Can someone explain to me how a libertarian society would not end in the rich getting richer and the poor poorer and deader? (This question is not derisive, I really want to know.)

This is probably going to be a major fail, but I don't think I've ever tried this: *frontpage

[edit] yeah, I figured. F#@% you, Siftie.

blankfist cannot frontpage this post because blankfist is the submitter - ignoring frontpage request by blankfist.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Can someone explain to me how a libertarian society would not end in the rich getting richer and the poor poorer and deader? (This question is not derisive, I really want to know.)


I'll take a stab. Well, the current system has a government that intervenes in every single market. And what we've seen as a result is opportunistic politicians colluding with corporations to pass legislation that creates more corporate welfare and subsidies paid for by tax dollars; creates regulations and restrictions on markets that benefit the corporations or at the very least closes out competition from small businesses who cannot afford to pay the regulatory fees and permits; and there's a healthy dose of nepotism as those politicians give business contracts (sometimes no-bid contracts) to those select corporations.

This kind of market intervention isn't a free market. And what results from it is the rich getting richer from our tax dollars and other subsidies. This creates a huge gap between the rich and the middle class/poor. A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few. And because the poor and middle class out number the rich, more people from the bottom will generate wealth and respectively less from the top.

What tends to scare people about free markets is that there's no guarantee of protection. But that should be viewed from a perspective of reason and seen as a potential for good instead of seen from a perspective of fear and seen as dangerous and scary. A free market means there are no central planners, therefore no collusion on a top level. That's the biggest benefit of a free market, IMO, because in regulated markets the "guarantees" are the exact thing that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Why not answer some tough questions?

Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?



(for starters)

^The questions aren't written by them. They were submitted via email, Twitter, Facebook, and Reason.com. It's in the description above.

edited

lol @ question 1

@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."

How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.

How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?

@blankfist I haven't got the time to watch the videos at the moment, but I sorta have an idea of a fun post.

How about I do a whole Kreskin-style thing where I try to guess what the answers are first?

Like, here's a sample:

1. I agree with the politics, but why are libertarians smarmy prigs?

Libertarians aren't smarmy prigs, we're just grumpy because we're forced to live with a bunch of thieves who want to take our hard earned money and give it to people who're starving.

[edit] Heh, I wasn't far off! Incidentally, what's "walk away" mean? You're allowed to leave the US, so I don't know who's stopping anyone from walking away...

T'ain't no one gonna answer me questions?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why not answer some tough questions?

@blankfist, since you seem to be too chicken to take up DFT's challenge, how about I try to play devil's advocate and try to argue the libertarian position for you.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

We wouldn't return to those days. To take on each in turn:

1. Slavery
   
   No one would be compelled by violence to do anything they like. People may choose to sell their entire lifetime worth of labor voluntarily if they so choose, but they will not be coerced to do so with violence.
   
   
2. Child labor
   
   Again, no one would be compelled by violence to do (or not do) things. If children don't want to work, they may choose not to. But if you're 9 years old and want to work 80 hours a week to help your family, what right does the government have to coerce people not to?
   
   
3. Monopolies
   
   Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.
   
   Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
   
   
4. Labor abuse
   
   Everyone is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. It isn't abuse if you voluntarily subject yourself to it.
   
   
5. The Great Depression
   
   This was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
   

Of course there's no guarantee that none of these dark things will come back, I'm just saying it's totally legitimate for them to come back provided no violence is used to coerce people. Coercion in the form of economic desperation is totally okay though.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story. Ditto for China, Ireland, southeast Asia, etc.

On the other hand, the economies of Cuba and North Korea have remained depressingly stagnant. Everyone's equally poor.

To use John McCain's turn of phrase "I'm not worried about who's getting a bigger slice of the pie, I'm trying to grow the pie!"

Just...don't ask me about Sweeden, they give me a rash with their high equality, high tax, high growth model. Must be something unique and exceptional about Scandinavians that's superior to us Americans.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

It's about doing what's right. When Lincoln tried to free the slaves, no one knew how the economy could function without slave labor. They did it anyway, because you have to do what's morally right!

