Can the Libertarian party or policies ever work?

Gipper said:

I don't find libertarianism to be that extreme. There are still plenty of regulations...just not nearly as many as now. Let me put this on a scale of 1 to 10. If 1 meant martial law akin to the "wild, wild west" and 10 to be a living embodiment of 1984, I'd want about a 3. Enough to keep the status quo, make sure people's basic needs are taken care of and that laws are met and adhered to, but far from a state that needs to be in your life with unnecessary concerns. And as a self-avowed social Darwinist, if that means the weakest link can't keep up, so be it. A stable, prosperous society is well worth the price of a few pukes who can't make it or, most likely, don't want to try to the point of making it.

Click to expand...

And where would you say we currently find ourselves on your scale?

Gander said:

Strawman? I wasn't even arguing with anyone, just giving my opinion.

Click to expand...

You were still casting liberals to be a certain thing and then bashing that thing down.

And where would you say we currently find ourselves on your scale?

Click to expand...

During Reagan, 3 1/2. During Bush, 5. During Obama, 6 1/2.

European nations range from 5 to 8.

Gipper said:

During Reagan, 3 1/2. During Bush, 5. During Obama, 6 1/2.

European nations range from 5 to 8.

Click to expand...

That much variation?? What about Clinton? What is the source of the variation?

More than Reagan, less than Bush. Generally, after Carter the number gets progressively higher.

Clinton is a little higher on the domestic scale, but he was damn near a 1 in foreign policy, which was fine by me. I wish Clinton could run American foreign policy for the next hundred years.

Gipper said:

People who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. When we can create a society that allows for zero or near-zero instances like you two mentioned and not be an oppressive, totalitarian police-state, I'll jump on board. However, I'm not going to live like an automaton as a trade-off for absolute certainty that the big, bad, evil corporation is going to slip arsenic in my Manwich.

Click to expand...

That's extreme. We have nothing akin to a totalitarian police state in this country. I agree with megaprogman, the FDA has gone too far in some instances, it is not perfect, but it is hardly totalitarian. Look at the drugs that made it through and were then pulled from the market.

1. Vioxx - I'm sure you're familiar with this infamous anti-inflammatory. Merck had to pull Vioxx off the global market in 2004 after a clinical study demonstrated that it significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular "events" such as heart attacks and strokes.

2. Bextra - Like Vioxx, this prescription painkiller caused an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Pfizer pulled it off the market in the U.S. a year after the Vioxx fiasco in 2005.

3. Cylert - Abbott pulled the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) drug off the U.S. market in 2005 after the FDA discovered 13 cases of liver failure. Turns out that Cylert patients have as much as a 25 percent higher rate of liver failure compared to the general population.

4. Baycol - This cholesterol-lowering drug caused users to suffer from a much higher rate of rhabdomyolysis, a debilitating muscle ailment that can be fatal. There were 31 reported deaths that were directly linked to Baycol, and it was yanked off the market in the U.S. in 2001.

5. Palladone - This slow-release narcotic painkiller by Purdue Pharma was pulled off the market in the U.S. in 2005 because it was found to cause side effects like depression and even coma when mixed with alcohol.

Merck knew of the risks of Vioxx in 2000, yet it wasn't pulled until 2004. Human nature came into play. They covered it up and tried to reformulate.

If the FDS were totalitarian, this would not have happened.

Gipper said:

I don't find libertarianism to be that extreme. There are still plenty of regulations...just not nearly as many as now. Let me put this on a scale of 1 to 10. If 1 meant martial law akin to the "wild, wild west" and 10 to be a living embodiment of 1984, I'd want about a 3. Enough to keep the status quo, make sure people's basic needs are taken care of and that laws are met and adhered to, but far from a state that needs to be in your life with unnecessary concerns. And as a self-avowed social Darwinist, if that means the weakest link can't keep up, so be it. A stable, prosperous society is well worth the price of a few pukes who can't make it or, most likely, don't want to try to the point of making it.

Click to expand...

I'm curious about how much regulation you are talking about? As I noted in a previous post, I have had many debates with libertarians and when it came to regulation, they wanted none whatsoever. Anecdotal, I know, but could you explain what you are comfortable with?

Environmental?
Banking/Financial?
Food?
Consumer Protection?

