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.
Governments are not great, but they're a lesser evil to complete market domination.
It's a false dichotomy. All the ails of the free market have been BECAUSE of the government. What is a corporation? An extension of the government. They grant the corporations the ability to dominate markets.
There has never been a free market outside maybe the first 30 or so years of this nations inception. As early as the railroad boom there were tariff breaks being granted by council. The government are the enforcers behind all the trash corps get away with.
If we don't like monopolies, why do we grant patents?
I've always found it rather odd that the primary reason both liberal and conservative alike think libertarians are nuts is over one or two areas of big government tyranny they simply must cling to else the world crack in half and plummet into the Sun. For conservatives, it's morality laws and the "best defense = good offense" foreign policy, and for liberals it's typically some animals are more equal than others class warfare meant to punish the successful for their sin of being successful. And because libertarians deny them equally, given the required violations of individual rights inherent in their respective tyrannies, apparently, that makes us whackos.
Conservatives believe as I do about denying the liberal stance that rich people should be punished for being rich, but I am whacko because I think gays marrying is no big deal and wars of aggression != defense. Liberals believe as I do that wars of aggression are foolish, but I am whacko because I think economic liberty is the first and foremost application of personal property rights and should not be violated, even in the name of something as noble sounding as "social justice."
Essentially, 98% (given best election results ever for libertarians) of the populace think an individual citizen is incapable of guiding their own life successfully, and we must have masters who command various aspects of our lives for the good of the collective, and it is whacko/insane/batcrap crazy to think otherwise.
10 years of Internet forums later, I've had every imaginable attack against libertarianism thrown at me, and not one has done anything other than make me more sure of myself.
Lots of liberals out there like to call themselves "libertarian", but they are simply liberals by another name.
Same-sex marriage and abortion are divorced from personal responsibility and freedoms that necessarily exploit others.
Same-sex marriage uses the power of the state to force an unwanted association between supporters and non-supporters and to define the religious and social contract that is the foundation of our most important personal relationships.
Abortion exists only because the state has declared some individuals to be non-persons.
There is nothing libertarian about same-sex marriage or abortion.
I would rather call it what it is. Socialist.
Social Justice
Social Engineering
and the worst, Social Freedom. Which is nothing resembling freedom. It is giving individual politicians and government agencies, the power to change law at will.
Huh?
So you want individuals to be free, but not society? What is society? A group of individuals who are social. One is a noun, the other an adjective. They both mean the same thing.
What the hell is social freedom supposed to mean? There is nothing governmental in those two words by themselves.
Huh?
So you want individuals to be free, but not society? What is society? A group of individuals who are social. One is a noun, the other an adjective. They both mean the same thing.
What the hell is social freedom supposed to mean? There is nothing governmental in those two words by themselves.
Social Freedom:
Where feel good laws(restrictions on individual freedom) are made on the federal, state and local levels, that divert around the legislative body, to be put in place and enforced.
Libertarians on the other hand advocate consumerism over the vote, and would rather we live in a world where dollars ran things not ballots.
All I can say is "Wow". If you do not think we live in a world where the dollars run things, not ballots.
I can only ask one question:
Where have you been
The difference between a Libertarian and let's say you is that a Libertarian wants to keep
that money in their "own" pocket to keep the federal government from using it to overstep
their constitutional bounds. Without the "dollars" they take from us, the US could not do half the stuff they do.
Both basically say more markets and corporations, less government and sovereignty. The only real difference is that neoliberals unlike libertarians tend to support military interventionism and libertarians unlike neolibs oppose any sort of safety net.
Overall the ideas they promote they promote are the same, like trickle down economics, the unemployed/poor just needing to pick themselves up and get to work, the naive belief that trade makes war impossible, and glorification of big business especially the tech industry. Libertarianism is just an extreme form of neoliberalism basically.
As much as I dislike neoliberals they're far better and their ideology is much saner than libertarians. They still accept the necessity of government, and many if not most believe there should be social security programs and support for people who can't work. Libertarians on the other hand believe the government's only duty is to guard the border and punish criminals, and some would even say those duties should be privatized. In fact they partially have been already!
Like social democrats and moderate socialists, neoliberals are strong believers in democracy. Libertarians on the other hand advocate consumerism over the vote, and would rather we live in a world where dollars ran things not ballots.
Or just a long winded way of saying neoliberals are laissez-faire socialists? Didn't Bill Clinton identify himself as a neoliberal when he first ran for president?
Neoliberalism, at least as applied in most instances of neoliberal "deregulation", "free trade", and "reform", exhorts the value to society of granting special favors, incentives, and privileges to chosen corporations, and often results in more freedom for existing companies while leaving intact or even strengthening existing artificially-high barriers to entry. This is what is more specifically called "crony capitalism" or "corporatism". Libertarianism opposes special privilege and supports lowering the barriers to entry along with the regulations.
A microcosm of the difference might be a toll road - a neoliberal approach would be to have the government acquire land via eminent domain and then license a certain company to build and operate the road for 50 years, charging tolls within certain parameters set by the state. A libertarian approach might* be for the private company to acquire the land non-coercively, and then build and operate it on its own with input from only their own customers. The way I get it neoliberalism has private companies act as contractors for the government, and libertarianism has private companies act independently. Due to the myriad pernicious effects of the former principle upon the private sector, the blurring of lines between government and private being among them, many libertarians (myself included) prefer direct government provision over private contractors if it came down to a choice between the two.
More generally, libertarians adhere to a classical liberal line when it comes to economics, and to the extent that neoliberalism is similar to classical liberalism it is also compatible with libertarianism. How similar it is to classical liberalism depends on which of the many definitions of neoliberalism you use.