In this case, we're talking about ending violent coercion, because everyone knows that only people who work for the government ever use violent coercion. Eliminate government, and it'll be gone forever!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

Good question, it must be patriotism, or altruism. Rich people are actually really nice, and very generous!

They're willing to adopt a radically unregulated, untaxed world, knowing that it's somehow against their interests. Much more altruistic than agreeing to let their taxes go up so the government can waste it on children's education, helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, maintaining roads...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

No, you must adopt my narrow conception of liberty! Government telling you that you have to serve black people = tyranny, businesses telling you that you have to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment = liberty.

Once properly understood, it's about fealty to nonviolence, at least government-based nonviolence. Corporations using violence to enforce their rules on the use of their property is self-defense, and therefore totally morally justifiable. Duh.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...

@NetRunner. I'm on vacation. Take a breather on snap assumptions. I'll be back next week. Don't have my computer with me.

If people don't respond within a day or two take it easy and be patient.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner. I'm on vacation. Take a breather on snap assumptions. I'll be back next week. Don't have my computer with me.
If people don't respond within a day or two take it easy and be patient.


Enjoy your vacation blankie. I hope the sows wherever you are a real friendly.

I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

I think the biggest problem is that A--people (Americans) are too stupid and greedy as masses to reasonably be run by their respective states.

Of course it has it's positives and negatives. For one the federal government wouldn't be using blanket-fisted (Sorry for the pun) powers to attack pot smokers for shits and giggles, or prohibit two loving people from marriage simply because businesses don't like the idea of more "benefits." (I.e., gay marriage is strictly a money issue.) And the federal government couldn't declare war on everyone and their mothers.

People ask "why wouldn't slavery return" and all that. Slavery is prohibited in the U.S. constitution. And, let the states decide on minimum wage, child labor laws and such. If you think "the people" are smart enough, let them choose which states they want to reside in; and, therefore, decide what laws should be. If Texas thinks 8 year olds should be forced to work on farms, their wouldn't be many people living there.

I know if I had a pick, it would be a state that; Stopped the drug war, allowed public nudity, allowed me to fish when I want, legalized prostitution (So that the black market is cut down on,) prohibits assault rifles, demands clean water and reasonable environmental protections, allows homosexual couples basic human rights and dignities, and requires parental participation in schools.

I could move to a state that meets all these needs because like minded people tend to gather around one another. However, I don't think Americans would care enough to do this--hell, we barely vote.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.


Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?

The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.

Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)


I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

Uncle Sam can't but in the UK we get free health care (Although no free soda).
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

It occurs to me that many people like the government having a monopoly on violence. It isn't so much a desire that it come from the government, but from an objective 3rd party that cannot be swayed by counter-force.

I don't much care for violence myself, but if someone is taking my stuff and the government won't intervene in any meaningful way then I'm sure I can find someone (or some group) willing to intervene on my behalf for a fee. Hopefully they would intervene fairly rather than siding with the side paying the most.

Hmm, maybe I could start my own "protection" company. Not extortion-like protection, but something that would deserve a good reputation for fairness. Instead of charging a fee for an intervention I would probably charge a subscription, and I could even set up a system to mediate disputes between customers.

Yea, I could see a lot of people signing up for that. Maybe I could use the money to buy several square miles of land... a sort-of "protected zone" for paying clients. People could rent smaller portions of the land, and I could provide protection to everyone.

I would have to impose some restrictions on behavior within my area for safety, but people live there by choice rather than by force... maybe I could even let them have some say in those restrictions. If anyone doesn't like it then they can always move. Children would become members automatically at a certain age if they choose to stay, but it's their choice.

Personally I would probably join something like that, because I really don't want to be responsible for my own protection. I'm just one person after all, and not everyone respects property rights the way I do.

I know I'm describing something familiar, I just can't put my finger on it...

