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.
ITA with the above on the red. I think many Libertarians for some reason cannot see that this is the truth.
I second that.
There seems to be this idea that the ultra-wealthy would never have the desire to use their money to tilt the playing field in their favor, by buying the government, eliminating all competitors, or some other means.
Like it or not, "sacred" capitalism can only survive with "evil" government intervention. Capitalism always evolves into plutocracy without a strong government to break the stranglehold of monopolies, trusts, and powerful special interests.
The wealthy don't get wealthy at anyone else's expense except by way of government. If they become wealthy by running a successful business with no help from the state, that isn't harming or exploiting anyone. The problem is when they lobby and use political connections to rig things in their favor.
I think a minarchist libertarian society - one where a government exists, but is supposed to be limited to police, courts, national defense - will eventually turn into what we have now, at least to some degree. BUT the reason is not just that the rich buy the government...it's because, as Jefferson famously said, the natural progress of things is for state power to increase over time, and for liberty to yield. People in positions of political power will find ways to convince those they govern to give them more control over society, and the more control the state has, the more the politically connected can tap into that control by becoming buddies with the government.
That isn't the main reason I'm an anarchist libertarian, but it's one practical reason.
Ignored by the statists and back to arguing over how the government can "make it better".
I disagree on capitalism requiring state intervention. Monopolies (the state IS one, by the way) can only exist in a free economy if people voluntarily choose that company over all other competitors.
The other objection was about taking advantage of others, but I'm not sure what's being referred to there.
Ignored by the statists and back to arguing over how the government can "make it better".
Hope springs eternal.
They don't want to let go of the root problem. The idea is that we need to create a big powerful good guy that just helps people, and that we can control it by voting every few years. The question is basically "how do we stop the big guy from betraying us?" when you can't. The more powerful you make it, the more power it has if it decides to turn on you.
In any libertarian society, a small group of people will eventually become very wealthy at the expense of the majority. Said people will eventually get wealthy enough to buy the government, further entrenching their privileged position. At that point, the society is no longer libertarian, but plutocratic.
My question for libertarians: how could a plutocracy be prevented? Wouldn't there need to be some kind of government intervention to keep a small cohort of wealthy individuals from buying politicians?
The stronger government is, the worse it gets because there's more to gain. A libertarian government won't regulate your competition out of business, but a more authoritarian one very well could.
Libertarians believe that by weakening the government so much that crony capitalism is impossible.
The government's ability to regulate business is the ability to say who can or cannot enter into the market. If you remove the governments ability to regulate you get more competition not less.
The stronger government is, the worse it gets because there's more to gain. A libertarian government won't regulate your competition out of business, but a more authoritarian one very well could.
Libertarians believe that by weakening the government so much that crony capitalism is impossible.
The government's ability to regulate business is the ability to say who can or cannot enter into the market. If you remove the governments ability to regulate you get more competition not less.
Without government regulations we'd have 12 hour workdays and 7 day work weeks. We'd have child labor, unsafe working conditions, and low pay. We'd have unsafe food and drugs. We'd have quack doctors and quack medicine. We'd have no consumer protection laws. We'd have poisoned air and water.
This was exactly the situation in the late 19th century in the USA. It wasn't such a great time for anyone except for the robber barons. We already tried libertarianism; it didn't work. It led to a plutocracy and misery for almost everyone.
In any libertarian society, a small group of people will eventually become very wealthy at the expense of the majority. Said people will eventually get wealthy enough to buy the government, further entrenching their privileged position. At that point, the society is no longer libertarian, but plutocratic.
My question for libertarians: how could a plutocracy be prevented? Wouldn't there need to be some kind of government intervention to keep a small cohort of wealthy individuals from buying politicians?
I'm not doubting what you say is true, but I would enjoy having some historic examples.
Without government regulations we'd have 12 hour workdays and 7 day work weeks. We'd have child labor, unsafe working conditions, and low pay. We'd have unsafe food and drugs. We'd have quack doctors and quack medicine. We'd have no consumer protection laws. We'd have poisoned air and water.
This was exactly the situation in the late 19th century in the USA. It wasn't such a great time for anyone except for the robber barons. We already tried libertarianism; it didn't work. It led to a plutocracy and misery for almost everyone.
Child labor laws forced a lot of kids into prostitution.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for statism unless you're Carlos Danger.
Without government regulations we'd have 12 hour workdays and 7 day work weeks. We'd have child labor, unsafe working conditions, and low pay. We'd have unsafe food and drugs. We'd have quack doctors and quack medicine. We'd have no consumer protection laws. We'd have poisoned air and water.
This was exactly the situation in the late 19th century in the USA. It wasn't such a great time for anyone except for the robber barons. We already tried libertarianism; it didn't work. It led to a plutocracy and misery for almost everyone.
Once again, you liberals immediately took things to the extreme.
No reasonable libertarian would advocate absolutely no regulation. It comes down to: non-violence/no coercion and victimless crime. If it doesn't fit into these, it will be regulated.
If a corporation creates an unsafe working condition, that's not victimless anymore. Same would go with food, drugs, quack doctors, polluting the environment etc.
As for 12 hour workdays and 7 day work weeks, so what? If such agreement is consensual between the employer and employee, what's the big deal? It would only take one company offering less work hours to break the cycle - it's just like today flexible working hours and 9/80 are gaining momentum. There's no government regulation saying a company must offer these.
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.
