Why libertarianism FAILS.

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Why libertarianism FAILS.

 Quite simply, it ignores that everyone is part of a society and that they are responsible to eachother to make the society work.

 

The only libertarian utopia in the world right now is Somalia.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Somalian pirates we!

Somalian pirates we!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Did you know that Somalia

Did you know that Somalia has the lowest carbon footprint of all nations?

This is further support of the scientific theory that global warming is the result of a lack of pirates. More pirates in Somalia corresponds to lower greenhouse gases! Coincidence?!

What more proof do you need that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Quite

ClockCat wrote:

 Quite simply, it ignores that everyone is part of a society and that they are responsible to eachother to make the society work.

We get that. We understand that no man is an island that that we all rely on a large societal support structure to survive. No part of being a libertarian means that you are anti-society or anti-social responsibility. I don't see what your statement has to do with libertarianism at all.

Libertarianism is wanting a relatively small government, low taxes and high degree of personal and economic freedom.

Somolia has a few governments. Different autonomous regions exist in parts of Somolia. Each region has its own warlord or set of people controlling it. Some of those governments, such as the recently defeated Islamic Court Union, were extremely oppresive and were the exact opposite of the kind of government that a libertarian would want to live under. There is also the officially recognized (by other countries) central government that controlls a bit of Somolia and functions similarly to western governments. So, I would not say that Somolia is a libertarian utopia. For one thing libertarians want a small government and a high degree of personal freedom but they do not want to government at all. For another thing Somolia isn't in a state of anarchy. It has governments. I would say that it has way to many governments that are all at war with one another. Somalia's warring factions and mutliple different small oppressive governments are not something that a libertarian would want.

So, are you trolling clockcat? Or do you really believe that libertarianism is based of a rejection of society itself? Can you show how "small, limited government that affords a high degree of personal freedom" neccessarily leads to libertarians "ignor[ing] that everyone is part of a society and that they are responsible to eachother to make the society work."

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Hmm, low carbon footprint

Hmm, low carbon footprint and pirates. I think that natural is on to something here.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
A Socialists

A Socialists paradise

 

 

 

 

 

Where the government controls everything!

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:A

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

A Socialists paradise

 

 

 

 

 

Where the government controls everything!

 

 

 

 

As the government there consists of one man, libertarians should be going ape-crazy for it.

After all, how much smaller can the government get?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There is nothing socialist

There is nothing socialist about NK. That's a mix of dictatorship and statism.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:As the

jcgadfly wrote:

As the government there consists of one man, libertarians should be going ape-crazy for it.

After all, how much smaller can the government get?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_North_Korea

Quote:

Cabinet

  • Premier
  • Vice Premier
  • Ministry of Finance
  • Ministry of People's Armed Forces
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • Ministry of People's Security
  • Ministry of Education
  • Ministry of Public Health
  • Ministry of Post and Telecommunications
  • Ministry of Land and Marine Transport
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Ministry of Commerce
  • Ministry of Labour
  • Ministry of Culture
  • Ministry of City Management
  • Ministry of Metal Industry
  • Ministry of Electronics Industry
  • Ministry of Construction and Building-Materials Industries
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Ministry of Forestry
  • Ministry of Fisheries
  • Ministry of Crude Oil Industry
  • Ministry of Land and Environment Preservation
  • Ministry of State Construction Control
  • Ministry of Procurement and Food Administration
  • Ministry of State Inspection
  • State Planning Commission
  • Chairman of the Physical Culture and Sports Guidance Commission
  • Director of the Central Statistic Bureau
  • President of the Central Bank
  • President of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Chief Secretary of the Cabinet

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_North_Korea

 

Quote:

The Cabinet of North Korea consists of the Premiers, Vice Premiers, and Ministers of the government. Their terms of office are concurrent with the Supreme People's Assembly. The Premier is the head of the cabinet. The cabinet exercises theoretical control over the executive ministries and has the authority to issue decrees concerning administration of the government, although in reality the government also takes its directions from Kim Jong-il. The current cabinet consists of:

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
sooo... whats the crux of

sooo... whats the crux of the problem? X is bad, X does Y, therefore Y is also bad?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:jcgadfly

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As the government there consists of one man, libertarians should be going ape-crazy for it.