*Public infrastructure is an open question debated among libertarians, and the approach outlined is but one of many that have been proposed and/or that would appear in a free market for roads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
At some point, I'm sure we'll be treated to straw men concerning roads, schools, FDA safety on food, etc as proof that tyranny works and without all the tyranny, we wouldn't have the tyrannies we need to take our next breath successfully, blah blah.
The tragedy of the "who would build the roads" argument being out front is that transportation is a small component of government, typically around 5% by spending. Programs that directly benefit a similarly large part of the population* (such as FDA and so forth) typically add up to another 5%.
If you add in the usual fraction spent on food and drug safety and all of the other functions of government the whole public benefit from excluding military and entitlement spending*, it comes to around 10% by spending. What we should be debating about is the other 90-95% of government that has nothing to do with roads or the FDA; even if the "who would build the roads/rail/airports, who would inspect the meat, who would lock up the criminals" arguments were valid and we just kept those functions, government spending would be reduced by at least 90%, a huge libertarian victory by any standard, to the extent that a good case could be made that such a society qualifies as a libertarian free society.
*That would exclude schools and welfare, whose benefits (or curses, depending on your perspective) go to a certain class of people, and arguably Social Security and Medicare (although the vast majority will (or are supposed to) get benefits in the future). Transportation, police, and so forth are designed to benefit everyone, which in practice means a very large cross-section of the public. Military is in a separate category; while armed forces are not strictly necessary, most libertarians agree some kind of American military is a good idea, but the genuinely defensive and under-control military they talk about is dissimilar enough from the current military-industrial complex (especially in cost) to warrant the current military's exclusion from the "whole-public benefits" slice of government. Besides, the military is rarely mentioned in these sorts of arguments - how often have you heard "but who would defend the country?" used as an argument against libertarianism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Huh?
So you want individuals to be free, but not society? What is society? A group of individuals who are social. One is a noun, the other an adjective. They both mean the same thing.
What the hell is social freedom supposed to mean? There is nothing governmental in those two words by themselves.
Interestingly, there is such a thing as "bleeding-heart libertarianism" which essentially argues that social justice demands liberty and free markets (c.f. this excellent blog). Some of this school of thought use social justice as the primary justification for libertarianism, whereas others have standard justifications but welcome with open arms the side effect of the poor and marginalized being helped (see this). Your mileage may vary when it comes to social justice as a justification for anything, but I second your argument that "social-" anything is not inherently statist. Even a socialist economy can exist in a libertarian framework so long as no coercion is used (such as an intentional community).
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
There is nothing libertarian about same-sex marriage or abortion.
There's nothing libertarian about it in as much as libertarianism itself doesn't hold up either to be a positive good, but at the same time neither government nor individuals have the right to forcibly prevent anyone from getting an abortion or a same-sex marriage. The fetus is part of and integrated into the woman's person in much the same manner as an internal organ, and does not become a person until it is severed from the woman at the moment of birth. Even if it is a person no person has the right to forcibly co-opt a woman's body in such an intimate way, thus the woman is justified to use all necessary force to defend herself. Short of the development of artificial wombs, the reasoning is airtight.
Of course, views vary on the abortion issue, but same-sex marriage should be clear as a bell. To the extent of a same-sex couple drawing up a contract outlining certain privileges and responsibilities towards each other, signing it, calling it marriage, and having a ceremony, it is perfectly compatible with libertarianism since there is no initiation of force, no aggression, and no one's liberty was violated. State-run and licensed marriage is a different question, but the state has no right to license marriages in the first place, so in a libertarian society the question is moot. I also fail to see why the same "libertarian" arguments against licensing same-sex couples shouldn't apply equally to opposite-sex couples, or indeed any other form of marriage between adults.
Interestingly, there is such a thing as "bleeding-heart libertarianism" which essentially argues that social justice demands liberty and free markets (c.f. this excellent blog). Some of this school of thought use social justice as the primary justification for libertarianism, whereas others have standard justifications but welcome with open arms the side effect of the poor and marginalized being helped (see this). Your mileage may vary when it comes to social justice as a justification for anything, but I second your argument that "social-" anything is not inherently statist. Even a socialist economy can exist in a libertarian framework so long as no coercion is used (such as an intentional community).
.
Libertarianism(Constitutionalist) is not Liberalism(Socialist)!
Both basically say more markets and corporations, less government and sovereignty. The only real difference is that neoliberals unlike libertarians tend to support military interventionism and libertarians unlike neolibs oppose any sort of safety net.
Overall the ideas they promote they promote are the same, like trickle down economics, the unemployed/poor just needing to pick themselves up and get to work, the naive belief that trade makes war impossible, and glorification of big business especially the tech industry. Libertarianism is just an extreme form of neoliberalism basically.
As much as I dislike neoliberals they're far better and their ideology is much saner than libertarians. They still accept the necessity of government, and many if not most believe there should be social security programs and support for people who can't work. Libertarians on the other hand believe the government's only duty is to guard the border and punish criminals, and some would even say those duties should be privatized. In fact they partially have been already!
Like social democrats and moderate socialists, neoliberals are strong believers in democracy. Libertarians on the other hand advocate consumerism over the vote, and would rather we live in a world where dollars ran things not ballots.
Neoliberals love the government because they get favors from it. They get de facto monopolies by regulating industries through government. They love foreign governments who give them exclusive rights.
Libertarians on the other side are for laissez faire capitalism. If you can and want provide TV services, you just go and do it. No need to ask permission to a government (a govt that is possibly bought out by, say, Comcast, and will make it next to impossible for you to compete).
BTW, libertarians -real ones- are for free immigration -if a business in another country wants to employ me and I want to work for them, why should a government get in between?- The only reason many libertarians support border security TODAY is because the US of A is running a welfare state that can't support huge increases of people seeking freebies from it.
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.
is that a Libertarian wants to keep