>> ^DerHasisttot:

@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?


I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.

For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).

So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.

This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?

Another question for when you've answered my first what is to stop people from overstretching Earth's natural resources I.e. Over fishing, Illegal logging etc. I know that those things are happening anyway but at least states are trying to do something about it.

>> ^blankfist:

I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government.

Actually this is one of the major problems we have with talking with you about this kind of stuff anymore.

We ask "how would X corporate behavior be reigned in under a libertarian system?"

Rather than address X corporate behavior, your response is invariably "all corporate evil is actually government evil."

Is working people longer hours in less safe environments for less pay somehow not in the interests of business owners? Why do they do that anywhere and everywhere they don't have laws preventing it?

You asked a lot of questions, @dystopianfuturetoday. Let's jump in.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

Patently false. Slavery was held over from early British rule. And a lot of industrialized nations followed the same trend of slavery and child labor, but that's more endemic of the path of civilization than free markets. To think child labor or slavery would come back to the US if we deregulated the markets is ridiculous.

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

I had to reread that a couple times. Always results in massive unemployment? Where has that happened once in history? Regulations have lead to less employment, because less people can create jobs. If you want to open a florist in some states, you must pay several grand to take a test and get a license. Or be a barber. And so on. Regulations kill employment opportunity.

And inflation is caused mainly by growing the money supply. And you have the central bank system and the government to thank for that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

There was no evidence to suggest an individualist society would work prior to the US. Good thing they took a chance.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

What movement is that exactly? Not too many corporations are really for a free market. A free market would add unwanted competition that would decrease their profits. But I take it you meant the Koch brothers supporting CATO? That's hardly my movement.

But for every one corporation you find in favor of Libertarianism, I can find you twenty against it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

If you mean the Libertarian Party, then they're acting in accord with capitalism just as Democrats and Republicans are. Because that's the current economic system. You want a better system? Then offer one up... oh, oops, you can't because we're not allowed those kinds of freedoms in this society, are we? It's the US Dollar or else.

For those of us who are libertarian in name (not party), it doesn't have to be capitalism. It doesn't have to be money. It just has to be voluntary.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Interesting choice of words. The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

I doubt adoption of free markets is primarily done at the butt of the gun. I think you're alluding to Friedman and Chile. I doubt Friedman lead an army of Libertarians through Chile, but I know he was consulted regarding their economy. And according to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

But, to get back to your question, I don't know of any Libertarians that want to "bring" free markets to other countries; they just want to be able to freely provide for themselves and their families without other people telling them how to do it. Again, why not use your power of perception to look at the countless acts of violence perpetrated on the people by their government. And Chile is no different.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government.
Actually this is one of the major problems we have with talking with you about this kind of stuff anymore.
We ask "how would X corporate behavior be reigned in under a libertarian system?"
Rather than address X corporate behavior, your response is invariably "all corporate evil is actually government evil."
Is working people longer hours in less safe environments for less pay somehow not in the interests of business owners? Why do they do that anywhere and everywhere they don't have laws preventing it?


I'm answering them as I read them. Sorry if your comprehension of a question is different, but DerHasisttot didn't ask "how would X corporate behavior be reigned in under a libertarian system?" And I don't think Libertarians want a definitive "Libertarian system". We just want freedom to interact without people telling us when and how to do that.

You all want assurances, but you don't have assurances in the current system. You only have lies from politicians. And when a politician promises something and doesn't deliver, what then? You can't sue them. There's zero accountability now.

If you don't like corporations, then it's government you should have a problem with. They created them.

If you don't like X corporate behavior, then it's government you should have a problem with. They created the corporations.

See a trend?

@blankfist, I think my libertarian answers were actually better defenses of libertarianism.

And some of my answers were humorously echoed.