After all, how much smaller can the government get?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_North_Korea

Quote:

Cabinet

  • Premier
  • Vice Premier
  • Ministry of Finance
  • Ministry of People's Armed Forces
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • Ministry of People's Security
  • Ministry of Education
  • Ministry of Public Health
  • Ministry of Post and Telecommunications
  • Ministry of Land and Marine Transport
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Ministry of Commerce
  • Ministry of Labour
  • Ministry of Culture
  • Ministry of City Management
  • Ministry of Metal Industry
  • Ministry of Electronics Industry
  • Ministry of Construction and Building-Materials Industries
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Ministry of Forestry
  • Ministry of Fisheries
  • Ministry of Crude Oil Industry
  • Ministry of Land and Environment Preservation
  • Ministry of State Construction Control
  • Ministry of Procurement and Food Administration
  • Ministry of State Inspection
  • State Planning Commission
  • Chairman of the Physical Culture and Sports Guidance Commission
  • Director of the Central Statistic Bureau
  • President of the Central Bank
  • President of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Chief Secretary of the Cabinet

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_North_Korea

 

Quote:

The Cabinet of North Korea consists of the Premiers, Vice Premiers, and Ministers of the government. Their terms of office are concurrent with the Supreme People's Assembly. The Premier is the head of the cabinet. The cabinet exercises theoretical control over the executive ministries and has the authority to issue decrees concerning administration of the government, although in reality the government also takes its directions from Kim Jong-il. The current cabinet consists of:

 

 

And you are assuming. I take it, that those people actually hold some sort of power?

Is it the size of government libertarians are concerned with or the consolidation of power (into the hands of someone they like)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Is it the

jcgadfly wrote:

Is it the size of government libertarians are concerned with or the consolidation of power (into the hands of someone they like)?

Both. A bloated government and a small but extremely oppressive government are both bad. To use the Somalian example: your local warlord may be the only thing resembling a government official in your region, but if he oppresses the hell out of you, takes a lot of your money and goods and kills those who resist him, that is still an oppressive government.

Libertarians do not want power consolidated into the hands of one person. A libertarian tyrant sounds like an oxymoron and would probably just be a regular tyrant. North Korea's extremely oppressive government is obvious not the kind of government libertians like since it does not afford its citizens a high degree of personal and economic freedom.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And you are

jcgadfly wrote:

And you are assuming. I take it, that those people actually hold some sort of power?

Is it the size of government libertarians are concerned with or the consolidation of power (into the hands of someone they like)?

 

 

It's not the size of the government, it what it controls. The US is run by the president, in Canada, the Queen is the head of state.

 

 

Whether 1 or 1000 people control the government is irrelavent, it's the powers that the government has.

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:jcgadfly

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And you are assuming. I take it, that those people actually hold some sort of power?

Is it the size of government libertarians are concerned with or the consolidation of power (into the hands of someone they like)?

 

 

It's not the size of the government, it what it controls. The US is run by the president, in Canada, the Queen is the head of state.

 

 

Whether 1 or 1000 people control the government is irrelavent, it's the powers that the government has.

 

 

 

 

So

1) a large, powerful, government

2) a large, useless government

3) a small, powerful government

are governments you do not like.

What then is left?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: The only

ClockCat wrote:

 The only libertarian utopia in the world right now is Somalia.

 

CC, the defacto government in Somilia is the local war lord. Now if I went to this 'libertarian' paradise and brought property with me, what would happen? The war lord would either take all my property or require that I pay him a large tax all the time. He would say it's to pay for security and to help all the community with basic services. He would keep all the money for himself to keep himself in power. His 'police' would try to extort money from me all the time for thing in return.

Since I can't hire my own private security force instead of paying tribute to the war lords, theives would come in a steal everything I have and kill me. Also, women have no rights and religious police would be enforcing their rules on me, so it hardly sounds like a libertarian paradise. So the bottom line is their is no capital investment because the defacto governments would steal all your property, give you nothing in return and not allow you to have your own private police.

