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.
All you'd be doing is giving power that the state, which theoretically answers to the people to some extent, has and giving it to big business, who do not have to answer to anything as long as they are making a profit.
I know ideally many libertarians would see neighbors, charities and so on taking the place of what the government does but in practice that would just mean the unfortunate in America who didn't have family and friends to rely on would be impoverished. Not only that but it requires a centralized government to create many of the modern amenities we enjoy, at least the way the world works now. The only organizations that could offer something somewhat comparable would be big business so basically big industries would just become the new government.
Regulations on business exist for a reason. They prevent people from getting sick, and from being abused by their employers.
All you'd be doing is giving power that the state, which theoretically answers to the people to some extent, has and giving it to big business, who do not have to answer to anything as long as they are making a profit.
I know ideally many libertarians would see neighbors, charities and so on taking the place of what the government does but in practice that would just mean the unfortunate in America who didn't have family and friends to rely on would be impoverished. Not only that but it requires a centralized government to create many of the modern amenities we enjoy, at least the way the world works now. The only organizations that could offer something somewhat comparable would be big business so basically big industries would just become the new government.
Regulations on business exist for a reason. They prevent people from getting sick, and from being abused by their employers.
just about anything that government does, the private sector can do cheaper and better.
more power in the peoples hands, then the states and both having more power than the federal government is a good leap towards individual liberty and freedom.
just about anything that government does, the private sector can do cheaper and better.
more power in the peoples hands, then the states and both having more power than the federal government is a good leap towards individual liberty and freedom.
Like what? Healthcare? Yeah right. The postal service? USPS is much better than privatized post. I wouldn't go as far as claim government can do everything better, but some services would be cruel and unfair to have privatized. Also making everything for profit would mean that anything that could benefit humanity but not make money in the process would become a pipe dream.
A lot of people, the OP included it seems, think libertarianism equals zero federal government instead of small scaled back government. Anarchy(which libertarianism is not) would probably be even worse than big government.
Like what? Healthcare? Yeah right. The postal service? USPS is much better than privatized post. I wouldn't go as far as claim government can do everything better, but some services would be cruel and unfair to have privatized. Also making everything for profit would mean that anything that could benefit humanity but not make money in the process would become a pipe dream.
I don't care if the government wants to get into the healthcare business. What opponents to ACA hate about the ACA is that the government is dictating to people and employees about what healthcare they should have/offer. They also have a problem with the welfare angle of the ACA... Charging the healthy extra so that women and others can have free stuff like birth control for example. Then there's the tax penalty, and the fact that this may not be self funding which will raise the deficit.
As far as USPS goes, the government isn't forcing and/or penalizing us for not using it. The government also has competition and we have the choice to pick and choose the best service to go with. Not much different from privatization. Ever think that, according to you, USPS' service is better BECAUSE it has to compete with the privatized post offices?
When it comes down to it, Liberals want the government to behave like our parents, and to for other parents to raise their kinds like Liberals raise their own children. Conservatives want believe in freedom of choice and that people should be responsible for themselves and their actions.
Beyond the fact that Zadek is a poor talk host and poor interviewer, he calls for things like open borders so the we can be flooded with immigrants who will further drive down wages so that the minimum wage as set by the market will be around a dollar an hour. He has also called for the end of "bundling" which mean hotels, for example, would no longer offer "free" cable or internet. He probably LOVES the idea that supermarkets would charge customers for paper bags. What the H! Why should business offer anything resembling service as a competitive advantage when they can charge the consumer for the bags necessary to carry out their groceries?
Libertarians are crazy people who would dismantle anything and everything that would level the playing field between the produced and the consumer, between the seller and the buyer, between the employer and the employee.
Beyond the fact that Zadek is a poor talk host and poor interviewer, he calls for things like open borders so the we can be flooded with immigrants who will further drive down wages so that the minimum wage as set by the market will be around a dollar an hour. He has also called for the end of "bundling" which mean hotels, for example, would no longer offer "free" cable or internet. He probably LOVES the idea that supermarkets would charge customers for paper bags. What the H! Why should business offer anything resembling service as a competitive advantage when they can charge the consumer for the bags necessary to carry out their groceries?
Libertarians are crazy people who would dismantle anything and everything that would level the playing field between the produced and the consumer, between the seller and the buyer, between the employer and the employee.
So because you found one extremist, you believe that he's the authority on Libertarians? As if Libertarians have a collective mind as if they were assimilated like the Borg? If that is so, then I think you should reevaluate who's really the crazy one.
All you'd be doing is giving power that the state, which theoretically answers to the people to some extent, has and giving it to big business, who do not have to answer to anything as long as they are making a profit.
just about anything that government does, the private sector can do cheaper and better.
But with libertarianism, they won't, even though you'll almost surely refuse to admit that. Sit down and really talk to a liberatarian someday, as if you were not one if you are able to open your mind that far, and not blinded by whatever fantasy or deception has you beholden to libertarianism today, and ask really hard questions about motivation, and about the matter of consideration of others, and if you're honest about it, and forthright, you'll see the point. Your words were correct as they were written: "the private sector can do cheaper and better" - but they won't because libertarianism rationalizes and even claims to justify not doing so. In the mind of a libertarian, it is "cheaper and better" to let those who aren't as fortunate as they are to figuratively die in the streets rather than wholly and completely replace government fostering (for example) an ever-increasing percentage of people that have affordable access, through full employment at a living wage or otherwise, to all necessary nutrition, all necessary healthcare, etc.
Don't try to equivocate by saying that the private sector could do such things better - as I already said, it can, but it won't, in a libertarian America. Libertarians will use their politics as a scurrilous excuse for extracting advantage (or perceived advantage) for themselves at the expense of people that, despite protestations to the contrary, they simply don't care as much about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
more power in the peoples hands
Libertarianism has nothing to do with putting more power in the peoples' hands. It has to do with putting more power in the hands of people who are fortunate enough to have financial power, and less power in the hands of those who don't. Power isn't created by libertarianism - it is simply redistributed from imperfect but fairer equality to more corrupted and more unfair inequality. Our nation has been tending further and further toward liberatarian principles for about 35 years. This is clearly evident in significant indicators (such as the often-posted comparison of trends between wages and productively leading to profit), and is obvious otherwise, based on knowledge of recent political history beginning with the "Trickle Down" nonsense, the so-called "Contract with America", and so on. Calls for libertarianism are simply putting lipstick on a pig, trying to surround disreputable, egoistic avarice with a word that sounds less morally offensive.
The OP doesn't quite understand libertarians it seems. Having laws to prevent one party from doing harm to another would not go away under a libertarian government. This includes laws about how companies treat their employees and whatnot.
Instead, what would go away would be all these ridiculous laws that try to prevent people from "doing harm" to themselves - and often that notion is debatable.
For example, liberals who think that people shouldn't drink pop because it's not healthy try to ban 40 oz sodas from being sold. Libertarians who think that people shouldn't drink pop because it's not healthy simply don't drink pop, but they don't try to force other people to do the same.
For example, conservatives who think that "it is a sin to drink alcohol on the holy day" try to ban people from buying alcohol on Sundays. Libertarians who think that "it is a sin to drink alcohol on the holy day" simply don't buy alcohol on Sundays, but they don't try to force other people to do the same.
That's the real difference. Libertarians don't feel the need to enforce their personal views on others like the liberals/conservatives seem to always love to do.
And how is that anything but MORE FREEDOM? If you don't want to buy pop or beer, then don't. If someone else does, they can. Sounds like freedom to me.
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.