The Great Depression:

>> ^NetRunner:

The Great Depression was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
>> ^blankfist:

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

Incidentally, you're citing Friedman the inflationist there, who said that the Great Depression was prolonged by government refusing to restore confidence to the markets by bailing out failing banks, and by trying in vain to hold to the gold standard when what it needed to do was print shitloads of money to counteract the drop in the money supply caused by people stuffing cash into their mattresses. Seriously, go look it up.

On Monopolies:

>> ^NetRunner:

Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.

Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
>> ^blankfist:
And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

On deregulation's benefits:
>> ^NetRunner:
Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story.
>> ^blankfist:

[A]ccording to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

Though technically that last was offered as a defense of violently implementing deregulation, even though you cited growth numbers from an era after they'd shifted from the Randian wet dream of Pinochet's rule to a more regulated and democratic system.

Oh, and on the aforementioned violent implementation of libertarianism:

>> ^NetRunner:

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...
>> ^blankfist:
The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

Lulz.

@NetRunner, of course you think your mock answers are better. I think I answered enough. If you want more answered you should email reason.

oh my fucking god, still?

If you wanna play the ultra-cynical card, then all you're offering is different lies from different politicians.

You're also offering an illogical cynicism. Why would suing a politician provide me any assurance? Courts are government too.

You're also offering a dishonest cynicism. It's not as if it's impossible for politicians to lose their jobs. People can vote them out when their term is up, and sometimes even before that with recalls. You know that's true, you've seen it happen.

>> ^blankfist:

You all want assurances, but you don't have assurances in the current system. You only have lies from politicians. And when a politician promises something and doesn't deliver, what then? You can't sue them. There's zero accountability now.

You can always head to http://reason.com/ to submit your questions for the next round of 'Ask a Libertarian Day'. You don't always have to ask grandpa blankfist.

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.

@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.

Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.


Is any of what you said meant to serve as some argument in favor of libertarianism?

All of those things are issues I'd love to address. What's the course of action you suggest? Do you claim to have better ideas on how to solve them? Out with 'em then.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, of course you think your mock answers are better. I think I answered enough. If you want more answered you should email reason.


Well, I think my mock answers were at least attempts to answer the questions directly, rather than a series of attempts to dodge the question. Yes, there was quite a mocking tone to them, but they're all based on arguments I've seen other conservatives and libertarians make with a straight face when asked similar questions.

>> ^blankfist:

You can always head to http://reason.com/ to submit your questions for the next round of 'Ask a Libertarian Day'. You don't always have to ask grandpa blankfist.


The thing is, I'm not interested in what Reason has to say. My interest in having these conversations with you is because I care what you think. For some reason, I have this silly notion that you do care about the little people who're suffering, and aren't just putting on airs to try to get a tax cut by any means necessary.

I do mock and cajole, but turnabout is fair play. In any case, I mostly do it to try to shake you out of this really weird logical cul de sac you've fallen into.

At a minimum, I'd love to induce you to reexamine your deeply held beliefs, but these days you just dodge and weave away from the contradictions laid out in front of you, rather than try to untangle them.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.

Is any of what you said meant to serve as some argument in favor of libertarianism?
All of those things are issues I'd love to address. What's the course of action you suggest? Do you claim to have better ideas on how to solve them? Out with 'em then.


No, none of what I mentioned is really political at all, even though it directly relates. What my message did note is that without effort from the people even the most successful government format can do nothing. And the funny part is, if the masses are educated, hardworking, freedom loving, and kind and generous, then they would make perfect libertarians. They wouldn't need government to tell them how to live. Unfortunately--that's not the case, and so our government is screwed no matter what form it takes.

But sadly, I see no way out. Term limits have created a horrible environment in Florida, where Pols just grab for quick power even faster. The gulf of the Mexico will either be drilled for by the U.S. or some other nation (And we get polluted either way.) Heck, the only way to stop other countries from stripping the world of its resources would be to war, or cease trading--which is not going to happen.

And you should know I do not defend libertarianism Net, it is only as good as its people. And the active people today (I.e., the tea party) would turn this country into flames. With that said, god I am tired. Did that make any sense? I guess I have to read it tomorrow.