But the thing is Somolia is still a potentially great place to live and do business, you just need to have private onclaves where you can be free from having war lords force you to pay tax for services you don't want or need, and religious police.

Business in Somalia

It's all about getting away from people that point a gun at your head and take something for nothing, whether that's armed robbers, war lords or socialists. Since the government and religioius rulers would wage war against capitalist that had their own private security, Somolia can not be call libertarian.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So1) a large,

jcgadfly wrote:

So

1) a large, powerful, government

2) a large, useless government

3) a small, powerful government

are governments you do not like.

What then is left?

 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17695

 

 

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

 

Quite certain i pointed out how your version of capitalism... is actually a socialist economy

 

What Would Kharn Do?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:As the

jcgadfly wrote:

As the government there consists of one man, libertarians should be going ape-crazy for it.

After all, how much smaller can the government get?

Lmao. Why would libertarians like that? It's more important how much power the government has, not just how many people are in it.  

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:jcgadfly

butterbattle wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As the government there consists of one man, libertarians should be going ape-crazy for it.

After all, how much smaller can the government get?

Lmao. Why would libertarians like that? It's more important how much power the government has, not just how many people are in it.  

 

 

Indeed... isnt the #'s thing the whole "conservative" speel?

Smaller governments! Smaller governments! rah rah rah!

 

/sigh

 

What Would Kharn Do?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:jcgadfly

butterbattle wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As the government there consists of one man, libertarians should be going ape-crazy for it.

After all, how much smaller can the government get?

Lmao. Why would libertarians like that? It's more important how much power the government has, not just how many people are in it. 

Actually, I should qualify that statement. It's better to distribute power to a large number of people because it's dangerous to give a lot of power to only a few people. Ideally, I think I'd prefer a large government with a moderate amount of control.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly mentioned some

jcgadfly mentioned some size/power combinations of government that are possible. But he missed a few combos that people probably perfer.

I suppose the possible combinations are along the lines of:

Powerful, large

moderate power, large

weak, large

powerful, moderate size

moderate power, moderate size

weak, moderate size

powerful, small

moderate power, small

weak, small

powerless, non-existent

Libertarians don't like large or powerful, but there are a lot of combinations that don't neccessarily have one of those traits.

If I had to take a guess at what most libertarians think it would be something like this:

Powerful, large - terrible

moderate powerful, large - bad

weak, large - wasteful

powerful, moderate size - bad

moderate power, moderate size - ok, but not great

weak, moderate size - ok/good

powerful, small - bad

moderate power, small - ok/good

weak, small - ok/good

powerless, non-existent - bad/terrible

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the information,

Thanks for the information, people.

Most of the people calling themselves libertarians around here (Indiana) stop at Ron Paul.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I'm going to make a statement now that might make some libertarians upset.

 

 

No service the public needs should be privatised.

 

 

It creates a situation that demands a conflict of interest will appear, of personal gain vs public welfare.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: No service

ClockCat wrote:

 

No service the public needs should be privatised. It creates a situation that demands a conflict of interest will appear of personal gain vs public welfare.

 

So you think farming, food delivery and grocery stores should all be taken over by the government? How would that grow more food or put more and cheaper food in the grocery store? How does a government take over a health care produce more doctors and nurses and cause inventors and entrepreneurs to create more, better and less expensive cures?

But this is ridiculous because people will only work, invent and invest in new technologies if there is a "personal gain" in it for themselves. How can work ever get done if there is not a "personal gain" in it for the person doing the work? So you want to take our most vital services and create price controls which will lead to shortages. How insane.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ClockCat

ClockCat wrote:

 

No service the public needs should be privatised. It creates a situation that demands a conflict of interest will appear of personal gain vs public welfare.

 

So you think farming, food delivery and grocery stores should all be taken over by the government? How would that grow more food or put more and cheaper food in the grocery store? How does a government take over a health care produce more doctors and nurses and cause inventors and entrepreneurs to create more, better and less expensive cures?

