Why do libertarians think their ideology would lead to freedom? (unemployment, global warming)

[LibertyandJusticeforAll]

Lets look at the actual practical use of libertarianism in would be the united states of America.
1. libertarianism does not mean no rules, it does not mean open borders and it does not mean the rich or poor or anyone can do whatever they want.
2. libertarianism in GOVERNMENT is the maximum amount of liberty to the individual. Taxes are far less then they are now, because government does far less.
3. libertarianism means the only JUSTICE system you see are civil and criminal law on businesses and individuals who break the law, fraud and or other forms of injustice against individuals, murder, rape, stealing etc all still apply we don't have a do whatever you want. Less money toward the government doesn't mean less power to enforce laws. We would probably have less drug laws and more LAWS to enforcement responsibility on those who do stuff while on drugs that would be considered irresponsible!. Businesses CAN NOT DO whatever they want, they can not populate property and or poison people, they will be held accountable. Why? Because they have poisoned people and land that does not belong to them period!
4. libertarianism means no money will support any businesses or groups of people of race or sex.
5. libertarianism is about liberty banks and or government will not support and or make PROMISES or laws that allow them to forgive all concepts of market rules on banking. The concept of to big to fail doesn't exist in libertarianism.
6. Healthcare before the government infected it with medicare and medicaid in the 60's folks the 60's!!! was left to people who actually cared the government does nothing other then bankrupt itself.
7. Social Security should be phased out for those who have paid into it and cover that and then new people should be left to manage their own money.
8. libertarianism works to follow the constitution and or limit the powers of the branches so you dont have rogue NSA and or other "Departments" abusing the rights and or privacy of Americans.
9. Federal or State level this could be applied and on to what level the government uses nanny state laws and or non nanny state laws.
10. Personal lives stay person, legal rights to marry and or apply to those states and or left to legal court system. Thought the "benefit" of marriage in itself is actually really not something I want to be considered a benefit friends, other family and legal tax nonsense should be left to civil laws. In fact the marriage benefit shouldnt even be an issue because the IRS would be gone!

[greywar]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

In every case that you are suggesting that the government "did it better" I guarantee that the private entity wasn't allowed to even try, or the government used its power over life & death and law to force "citizens" to labor on the state's behalf cheaper than if they were hired as employees. Pharoah didn't deal with unions, EPA regs, etc. Pharaoh cracked whips and killed slaves. That's how pyramids get built.

Actually the pyramids were not built by slaves, thats a popular, but incorrect belief.

In the real world where all the facts are available, the private sector does almost everything better than government. Absolutely. There is only a small planet sized pile of evidence to support that claim.

Why is it that medicaid provide insurance to people, at a lower cost then?
Why is it that countries with the best medical outcomes to cost ratio are completely government owned?
I could go on about public and private utilities as well.

The point is, you're wrong. Yes the majority of the time a private company will do better. When will it not? When you get natural monopolies. When the cost of entry is too high to allow competition. When the risk vs reward benefits are skewed in ways that help everyone, but not necessarily help the company creating the product. I could go on. Who do I want running most things? Private companies. But the government can do some things very very well. Police, fire, roads, universal healthcare, military, etc.

If you subscribe to the belief that the average person does not weigh decisions and everyone will make decisions to screw everyone else over....why would you prefer those same people be able to embody their cruel and uninformed decision making process in a representative with virtually unlimited power over everyone, instead of letting their decision making affect only those around them at the individual level?

Because groups think MUCH better then individuals. Because groups of people CAN affect how a government runs things, while they really cant do so to a private company. The power dynamic is completely different. Because a government better represents what a nation wants to do then what a company does. Why do we have the environmental laws? Not because companies generally wanted them. They'd prefer we looked like China-its cheaper for them as they don't have the costs associated with the millions per year that would die from pollution.

I see this anti-libertarian thing all the time and it never makes any sense. We cannot let citizens be free to pursue their own self interests with a very small and limited government because they suck at making informed decisions, but we can let these same morons be free to make crappy uninformed votes in order to empower someone with life & death powers of law over everyone. My fellow man is a moron and I cannot trust him to act responsibly with very little power, but if I distance him all the way in some state capitol or DC, imbue him with the powers of a god, and let other morons vote to entrench his powers, then I can trust him to act responsibly with vast, nearly unlimited power. How does this make any sense at all?

Again, see the power of groups and the difference in decision dynamics. Im constantly amazed that people think that the best decisions are made by the individual, when they are in fact not. I dont mind at all when those poor decisions hurt the individual, but when they hurt us all, or me I have an issue with it. Libertarians ignore this often. They want everything to be decided by individuals.

Well, at least puppies are real. The believer in a benevolent big government thinks unicorns drive elves around on gold chariots.

Not a believer in benevolent government either. LOL. Nice assumption. Government is just a better choice then some alternative. But never ever think its benevolent.

I disagree with the gold bug wing of libertarians and maybe because I understand economics better than the average person. But the currency sovereign thing is always fertile breeding ground for mischief and bad government, and it always has been. I think the gold standard is misguided attempt at reining in that mischief. I think more direct, drastic punishing of mischief on the part of the government would do a far better job of cleaning up monetary hijinks than the gold standard would.

Agreed. The average bank heist nets under 5K. Average sentence is over 10 years. These "hijinks" are VASTLY more damaging, and the sentences are a joke. Id argue for massive sentences for this sort of thing.