>> ^NetRunner:
My interest in having these conversations with you is because I care what you think.


Stop flirting with me.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.


Hopefully the people. I believe that their should be government but government without elected representatives I long for a direct democracy with resolutions and legislation voted for/against by everyone, where no-one is allowed to starve to death because they can't work, where the long term goals of the human race can be debated and considered and where money and its corrupting influences can be learned about in history classes not fought over.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
No, none of what I mentioned is really political at all, even though it directly relates. What my message did note is that without effort from the people even the most successful government format can do nothing. And the funny part is, if the masses are educated, hardworking, freedom loving, and kind and generous, then they would make perfect libertarians. They wouldn't need government to tell them how to live.

Reminds me of this quote from James Madison, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Madison of course knew men weren't angels. The paragraph (and indeed the entire Federalist paper it's contained in) speaks to the entire problem one must solve when designing a government.

It's why I'm leery of people who want to reinvent society without taking any of that commentary into consideration.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

But sadly, I see no way out. Term limits have created a horrible environment in Florida, where Pols just grab for quick power even faster. The gulf of the Mexico will either be drilled for by the U.S. or some other nation (And we get polluted either way.) Heck, the only way to stop other countries from stripping the world of its resources would be to war, or cease trading--which is not going to happen.

I agree, they're all hard problems. I'm just saying there's no easy fix. Unwinding the government doesn't seem like a fix for any of them.

On the environment, I actually agree with the Reason answer above. We need to move away from treating the environment as an unowned collective commons, and set up a property regime.

A.K.A, Cap & trade.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?

I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.
For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).
So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.
This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?


Not really.

If all state-influences (regulations and subsidies et cetera) to all businesses are gone, how can a small competitor then compete with a larger competitor? (I'm working under the presumption that there had not been a null-setting of all capital.) Would the large competitor not be able to be more efficient and therefore cheaper? Would not the workforce of any of these businesses be working under worse conditions? (than in a regulatet environment)

@DerHasisttot,

Well, if the larger business is more efficient and provides a superior product or service, then they'd certainly continue to profit. And that's a good thing. But usually larger organizations (be it government or corporations) aren't efficient, and there's typically waste at some level. The current government restrictions and corporate welfare (mentioned above) allow them to be profitable despite their waste (Currently, taxpayers subsidizing their losses and in return not allowed to compete on an even playing field with the corporations! How ridiculous is that?).

In a free market, if I opened a small bake shop, I could oversee every aspect of that company fairly easily. If I was the CEO of a large baking company with three warehouses, a corporate office, several baking and packaging facilities, and a slew of brick and mortar shops, I'd probably have a hard time keeping an eye on every element deserved of consideration. Not that it can't be done, but certainly it would be difficult, so most likely I'd start losing profits without government subsidies (and the loss of business from new competitors) and need to shrink my business to something more manageable.

It would be harder for large companies to continue to flourish amid the competition that would arise when the costly restrictions are removed that're currently in place. If you live in the States and ever opened your own business, you'd understand how difficult it is to be a small entrepreneur with very little capital. You're taxed heavily for starters, even if you're showing a loss instead of profit. And some businesses require costly licenses and other regulatory fees to be paid.

@blankfist Would not the workforce of any of these businesses be working under worse conditions? (than in a regulated environment)

>> ^DerHasisttot:

blankfist Would not the workforce of any of these businesses be working under worse conditions? (than in a regulated environment)


I think having more choices for work is a good thing. With less competition in the market, that also means less places to work that aren't corporations. With more competition, you'd see companies offering better positions, pay and benefits to attract better employees.

Ok, I don't see how libertarianism could be feasible. Too utopian for my taste.

http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/

@DerHasisttot
And which government is not?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Ok, I don't see how libertarianism could be feasible. Too utopian for my taste.
http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/


Don't be too hasty. It's a strawman attack piece. A couple responses:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/robert-nozick-and-the-value-of-liberty/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/capitalist-acts-between-consenting-adults/

There seems to be a lot of attacks on Libertarianism these days. Just goes to show you that the idea is gaining popularity.