But this is ridiculous because people will only work, invent and invest in new technologies if there is a "personal gain" in it for themselves. How can work ever get done if there is not a "personal gain" in it for the person doing the work? So you want to take our most vital services and create price controls which will lead to shortages. How insane.

I don't understand why Somolia would not be a paradise for you since anyone with money has their property taken from them by force and there are no multinational corporations abusing the workers.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:To use

Jormungander wrote:
To use the Somalian example: your local warlord may be the only thing resembling a government official in your region, but if he oppresses the hell out of you, takes a lot of your money and goods and kills those who resist him, that is still an oppressive government.

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But the thing is

EXC wrote:

But the thing is Somolia is still a potentially great place to live and do business, you just need to have private onclaves where you can be free from having war lords force you to pay tax for services you don't want or need, and religious police.

So you mean you need a protected zone that the richest man in town can't buy with legal tender?

So in other words, public land.

Right?

EXC wrote:


It's all about getting away from people that point a gun at your head and take something for nothing, whether that's armed robbers, war lords or socialists.

Funny how you say war lords or "socialists" EXC. Is War-Lord the new word for "capitalists we here capitalists don't want to associate ourselves with"?  He's just a trader. Ok so he trades in blood, but that's what you can sell for a premium price where he's from.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

No service the public needs should be privatised. It creates a situation that demands a conflict of interest will appear of personal gain vs public welfare.

 

So you think farming, food delivery and grocery stores should all be taken over by the government? How would that grow more food or put more and cheaper food in the grocery store? How does a government take over a health care produce more doctors and nurses and cause inventors and entrepreneurs to create more, better and less expensive cures?

But this is ridiculous because people will only work, invent and invest in new technologies if there is a "personal gain" in it for themselves. How can work ever get done if there is not a "personal gain" in it for the person doing the work? So you want to take our most vital services and create price controls which will lead to shortages. How insane.

 

Farming is heavily subsidized already. Tax money pays for your food. Yes, the stuff you buy in the store. 

 

Just because a government is running the health care system does not mean it has any influence on production of doctors or nurses. That is a red herring and you know it.

 

It also has no bearing on cures. Medicine is a public good, and research today is largely funded as such. This is why I donate to institutes researching respective areas.

 

Your assumptions are ridiculous as usual EXC. No one said personal gain is thrown to the wayside, simply on public matters the public welfare is the priority over it.

 

Inventors and corporations will not suddenly vanish. I do not see how you equate priority of public welfare on public issues, to there being no private industry. 

 

Please think before you start to type. You are wasting your own time, the time of anyone that reads the waste you write, and the time of anyone that responds to it when you post without obviously giving any thought to the matter.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:And precisely

Eloise wrote:

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

 

Guess which nation has the freest economy?

 

Go ahead and guess!

 

 

Yep, Hong Kong

 

 

Look at these nations  with the highest economic freedom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2003-2006

 

We all know that those Icelandic warlords are really causing a fuss!

 

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Eloise wrote:

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

 

Guess which nation has the freest economy?

 

Go ahead and guess!

 

 

Yep, Hong Kong

 

 

Look at these nations  with the highest economic freedom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2003-2006

 

We all know that those Icelandic warlords are really causing a fuss!

 

 

The health care in Iceland is owned by the government. In fact this is true for many of the countries on the list.

 

SOCIALISM! Wait, you mean looking at public services, as public and not private...doesn't impact ECONOMIC FREEDOM?

 

/gasp

 

I feel so lied to.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I guess economic freedom

I guess economic freedom doesn't make people become warlords and steal people's stuff and murder them.

 

Funny that.

 

 

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:And precisely

Eloise wrote:

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

Seriously? I thought I made it clear that libertarianism is not anarchy. We don't want a warlord calling the shots. We want a small, restrained government that affords a high degree of personal and economic freedom. There is a huge difference between a government that takes a light touch when regulating businesses and personal affairs and no government at all. I get it that no government at all means that the strongest get to do whatever the hell they please. Please don't think of libertarians as anarcho-capitalists.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I guess

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I guess economic freedom doesn't make people become warlords and steal people's stuff and murder them.