Gipper said:

More than Reagan, less than Bush. Generally, after Carter the number gets progressively higher.

Clinton is a little higher on the domestic scale, but he was damn near a 1 in foreign policy, which was fine by me. I wish Clinton could run American foreign policy for the next hundred years.

Click to expand...

I am not cracking into foreign policy, because we will disagree pretty strongly and it is off topic.

By why the range from 3.5 to 6.5 in 30 years? Has regulation increased so much or is it a perceived shift in entitlement mentality or something?

Gina said:

That's extreme. We have nothing akin to a totalitarian police state in this country. I agree with megaprogman, the FDA has gone too far in some instances, it is not perfect, but it is hardly totalitarian. Look at the drugs that made it through and were then pulled from the market.

1. Vioxx - I'm sure you're familiar with this infamous anti-inflammatory. Merck had to pull Vioxx off the global market in 2004 after a clinical study demonstrated that it significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular "events" such as heart attacks and strokes.

2. Bextra - Like Vioxx, this prescription painkiller caused an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Pfizer pulled it off the market in the U.S. a year after the Vioxx fiasco in 2005.

3. Cylert - Abbott pulled the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) drug off the U.S. market in 2005 after the FDA discovered 13 cases of liver failure. Turns out that Cylert patients have as much as a 25 percent higher rate of liver failure compared to the general population.

4. Baycol - This cholesterol-lowering drug caused users to suffer from a much higher rate of rhabdomyolysis, a debilitating muscle ailment that can be fatal. There were 31 reported deaths that were directly linked to Baycol, and it was yanked off the market in the U.S. in 2001.

5. Palladone - This slow-release narcotic painkiller by Purdue Pharma was pulled off the market in the U.S. in 2005 because it was found to cause side effects like depression and even coma when mixed with alcohol.

Merck knew of the risks of Vioxx in 2000, yet it wasn't pulled until 2004. Human nature came into play. They covered it up and tried to reformulate.

If the FDS were totalitarian, this would not have happened.

Click to expand...

Why weren't the people who covered up the information prosecuted?
The FDA serves as a protection arm for pharmaceutical companies.
Laws have been specifically crafted to allow corporations to avoid prosecution and instead they pay a fine or are sued in civil court.

What would of happened if an individual not in a corporation did those things?
They would be in jail right now.

When many libertarians talk about less regulation, we are talking about ending special rules for these companies.

Corporations love regulations.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Why weren't the people who covered up the information prosecuted?
The FDA serves as a protection arm for pharmaceutical companies.
Laws have been specifically crafted to allow corporations to avoid prosecution and instead they pay a fine or are sued in civil court.

What would of happened if an individual not in a corporation did those things?
They would be in jail right now.

When many libertarians talk about less regulation, we are talking about ending special rules for these companies.

Corporations love regulations.

Click to expand...

I agree that corporate personhood should be abolished. However, how many more deaths and injuries would have happened if we had to wait for a company to finish a trial before these things were pulled off the shelf? Which is what would happen if we did not have a regulatory agency.

megaprogman said:

I agree that corporate personhood should be abolished. However, how many more deaths and injuries would have happened if we had to wait for a company to finish a trial before these things were pulled off the shelf? Which is what would happen if we did not have a regulatory agency.

Click to expand...

It's a zero sum game then, I have more examples of regulations benefiting corporations more than the consumer.
Toys, environment, finance, the list goes on and on.

Until people separate what politicians say a bill does and actually read what it does, we will continue to regulate endlessly.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Why weren't the people who covered up the information prosecuted?
The FDA serves as a protection arm for pharmaceutical companies.
Laws have been specifically crafted to allow corporations to avoid prosecution and instead they pay a fine or are sued in civil court.

What would of happened if an individual not in a corporation did those things?
They would be in jail right now.

When many libertarians talk about less regulation, we are talking about ending special rules for these companies.

Corporations love regulations.

Click to expand...

Megaprogman covered it, but I too would like to see corporations stripped of those protections. It should be a criminal matter if someone hides information that results in the death of Americans. Under your premise, the FDA is not a totalitarian entity? I hope under Obama the FDA gets some teeth back into their enforcement.

So I will ask you the same question, what regulation are you in favor of?

Environmental?
Banking/Financial?
Food?
Consumer Protection?

