legalizing drugs, they are for gay marriage, they are for removing government from people's personal business. All of these notions, I agree with. In fact, if we were talking solely about Social Libertarianism, I think that I would align myself with that philosophy.

My problem, however, comes in when we move to Economic Libertarianism. Economic Libertarianism extols the free market, rejects government intervention, you know the deal. My issue is that I find this to be completely antagonistic to the personal freedom that seems to be promoted by Social Libertarianism.

I think the "free market" leads inevitably to monopolies and exacerbates corporate control over our government. It seems to me that many markets, even with regulation, are being increasing consolidated. For instance, if we look at mass media, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, GE, and CBS are rapidly cornering the market.

Doesn't this decrease our freedom and our range of choices? Look at the broadband market and the situation with net neutrality. All that's happening is that a number of hugely powerful corporations forcing us to suck it up, bend over, and ask for more. I could move to a number of different markets, most importantly privatized prisons, to point out how this is a terrible change, but I digress. What I'm getting at is that I think that this would drastically heighten the economic stratification that is going on right now, with the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer. That's not freedom, in my eyes, especially since it severely limits opportunities (imagine privatized schools and the race to the bottom that would entail)

Additionally, this isn't necessarily natural. Capitalism is currently extremely regulated; if we look at the World Bank, the IMF, these are all multinational groups that oversee the direction in which the markets will go. Do Libertarians want to do away with these organizations? How do Libertarians envision the Free Market operating? How does Economic Libertarianism coincide with Social Libertarianism?

edit: I forgot to add, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, anyone? Isn't this just a case of "New boss, worse than the old boss?" See: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - ScotusWiki (http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Electio n_Commission - broken link)

With regard to economic libertarianism. Remember that these large, multinational corporations are creatures of the government; granted special privileges by the government, such as a limit on individual liability, which is against the libertarian spirit. In a truly free market, there would not be any corporations to develop monopolies.

Right now, with the excessive regulation by government on business, it actually encourages monopolistic corporations, by favoring existing business, and making it difficult for new businesses to get off the ground.

If corporations are to remain in a libertarian society, then by all means, they must be strictly regulated, but business conducted between individuals ought not be any concern of the state.

[rugerjitsu]

bumping this thread to get more input...dunks has great points, but i have to side with guyintexas at this point, given we've not truly had "free markets", and what we've been doing hasn't seemed to work out all that great.