Yes of course but first we need to become more known.
Yes but we will never get elected.
No and I'm damn glad of it.
No because we will never get well known/enough votes.
Help me out and tell me how that pertains to libertarianism, please. Are you under the assumption that libertarianism means everyone obeys the law or are not punished accordingly for times they don't? Or that other systems provide methods to ameliorating hunger for any reason? "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" was a famous quote...by Vladimir Lenin. I think it's safe to assume he wasn't libertarian.Originally Posted by megaprogman
I disagree. All economic and political philosophies would hope and work on the assumption that people are innately moral outside of fascist and totalitarian regimes that rule through oppression and fear. I would condone a federal, state, and local police system much like it is now, with minor cutbacks. For instance, I would prefer that cops who focus more on who is or is not wearing a seat belt get laid off before a cop who focuses more on someone's house getting robbed or getting shot at. Also, with the decriminalization of many illicit drugs (or marijuana at the bare minimum), a smaller police force would be ideal since they don't have to "sweat the small stuff".Libertarianism relies on the existence of rules that are basically set in stone, such as the idea of natural rights, and relies on the idea that people would have to be innately moral (in terms of how a libertarian views morality) since we would have a simple government that does not do very much. However, history has shown that people will commit all sorts of evil to get what they want, whether it is through intimidate, exploitation, theft, etc. Libertarian government is very minimalist and would not present enough of a deterrent against the worse sides of our nature. Sure we would have law enforcement, but it wouldn't protect against even simple things like people putting poisonous substances in our food in order to turn a quick profit. And by the time action was brought against whatever company did that, people would already be dead, as happened in China recently with their pet food problem (they are not a libertarian government, but they have very loose controls over this sort of thing, so there is a similarity.)
Libertarian government does not remove culpability at any level. If the "pet food" thing happened in a minarchist government, they would be appropriately punished because they broke the law, which would be unchanged.
Well, if people are immoral, they are punished. Nothing wrong with that.In short, I think a purely libertarian government would not last long in a pure state and it would result in a lot of injury and death as people are as inherently immoral as they are moral.
I am not saying that libertarian ideas are bad, in fact on an individual level they are excellent, but I do think they need to be balanced with other ideologies to be workable society wide.
Oh, and FYI - every time you link wikipedia, you become that much more insignificant. Just thought I'd tell you now.
No political movement who has birthers, truthers and college students in the same room agreeing on so much **** could ever hope to get policies that the rest of this country would agree with. To most people Libertarians are that relative who says random crazy **** every once in a while, we all nod to and then get back to our dinner while they tell us how we're all sheep for eating meatloaf.
Last edited by Hatuey; 04-11-10 at 02:35 PM.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
This is why regulation (which is a type of enforcement) is necessary. I have no problem with the existence of the Police, FBI, etc, but my point was that if they were the only type of law enforcement then we would be in a lot of trouble since a person is not capable of being responsible for everything and researching every possible thing they buy. There just aren't enough hours in the day. Society is too complex and we need help.
Last edited by tacomancer; 04-11-10 at 02:46 PM.
I also don't trust the libertarians to restrict corporate powers or not cave to the power of lobbying. Power corrupts and I don't think they are immune to it.
Food stamps and welfare, I would hope, would not be completely eliminated in a libertarian society. However, you'd just see far less of it. In addition, a working philosophy in libertarianism is that when you reduce taxes on the populace, private charity would increase and that would take some of the hole left behind. So yeah, you could argue that libertarianism operates under a somewhat moral backing, chiefly in the reason that people will "do the right thing" to a small extent with their money when they are not choked by the wallet every time a dependent bureaucracy decides to squeeze the last dollar from you. I don't give now, but if I was given a tax break I'd be more inclined to do so.Originally Posted by megaprogman
First of all, you'd lose me on the FDA argument because of their policies. As of today, because of the FDA's philosophies and enforcements, it costs almost a trillion (that's trillion with a TR) dollars to license a drug for distribution. Much of that is pretty much wasted money.Yes, they would be punished after the harm was done. As happened in China. However, without an agency such as the FDA, which prevents a lot of the harm from happening in the first place, injury or death would have to occur first. With companies the size of Kraft or General Mills, that could be a huge amount of harm done.
This is why regulation (which is a type of enforcement) is necessary. I have no problem with the existence of the Police, FBI, etc, but my point was that if they were the only type of law enforcement then we would be in a lot of trouble since a person is not capable of being responsible for everything and researching every possible thing they buy. They just aren't enough hours in the day. Society is too complex and we need help.
That aside, corporations are like humans insofar that they are falliable. If a company did that, you could assume that it was the last thing they ever do, and that's not how you run a business.
Also, comparing China to libertarianism practices would not be wise. That's not apples to oranges, that's apples to Buicks.
Libertarianism elevates those who succeed through the rules. Breaking the rules is a quick way to find yourself destitute. Sometimes money is all the moral compass you need.
Last edited by tacomancer; 04-11-10 at 02:59 PM.