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.
… I do have some critiques which keep me from being a whole-hearted libertarian.
The first criticism I would offer has to do with the efficacy of the pure price system. Libertarians tend to believe that all externalities are the result of govmint action. (Externalities are the costs of a transaction not borne by the parties to the transaction, but placed on some third party who is not involved. Pollution is an example of an externality.) Yet I question that assumption. One can easily undercut the market by, say, developing a cheaper manufacturing process which merely dumps the hazardous wastes into the nearest stream, causing hardship for those down river. There is no reason, that I can see, to assume that such externalities are impossible without govmint, and many reasons to believe that the absence of a public authority will encourage such externalizing. Indeed, without monitoring, how is anybody to know that it is happening? And if monitored, how is anybody to put a stop to it without some sort of government? Now, I am a believer in market pricing, but I am not a believer in the theory that the market price encodes all information about a product. As long as there are externalities, or even the possibility of such, will there not be required a political process (call what you will) to arbitrate the externals and assign costs? But such a function turns out to be complex and hence problematic in terms of Libertarian anarchism.
The Cape Fear River, for example, flows about two blocks from my house. Legally, it is a "water of the state," owned by the people. So when Company X upstream dumps pollutants (we'll say PCB's) into the river, that is harming PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Not to mention that those PCB's can easily make their way onto private property (via surface water or ground water), which would violate the rights of property owners. In the same way that it is illegal for me to dump 1 ton of solid waste garbage onto your front lawn, it is also illegal for me to dump liquid waste into the river.
The idea that libertarianism would allow us to pollute at will is a misinterpretation. Monitoring and detection of water pollution is legally no different than the procedures for monitoring and detecting larceny, or fraud, or assault.
I think you are confusing me with "extreme" libertarianism... which I doubt most people are. I am about free market and a fair market, the whole point of libertarianism. You assert unless you are for the TOTAL deregulation of business than you are not a libertarian is also false. For a TRUE free market it has to be a FAIR market... and that I believe is the central idea. For there to be a FAIR market, the government needs to get out. Nobody is advocating for TOTAL deregulation but are advocating for meaningful regulation. What we have now, is NOT meaningful regulation, and so it is against libertarian ideals. You claim the last 4 presidents were very libertarian in their policies, did those policies produce a fair market? Nope, it did not, and yet you blame it as a libertarian policy. To be honest, those policies were NOT libertarian but one thing that is common in all governments, is CORRUPTION. You cannot blame corruption of the government on libertarian policies. If they deregulate SOME policies but not ones that "help" certain businesses, that is very anti-libertarian. The separation of government and business IS a libertarian policy. You cannot corrupt a politician if they don't manipulate policies to your favor (i.e. monopoly). Your assertion that more government involvement in business leads to less monopoly cannot hold true by the very same evidence you stated. We have more control over business in the last 4 presidents then less deregulation and yet you assert that the problem was due to libertarian ideals. Managed trade does not equal free trade and yet you continue to assert that managed trade is a libertarian measure which is completely false. Asserting that things that are very anti-libertarian to being a libertarian policy does not make sense if you don't look at the whole picture. If you look at the nose and say its likely female without looking at the face, you would be a fool. If you make "some" libertarian policy without correcting the rest, you are still anti-libertarian.. because you are making policy favoring one over another... liberatarian is about FAIR MARKET and within that fair market is a free market... business don't control the fair market, but they should have more control over the free market.
Everytime I see these threads it's all about black and white... either you believe in minimally controlled anarchy, or libertarians are wrong. Just as many liberals would be offended if I were to suggest they were all aligned to socialist ideals to the extreme of equalizing salaries and cradle to grave care for everyone by the state.
If someone isn't a libertarian, great for them... I really could care less. But don't dare paint me as uncompassionate because I feel government is the worst avenue for helping the needy.
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.