Also this: http://mises.org/daily/5388/Welfare-before-the-Welfare-State

I've tried to keep an open mind and asked questions, and read and read, because I wanted to know why someone wants philosophically to be a libertarian. But for now, I've closed my mind for 99% to the idea. I cannot see how a libertarian state would not end in many many dead and/or poor people. Lodges and Mutual Aid are not good systems for welfare. Welfare saves people's lives. To my mind, libertarianism as an end is unrealistic. Maybe I just like Daniel Bell too much (Adjusted to historic reality).


But keep posting articles here, I'll keep reading them. Mostly because I try to understand why people would think this to be a feasible system.

Well, history has shown that more individual freedom (less collectivist government) leads to enrichment of lives, protection of the poor, etc. The US government early on was built on some basic and fundamental Libertarian ideas, though back then they were called liberal.

Prior to that, no other human government ever allowed such individual freedom. Not to say the US wasn't plagued with its problems, but it was a step in the right direction. Why go backwards?

>> ^blankfist:

Well, history has shown that more individual freedom (less collectivist government) leads to enrichment of lives, protection of the poor, etc. The US government early on was built on some basic and fundamental Libertarian ideas, though back then they were called liberal.
Prior to that, no other human government ever allowed such individual freedom. Not to say the US wasn't plagued with its problems, but it was a step in the right direction. Why go backwards?


I would say Rome did, and Greece. But that was more because of certain circumstances than how a government ran. I.e., we were a land of plenty, slaughtered the Indians, kept slaves to work, and then after those, indentured servants, and then illegal aliens and prisoners. However, those have dried up...

Greece was crap until conquest. Macedonia-what? Oh yeah, that poor state that Alexander came from...

Don't get me wrong, we love our Freedoms Blankfist, but history bodes for the circumstances of a nation--not the people themselves or how it is run. (I wouldn't say that Greece and Rome were particularly generous or freedom oriented, just like I wouldn't say America is.)

@Lawdeedaw, I agree. Like I said, early US was plagued with problems, but most of those were hold overs from the colonies (e.g., slavery). And even the Framers knew slavery wasn't harmonious with liberalism. It was tolerated to gain the support of the Southern colonies lest they lose their revolution.

I could go on and on about the early atrocities of the US, especially the trail of tears initiated by the very first Democratic President, Jackson. @NetRunner hates it when I throw facts like that in his face.

While the US isn't perfect by a long shot, the ideas of liberalism and individualism are a step in the right direction, because it's the only way to put power in the hands of the many instead of the few. More freedom means more people in control of their lives. Now that's a government of the people!

Any chance you could respond to my thoughts blankfist?

>> ^Ti_Moth:

Any chance you could respond to my thoughts blankfist?


Sure. I'm on vicodin at the moment, so maybe I should clear my head first?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
Any chance you could respond to my thoughts blankfist?

Sure. I'm on vicodin at the moment, so maybe I should clear my head first?


Take your time. : )

>> ^blankfist:

Lawdeedaw, I agree. Like I said, early US was plagued with problems, but most of those were hold overs from the colonies (e.g., slavery). And even the Framers knew slavery wasn't harmonious with liberalism. It was tolerated to gain the support of the Southern colonies lest they lose their revolution.
I could go on and on about the early atrocities of the US, especially the trail of tears initiated by the very first Democratic President, Jackson. @NetRunner hates it when I throw facts like that in his face.

I think the problem you have whenever you try to toss out historical examples is that you don't know enough about history to use them appropriately. For example, Andrew Jackson was a classical liberal. And Southern.

More generally, the Democratic party of the 19th century had a platform very near and dear to your heart. Small government, state's rights, against government funded infrastructure, against national debt, against the national bank, in favor of the gold standard (they were against paper money, even!), against economic regulation, against economic protectionism, etc.