 

Funny that.

 

 

 

I said nothing of the sort Cap.   What I implied was that removing democracy from power and replacing it with money won't stop others being able to take away your freedom, it will just ensure that those who do are gluttonous and indifferent to the social standard, war lords and over lords and such.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I guess economic freedom doesn't make people become warlords and steal people's stuff and murder them.

 

Funny that.

 

 

 

 

And economic freedom also apparently has nothing to do with libertarianism.

 

 

Funny that.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Eloise

Jormungander wrote:

Eloise wrote:

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

Seriously? I thought I made it clear that libertarianism is not anarchy. We don't want a warlord calling the shots.

What the hell makes you think you'll have any right to decide that unless your representative government is powerful. Seriously?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Eloise

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Eloise wrote:

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

 

Guess which nation has the freest economy?

 

Go ahead and guess!

 

 

Yep, Hong Kong

And Hong Kong has needed to expand it's government invervention over the years to keep it that way.

U.S. State Dept profile of Hong Kong wrote:

In July 2002, the Hong Kong Government implemented the Principal Officials Accountability System, which was designed to make the government more responsive to public concerns. Twelve political appointees, directly responsible to the Chief Executive, run the 12 policy bureaus. Three other senior civil service positions--the Chief Secretary, Financial Secretary, and Justice Secretary--are also filled by political appointments. This system was expanded in 2008 to include one Under Secretary and one Political Assistant position being filled by appointment in each bureau.

....

U.S. companies have a generally favorable view of Hong Kong's business environment, including its legal system and the free flow of information, low taxation, and infrastructure. However, the contracting world economy has affected business sentiment in Hong Kong and the region. The American Chamber of Commerce's annual business outlook survey, released in January 2009, showed only 39% of respondents had a "good" or "satisfactory" outlook for 2009.

Note that:

US State Dept profile of Hong Kong wrote:

The unemployment rate surged to 4.6% in November 2008-January 2009, the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2006. The Hong Kong Government announced it would tap its significant fiscal reserves to fund an economic stimulus package to reinvigorate the economy.

 

And consequently...

US State Dept profile of Hong Kong wrote:

Survey results, however, suggested a positive economic outlook through 2011.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2747.htm

Cpt Pineapple wrote:

Look at these nations  with the highest economic freedom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2003-2006

 

We all know that those Icelandic warlords are really causing a fuss!

Most of the top 5 have extensive social health and welfare programs in place, so....

Capitalist utopias provide short-lived slightly better economic freedom than mixed economies? Not very impressive.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ClockCat

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

No service the public needs should be privatised. It creates a situation that demands a conflict of interest will appear of personal gain vs public welfare.

 

So you think farming, food delivery and grocery stores should all be taken over by the government? How would that grow more food or put more and cheaper food in the grocery store? How does a government take over a health care produce more doctors and nurses and cause inventors and entrepreneurs to create more, better and less expensive cures?

But this is ridiculous because people will only work, invent and invest in new technologies if there is a "personal gain" in it for themselves. How can work ever get done if there is not a "personal gain" in it for the person doing the work? So you want to take our most vital services and create price controls which will lead to shortages. How insane.

I don't understand why Somolia would not be a paradise for you since anyone with money has their property taken from them by force and there are no multinational corporations abusing the workers.

 

No more than current levels. It does irk me that farmers get money to not grow things. Would the "Screw you, farmer. Our company can't use it so let it rot - we're not going to pay you for it" system be that much better?

Now, do you want firefighters to have to consult property value tables to determine whether it's worth diverting manpower and equipment to stop a house from burning? Or police to check the bank records of a burglary victim before they go check out the place? Should paramedics check whether a person can afford to pay up front before they go help?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:No more than

jcgadfly wrote:

No more than current levels. It does irk me that farmers get money to not grow things. Would the "Screw you, farmer. Our company can't use it so let it rot - we're not going to pay you for it" system be that much better?