Rightwing86 said:

Also if a libertarian could explain to me what the parties position is on going after terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? Would this mean going after the Saudi's since that is where most of them were from? Or would we just sit back and tighten our own borders in hopes of preventing them from attacking us here? I know the Iraq and Afganistan war is not supported at least according to our libertarian homepage. I also know that certain libertarians are split on the war in Afgahnistan not Iraq.
..............

I also know that we only had .5 percent of the Nations vote. Is it even remotely possible we will ever win? Or see our policies take effect? Even in the likes of someone like Ron Paul running as a repub? Anyone know how many votes he garnered? Sometimes it is very depressing to be the minority. Makes me feel hopeless.

Click to expand...

They could work, but only after the nation undergoes a crisis of proportions that would prevent the government from continuing bailouts for everyone from the poor end of the spectrum to the large corporations. As long as government is giving money in exchange for votes and power, we cannot win as Libertarians. Iow, everyone needs to grow up and live in reality. That won't happen anytime soon imo.

My stance on war (any war) is a defensive position. Defend the borders and pick up arms only if we are attacked here (by a legitimate fighting force- not a vague group of "terrorists". Stay out of the political and economic affairs of foreign nations. Be their friend, do business, but do not meddle.

Gipper said:

I don't find libertarianism to be that extreme. There are still plenty of regulations...just not nearly as many as now. Let me put this on a scale of 1 to 10. If 1 meant martial law akin to the "wild, wild west" and 10 to be a living embodiment of 1984, I'd want about a 3. Enough to keep the status quo, make sure people's basic needs are taken care of and that laws are met and adhered to, but far from a state that needs to be in your life with unnecessary concerns. And as a self-avowed social Darwinist, if that means the weakest link can't keep up, so be it. A stable, prosperous society is well worth the price of a few pukes who can't make it or, most likely, don't want to try to the point of making it.

Click to expand...

Excellent post! Thanks!

Gina said:

Megaprogman covered it, but I too would like to see corporations stripped of those protections. It should be a criminal matter if someone hides information that results in the death of Americans. Under your premise, the FDA is not a totalitarian entity? I hope under Obama the FDA gets some teeth back into their enforcement.

So I will ask you the same question, what regulation are you in favor of?

Click to expand...

I think your first misunderstanding is that any president or politician wants to practice restrictive regulation.
Don't be fooled by rhetoric, when any politician wants more "regulation" it usually means that the industry getting regulated, gets to help write the bills.

Gina said:

Environmental?

Click to expand...

Property crime laws already exist.
Why don't they apply those to polluters?

Gina said:

Banking/Financial?

Click to expand...

Anti fraud laws exist already as well as restrictions on leverage.
Why don't they enforce those?

Gina said:

Food?

Click to expand...

Why doesn't the government prosecute companies that willfully commit negligent manslaughter and similar crimes?

Gina said:

Consumer Protection?

Click to expand...

All of the above already exist but no one in power wants to enforce the law against corporations.
In most cases, I'm more strict on people(corporations) than any extra regulations.

Something isn't right.
It's the double standard against regular people and in favor of corporations.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

… you can't really start a business in Haiti …

Click to expand...

Your claim that Haiti is poor because “you can't really start a business” is to badly misunderstand Haiti and its problems; indeed Haiti is brimming with entrepreneurs. Check out the video at the link below:

Excerpted from “Haitian Entrepreneurs Build Micro-Economies in Tent City,” Transcript, Correspondent ADAM DAVIDSON, NPR's "Planet Money," NPR's "Newshour," AIR DATE: March 29, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]W[/SIZE]ithin days of the earthquake, these quickly whipped-together tent cities became much more like real cities, churches, community centers, and business, lots and lots of business.

I'm an economics reporter. And, reporting in Port-au-Prince after the earthquake, I wanted to understand how rich and complex the business life of these tent cities had become. …

Click to expand...

Suffice it to say, the business life was thriving once again despite the lack of banking and electricity.

I rather think Haiti is Libertarianism taken to the nth degree and the outcome is dangerous and, of late, quite deadly.

Z3n said:

lol

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

When are you going to present an intelligent response to someone posts, instead of making a joke out of the thread?

American said:

When are you going to present an intelligent response to someone posts, instead of making a joke out of the thread?

Click to expand...

I see what you did there....