[chuckmann]

Originally Posted by pknopp

It wouldn't have happened without the governments interference. No one is going to loan poor risks money on their own. The reason it happened was because the government guaranteed the loans. Without that it never happens. Now, the banks could have said "no" but they wanted the restrictions on their trading relaxed so they went along with it making it their fault also.

CMO's were NOT guaranteed by government. But they WERE guaranteed to be AAA investment grade by private ratings agencies Moody's, S&P, and Fitch, at triple the previous rate fees.

Please, do some reading, then get back to me. But do not spout right wing talking points to me.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by chuckmann

CMO's were NOT guaranteed by government. But they WERE guaranteed to be AAA investment grade by private ratings agencies Moody's, S&P, and Fitch, at triple the previous rate fees.

Please, do some reading, then get back to me. But do not spout right wing talking points to me.

Actually I think he is referring to the implied guarantee that was fannie may and freddie mac (not sure of the spelling there...). Which bought up a ton of the loans. As it turns out lying to them has not worked out as well as many of the major corps have hoped as massive lawsuits have demonstrated, however at the time I suspect that this was not foreseen, or that if it did occur that the profit was worth it.....and it may very well have been even WITH the fines imposed to date.

And yeah the triple rate fee's should have been a clue to people that things were going off the rails....

[Hot_Handz]

Freedom is relative...

I find it funny how statists like to illustrate this when detracting from Libertarianism.

It's like they almost want to say "Hey, freedom is not absolute...so you might as well get raped over by a ruling class and just enjoy what scraps get thrown to us"

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by greywar

I've spoken with a few libertarians. Not the crusty old ones repeating mantras they have been spoon fed, but truly intelligent people who have invested time and thought into their beliefs.

They dont want anarchy, they want the minimum government possible. Sometimes to a degree that to me is startling.

Not surprising, since you seem to think that you need government to decide almost every decision you need to make in life for you. I can see why someone saying "Hey, I can make my own decisions and do it better" would be a stunning event for you.

They are HUGE believers that "government can never ever do it better" And you see this posted here a lot.

Because it's true.

They ignore all the things that worldwide have been demonstrated that governments do better.

There are none.

When I get into discussions the most surprising thing is....how well they think other people weigh decisions. They have a framework that always comes down to "yes in a perfect world". In a perfect world businesses would not pollute rivers when given a choice, because the bad press would destroy their ability to sell their product. But its NOT a perfect world, people dont make 100% informed decisions.

In a perfect world, you can trust government. But since we don't have one, government is the most evil, corrupt, destructive, and stupid institutions on earth.

They have this utopian idea that people wont screw each other because everyone would have perfect knowledge of it and it would be counterproductive.

No, not at all. It's that people are far more competent at deciding what's good and bad than politicians are.

So...in a way I like them, they really do think people make good choices, and learn everything they can before making choices. Its kinda cute, like the innocence of a puppy.

Yes, no matter what you say, you always resort to the belief in your own immense superiority and thus, your inherent right to impose your whims on other people.

Real life will run that puppy over, set it on fire, and watch the kids that own it cry, all for a extra buck.

In real life, they're VASTLY more attuned than you are.

They also tend to simplify monetary discussions, without a deep understanding of economics. They truly do not understand how a national currency is not like a family check book, and they want to go back to the gold standard so that it WILL be more like a family checkbook.

They're mostly right, and you don't know squat.

Its a different way of looking at things, and while I think a lot of it is nonsense, some of its worth considering. Shrug.

Someday, we all hope you gain the intellectual muscle to grasp it.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

So you have no idea how libertarians would govern? That doesn't surprise me. Again, could you please be specific about "government never works but liberty always works." Does that mean libertarians are for having no governing body to represent society?

So, you don't have any valid comments... You just decided to blab some nonsense.

If you want to know how libertarians would govern... ask them. It's not hard at all.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

So you have no idea how libertarians would govern? That doesn't surprise me. Again, could you please be specific about "government never works but liberty always works." Does that mean libertarians are for having no governing body to represent society?

just the sort of answer I would expect from someone who prefers chains over liberty.

[tinman01]

I believe that there is a happy medium to be found. The problem with big government is that it seeks to justify its own existence. The bigger it gets the more power it demands. Unfortunately those elected to power care more about maintaining that power than representing the people. Look at DC today. The majority of voters were against Obama care, screwing with Libya or Syria and yet with the exception of Syria the voter was ignored.
The gov shut down and then spite shutdowns that followed is another example.
The EPA is a good idea but look how it has grown out of control. The IRS is used as a weapon at times. I am quite certain that never should happen.
Big Government seeks to make people dependent and it succeeds. They try to tell you that Big brother knows best. Maybe for some but not all or even most.
We need the fed, but do we need it to be the bloated bureaucracy that it has become? I don't think so.
Look at our Military. Without question the finest, best armed and best trained in the world. We also spend more than just about everyone else combined. Why? Do we need 11 carrier battle groups when the next biggest navy has 3? Why is it our job to police the world?
Often less is better and when it comes to the government that is true.

[greywar]

ahh yes....I unhid someone on my ignore list and get this gem when I talk about how a countrys economy and money is nothing like a family's checkbook:

They're mostly right, and you don't know squat.

LOL. Still just insults, and opinions. Not only that....but I think he really does believe this. Im not even going to bother to reply to his post beyond pointing to this small piece and chuckling to myself.