Yes, they saw the ownership of people as legitimate, but so do plenty of libertarians. Seems like such a small disagreement when you look at the full policy platform of the 19th century Democrats.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.


There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.

But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.

It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.

Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Lawdeedaw, I agree. Like I said, early US was plagued with problems, but most of those were hold overs from the colonies (e.g., slavery). And even the Framers knew slavery wasn't harmonious with liberalism. It was tolerated to gain the support of the Southern colonies lest they lose their revolution.
I could go on and on about the early atrocities of the US, especially the trail of tears initiated by the very first Democratic President, Jackson. @NetRunner hates it when I throw facts like that in his face.
I think the problem you have whenever you try to toss out historical examples is that you don't know enough about history to use them appropriately. For example, Andrew Jackson was a classical liberal. And Southern.
More generally, the Democratic party of the 19th century had a platform very near and dear to your heart. Small government, state's rights, against government funded infrastructure, against national debt, against the national bank, in favor of the gold standard (they were against paper money, even!), against economic regulation, against economic protectionism, etc.
Yes, they saw the ownership of people as legitimate, but so do plenty of libertarians. Seems like such a small disagreement when you look at the full policy platform of the 19th century Democrats.


But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.

He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."

Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

>> ^blankfist:

But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.


But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.

Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.

You don't understand logic either, it seems.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.
Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.
You don't understand logic either, it seems.


There you go attacking me instead of the argument. I don't think you're a racist, and I understand there's a difference between early Dems and modern Dems. Why not stick to the argument instead of lying and attacking my intelligence in the hopes of changing the subject.

It's you that has your history wrong. Not me. So if I want "to toss out historical examples", as you put it, then I'll certainly do just that because it makes for a better platform than platitudes.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.
Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.
You don't understand logic either, it seems.

There you go attacking me instead of the argument. I don't think you're a racist, and I understand there's a difference between early Dems and modern Dems. Why not stick to the argument instead of lying and attacking my intelligence in the hopes of changing the subject.
It's you that has your history wrong. Not me. So if I want "to toss out historical examples", as you put it, then I'll certainly do just that because it makes for a better platform than platitudes.


Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

>> ^NetRunner:

Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?


Has nothing to do with you. My comment above was a response to Lawdeedaw about how the first and racist Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, signed into law the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears. After that you got defensive because I said something negative about the Democratic Party, and I've been enjoying watching you self destruct ever since.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

Has nothing to do with you. My comment above was a response to Lawdeedaw about how the first and racist Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, signed into law the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears. After that you got defensive because I said something negative about the Democratic Party, and I've been enjoying watching you self destruct ever since.


Now who's attacking the person and not the argument?

You said I have the history wrong...what history do I have wrong?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

Has nothing to do with you. My comment above was a response to Lawdeedaw about how the first and racist Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, signed into law the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears. After that you got defensive because I said something negative about the Democratic Party, and I've been enjoying watching you self destruct ever since.

Now who's attacking the person and not the argument?
You said I have the history wrong...what history do I have wrong?

8====D~

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.
But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.
It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.
Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.


It may seem unlikely that some super rich individual would want to form his own state but there are alot of crazies out there, I wouldn't think it too far fetched to think that some super rich evangelical christian would want to impose his philosophy on people via the barrel of a gun (or many guns as the case may be).
So if someone did decide to take over with his mercenary army I would have to fight? I don't know about you but i'm a lover not a fighter I would rather pay a small portion of my wages to fund an opposition, a tax if you will. Also Switzerland was invaded and held by Napoleon for a period of 17 years (1798-1815) and it was after that, that the neutrality of Switzerland became internationally recognized not because many of its inhabitants are armed.
I do believe that libertarianism would be a massive step back after all wasn't the world originally libertarian by some definition, no countries, people working for themselves trading with other individuals and groups of individuals. Wouldn't it be better to have a form of government actually run by the people, a direct democracy with no representatives to become corrupt with true accountability, rather than to tear it down and descend into a Somalian style anarchy.