Chappy said:

Your claim that Haiti is poor because “you can't really start a business” is to badly misunderstand Haiti and its problems; indeed Haiti is brimming with entrepreneurs. Check out the video at the link below:



Suffice it to say, the business life was thriving once again despite the lack of banking and electricity.

I rather think Haiti is Libertarianism taken to the nth degree and the outcome is dangerous and, of late, quite deadly.

Click to expand...

Of course people will always find ways to get by in these conditions. There was a thriving black market in the USSR. That doesn't make Haiti remotely capitalist.

http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2010/countries/haiti.pdf

Harry Guerrilla said:

I think your first misunderstanding is that any president or politician wants to practice restrictive regulation.
Don't be fooled by rhetoric, when any politician wants more "regulation" it usually means that the industry getting regulated, gets to help write the bills.



Property crime laws already exist.
Why don't they apply those to polluters?



Anti fraud laws exist already as well as restrictions on leverage.
Why don't they enforce those?



Why doesn't the government prosecute companies that willfully commit negligent manslaughter and similar crimes?



All of the above already exist but no one in power wants to enforce the law against corporations.
In most cases, I'm more strict on people(corporations) than any extra regulations.

Something isn't right.
It's the double standard against regular people and in favor of corporations.

Click to expand...

With the exception of "In most cases, I'm more strict on people(corporations) than any extra regulations." none of that answers my question to you. So I will ask it again:

So I will ask you the same question, what regulation are you in favor of?

Environmental?
Banking/Financial?
Food?
Consumer Protection

That it exists already does not mean you favor it.

Environmental?

Click to expand...

EPA at a reduced level, and pollution credits traded on an open market.

Banking/Financial?

Click to expand...

FDIC, and elimination of 95% of corporate welfare going on at this point in time.

Food?

Click to expand...

USDA (remove FDA) and expand them slightly to account for a larger variety of products.

Consumer Protection

Click to expand...

None. Private consumer watchdog groups (maybe a VERY limited BBB).

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Of course people will always find ways to get by in these conditions. There was a thriving black market in the USSR. That doesn't make Haiti remotely capitalist.

http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2010/countries/haiti.pdf

Click to expand...

Is this thread about capitalism or is it about Libertarianism?

And, look at why the Heritage Institute marks down Haiti! Its government is totally ineffective and corrupt. Well nobody's perfect. It takes 195 days to get a business license? Who the **** needs a ****ing business license? No private property rights enforcement? Boo hoo! Possession is nine tenths of the law. No international finance? Hey, I got your international finance right here!

Badges? Libertarianism don't need no stinking badges!

Chappy said:

Is this thread about capitalism or is it about Libertarianism?

Click to expand...

I thought that capitalism was a big part of American style Libertarianism.

Chappy said:

And, look at why the Heritage Institute marks down Haiti! Its government is totally ineffective and corrupt. Well nobody's perfect. It takes 195 days to get a business license? Who the **** needs a ****ing business license? No private property rights enforcement? Boo hoo! Possession is nine tenths of the law. No international finance? Hey, I got your international finance right here!

Click to expand...

Well it's kind of hard to have a business if you can't have it legally. The black market isn't exactly welcoming to newcomers.

Chappy said:

Badges? Libertarianism don't need no stinking badges!

Click to expand...

?

DrunkenAsparagus said:

I thought that capitalism was a big part of American style Libertarianism? …

Click to expand...

Are you asking me? Help me to understand how Libertarianism relates to capitalism.

Gina said:

With the exception of "In most cases, I'm more strict on people(corporations) than any extra regulations." none of that answers my question to you. So I will ask it again:

So I will ask you the same question, what regulation are you in favor of?

Environmental?
Banking/Financial?
Food?
Consumer Protection

That it exists already does not mean you favor it.

Click to expand...

I do favor the regulations that make sense.

There are some that are crafted to exclude small competitors in favor of existing corporations through compliance costs and exemptions.

Capitalism requires a legal construct to work correctly, it requires that the law be unbiased.

Regulations written today do not do that.
They are usually fluff(to appeal to you and me) or purposefully exclusionary.

Chappy said:

Are you asking me? Help me to understand how Libertarianism relates to capitalism.

Click to expand...

Is this a serious request? You honestly don't know how capitalism relates to libertarianism?