We have way too many farmers. We could let a some of them go out of business or we could pay them all to farm a bit less. We have chosen to pay them all. So rather than have fewer farmers that each produces a lot of crops, we have a lot of farmers that each produces less crops and subsidies covers the rest in terms of their finances. Another side effect of paying them all to farm less is that food prices are sometimes artificially inflated. One problem that farmers face is that if they all farmed without subsidies being payed to them to limit their yields, then crop prices would drop and food would be more plentiful. I would personally rather have the cheaper food, but instead we pay them to not farm and that artificially decreases the price of some crops. But then other crops have their prices artificially decreased from subsidies so that cheaper South American crops can't easily compete in the US. Subsidies work to mess up all crop pricing either to keep too many farmers employed, or to try and shut out South American crops from our markets.

Basically, I wish we had the 'screw you' system. Some farmers should be out of business but I would rather not have the adverse consequences or cost of subsidizing them to farm less.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:jcgadfly

Jormungander wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

No more than current levels. It does irk me that farmers get money to not grow things. Would the "Screw you, farmer. Our company can't use it so let it rot - we're not going to pay you for it" system be that much better?

We have way too many farmers. We could let a some of them go out of business or we could pay them all to farm a bit less. We have chosen to pay them all. So rather than have fewer farmers that each produces a lot of crops, we have a lot of farmers that each produces less crops and subsidies covers the rest in terms of their finances. Another side effect of paying them all to farm less is that food prices are sometimes artificially inflated. One problem that farmers face is that if they all farmed without subsidies being payed to them to limit their yields, then crop prices would drop and food would be more plentiful. I would personally rather have the cheaper food, but instead we pay them to not farm and that artificially decreases the price of some crops. But then other crops have their prices artificially decreased from subsidies so that cheaper South American crops can't easily compete in the US. Subsidies work to mess up all crop pricing either to keep too many farmers employed, or to try and shut out South American crops from our markets.

Basically, I wish we had the 'screw you' system. Some farmers should be out of business but I would rather not have the adverse consequences or cost of subsidizing them to farm less.

Or just have all the farms be run by the agri-businesses? Frankenfood for everybody?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: And

ClockCat wrote:

 

And economic freedom also apparently has nothing to do with libertarianism.

 

 

Funny that.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom

 

 

Quote:

 

One major approach to economic freedom comes from the libertarian tradition emphasizing free markets and private property,

 


So you just set up a strawman of Libertarian.

 

Funny that.

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

And economic freedom also apparently has nothing to do with libertarianism.

 

 

Funny that.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom

 

 

Quote:

 

One major approach to economic freedom comes from the libertarian tradition emphasizing free markets and private property,

 


So you just set up a strawman of Libertarian.

 

Funny that.

 

Strawman? By no means. While it may be a goal of libertarianism, the method clearly has not seem to work according to the list you provided. Almost all of the most "economically free" nations are far from libertarian.

 

Shouldn't libertarian utopias be dominating that list? Not countries where the government "controls" public services?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The problem with

The problem with Libertarianism is that there is no cohesive internal or external defence against threats that don't utilise Libertarianism. What little defence there is takes too much time to respond effectively. Somalia is an example of how internal forces could usurp local freedoms and power. All a warlord needs to do is organise a group that wants power to begin the process of taking it. First a town, then a county, then the nation. The only defence likely to resist effectively is another warlord, since the government is so limited.
The solution is what Butterbattle said: diffuse power, don't concentrate or belittle it. Democracy as we know it is a step, but it doesn't go far enough. Individuals are still imbued with significantly more power than other individuals. Enter the socialist democracy, where the power of the state is distributed through the electorate. The odd individual will still have to make decisions from time to time, so base those positions on merit and accomplishment, and rotate

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
individuals through those

individuals through those positions as frequently as possible to stop potential enemies to the process from defeating it. Then make those decisions require referendums to add security to the process. Emergencies would obviously have to be responded to faster than such a process would allow, so increase the frequency of rotation when in such a position.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
A libertarian government

A libertarian government would not be so weak as to be helpless from bands of thugs. No part of libertarian ideology requires that a government lack an effective military. I wish that the US military focused more on defending our borders and less on assualting/meddling in the affairs of third world countries.

A relatively small government that affords a relatively high degree of personal and economic freedom to its citzens would still have a defensive military. Come on people. Do you really think that libertarians want a government that can't protect them from thugs or foreign enemies? Some libertarians even advocate what they call a 'night watchmen' government that's primary goal is national defense and protection against violent crime. Where are you people getting your conceptions of libertarianism from? Is there some libertarian wacko making you think that we are all kooks who want to live in anarchy and be helpless to thugs and foreign enemies?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

A libertarian government would not be so weak as to be helpless from bands of thugs. No part of libertarian ideology requires that a government lack an effective military. I wish that the US military focused more on defending our borders and less on assualting/meddling in the affairs of third world countries.

A relatively small government that affords a relatively high degree of personal and economic freedom to its citzens would still have a defensive military. Come on people. Do you really think that libertarians want a government that can't protect them from thugs or foreign enemies? Some libertarians even advocate what they call a 'night watchmen' government that's primary goal is national defense and protection against violent crime. Where are you people getting your conceptions of libertarianism from? Is there some libertarian wacko making you think that we are all kooks who want to live in anarchy and be helpless to thugs and foreign enemies?

 

People that say "privatize everything!" like EXC.

 

Seriously. No public police, military, libraries, roads, schools, health care, postal service, fire departments, etc.

 

Don't have the government involved, leave everything to the free market. 

 

I've outlined obvious problems in this ideology.

 

I'll say it again now: Public services should not be privatized. Doing so causes conflict of interest, between private gain and public welfare.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
So anything that doesn't go

So anything that doesn't go with EXC's view isn't libertarian?

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So anything that doesn't go with EXC's view isn't libertarian?

 

 

 

Not at all. I was simply pointing out an obvious source of craziness, which Jorm asked about.

 

My points still stand. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Jormangunder wrote:Is there


Jormangunder wrote:

Is there some libertarian wacko making you think that we are all kooks who want to live in anarchy and be helpless to thugs and foreign enemies?

Why do you think it's not you who is implying anarchy?

Jormangunder wrote:

weak, small - ok/good

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Seriously. No

ClockCat wrote:

Seriously. No public police, military, libraries, roads, schools, health care, postal service, fire departments, etc.

That is not libertarianism. Are you talking about anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-capitalists want no government and private corporations controlling all services.

I am a libertarian, I have voted for libertarian candidates, I have joined a university libertarian club and I don't recognize the thing that some people here are describing as libertarianism. I'm really sure that I know what libertarianism is and I'm really sure that some people here are really confused as to what libertarians want. This seems to be a criticism of anarchy that incorrectly keeps using the term 'libertarian' rather than 'anarchist'.

No military, no roads, and no police? Sounds like anarchy to me. I refuse to recognize that kind of anarchy as libertarianism. Do I need to (again) define libertarianism? Are we clear about what libertarianism is? Do we get it that anarchy is something unrelated to wanting a relatively small government that affords a relatively high degree of personal and economic freedom?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander, the critical

Jormungander, the critical flaw in your response is that if the military is more powerful than the government, there's nothing to prevent the military from taking over itself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Why do you

Eloise wrote:


Why do you think it's not you who is implying anarchy?

Jormangunder wrote:

weak, small - ok/good

Well, I'm pretty sure that I'm not implying a desire for anarchy and I think that you should extend that quote of mine a bit to see where I rate anarchy:

Jormangunder wrote:

moderate power, moderate size - ok, but not great

weak, moderate size - ok/good

powerful, small - bad

moderate power, small - ok/good

weak, small - ok/good

powerless, non-existent - bad/terrible

I would be comfortable with a moderately sized government with little power and I would be comfortable with a small government that had a moderate degree of power. Is that implying a desire for no government at all (anarchy)?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India