Can the Libertarian party or policies ever work?

EgoffTib said:

Okay, so why do you feel that free market is not a good thing?

Click to expand...

No offense, but that is kinda a loaded question. I think most of us here support a free market, with the question being how free.

EgoffTib said:

Okay, so why do you feel that free market is not a good thing?

Click to expand...

The notion that there should be miniscule government intervention in a free market economy makes me wonder what libertarians think about unethical activity like corporatism, living wage, working conditions, et al

Gipper said:

Thus explains the hyper-liberal view. Anything that disallows you to whine to a bloated bureaucracy when anything happens to you is anarchist. Under a true libertarian state, welfare would still exist (although greatly reformed), public funds would still exist, taxes would still exist, and many other programs. You just wouldn't see a bunch of helpless idiots clamoring for the state to bail them out of a myriad of self-created problems. Teach a man to fish and you make a libertarian. Give a man a fish and you create a socialist.

Click to expand...

Depending what sort of reformed welfare you're talking about, a lot of these "helpless idiots" would not be so because of "a myriad of self-created problems". I mean, how easy is it to make a living out there if you have no formal education and your mother is on welfare? That's certainly not a self-created problem, and even if you undertook to educate yourself (if it's even possible for people in such awful conditions), tough luck getting anybody to believe that you know as much as the college grad next door.

In a nutshell, you can't really break the cycle of poverty without government intervention--history has shown it won't happen on its own. Does your version of welfare deal with this?

Z3n said:

lol

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

you deny that people in America are far less self reliant that say 150 years ago and that the creeping crud of welfare-socialism has caused that?

America became the greatest nation in the world without a New Deal, a progressive income tax or death confiscation taxes. Gun control was rare and there was no department of education

Z3n said:

The notion that there should be miniscule government intervention in a free market economy makes me wonder what libertarians think about unethical activity like corporatism, living wage, working conditions, et al

Click to expand...

Living wage always cracks me up

labor is a commodity. when american companies have to pay more for the same quality commodity than do other companies, our corporations are at a competitive disadvantage. Jobs are nothing more than a corporation obtaining the commodity of labor. when you start applying feel good factors to that transaction, things start getting screwed up

Contemporary Americans, on the whole, have a different conception of "Government that works" from libertarians.

EgoffTib said:

Okay, so why do you feel that free market is not a good thing?

Click to expand...

People who do not compete well in a free market tend not to like it. People who think that they can become richer in a government controlled market (people who are rich because of the government rather than despite it) tend not to like a free market

Most importantly, those who think they are smarter than the rate that the free market compensates them at tend to dislike the free market.

TurtleDude said:

People who do not compete well in a free market tend not to like it. People who think that they can become richer in a government controlled market (people who are rich because of the government rather than despite it) tend not to like a free market

Most importantly, those who think they are smarter than the rate that the free market compensates them at tend to dislike the free market.

Click to expand...

Why is it that people who think they are smarter than every one else always say the stupidest things. Almost no one is opposed to free market capitalism. Almost no one is opposed to some level of regulation on industry. Almost every one falls well between the two extremes.

Chappy said:

I am always impressed on how intelligent and well informed and idealistic Libertarians are. In my opinion Libertarianism is inhuman; there is no compassion for the human experience within the political philosophy. That's it in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

I agree. I have debated with a few very pure libertarians and their inhumanity is stunning. However, though it gave me no pleasure, I did take note of one of them pleading for well wishes and prayers when his daughter's health was threatened, though before that point, he didn't bother to offer the same when others posted of their dire problems. I know this anecdotal and I have no problem with anyone casting it aside for that reason, but as that has been my interaction with libertarians, it colors my opinions on them. What it basically came down to for the group of them is, I have mine, everyone else can screw off.

samsmart said:

And there's good reason for this. The sole purpose of a business is to provide a service with the greatest profit. That can be unhealthy and lead to a lot of bad business practices. Who can the people go to for that? Other businesses may not work. So they use the power of law.

Click to expand...

A good example of unhealthy practice is the the mining disaster in W. Virginia. The owner of that mind was caught in a memo telling his people:

“In February, the Associated Press reported that Don Blankenship wrote a memo “telling supervisors that ‘coal pays the bills’ . . . In the memo, dated Oct. 19, Blankenship tells the company’s deep mine superintendents that running coal is the top priority in the mines. ‘If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (i.e. build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal. This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that the coal pays the bills,’ Blankenship wrote in the memo, the Appalachian News-Express reported Friday.’

Click to expand...

Casey speaks against Blankenship

There are rules and government involved in coal mining, but there seem to be enough loopholes to allow Blankenship to operate in an unsafe manner. Imagine if there wasn't any at all.

megaprogman said:

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.)

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.

Click to expand...

China is a good example of business without government safeguards. They are destroying their environment and injuring the health of their people because they have little if any regulation.

According to the World Bank, 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities are in China. The industrial revolution transforming the world's most populous country is also destroying its environment. China is now the world's second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the main gas linked to global warming, and it is set to overtake the United States in 2009, a decade earlier than previously predicted.

Click to expand...

Air Pollution Grows in Tandem with China's Economy : NPR

Greed overcame the thought of killing babies.

The Chinese authorities have confirmed that the tainted baby formula was laced with melamine, a chemical additive sometimes used to make plastics and fertilizer. Last year, after thousands of pets became ill in the United States, the same chemical was found in pet food and traced to a Chinese ingredient

Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/world/asia/16milk.html

Gipper said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are a rarity. I know of no other Libertarian who thinks food stamps are a good thing.

Gipper said:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

China is a very valid comparison, as megaprogman demonstrated in his reply to this, but I wanted to re-iterate the point. China has little to no regulation (see above for examples). When something is found to be dangerous, they tend to try a cover up.

Chinese regulators have repeatedly failed to detect food safety problems in a timely manner. Moreover, despite ample evidence that secrecy tends to compound safety problems, companies and local officials still appear determined to minimize or cover up problems in the food supply rather than alert the public.[/uote] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/world/asia/16milk.html

I fail to see how libertarianism would encourage more people to follow rules to succeed (what rules are libertarians in favor of anyway) when people are free to follow the rules now. Yet people still try to ignore law to increase profits. It's regulation like the FDA that keeps us safe from the immoral and the greedy before they have the chance to harm us.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

Living wage always cracks me up

labor is a commodity. when american companies have to pay more for the same quality commodity than do other companies, our corporations are at a competitive disadvantage. Jobs are nothing more than a corporation obtaining the commodity of labor. when you start applying feel good factors to that transaction, things start getting screwed up

Click to expand...

We're talking about people being able to feed and clothe themselves not some profit margin. It's a very annoying reality that people dont realize that people need a certain amount of money to make ends meet on

Gina said:

China is a very valid comparison, as megaprogman demonstrated in his reply to this, but I wanted to re-iterate the point. China has little to no regulation (see above for examples). When something is found to be dangerous, they tend to try a cover up.

Click to expand...

Oh for the love of God. That has infinitely more to do with China's corruption and not their desire of deregulation. You don't think authoritarian states have similar situations? Hell, they have worse. On one side you have people poisoned, but at least if they report it they're not "erased" by a ruthless Stasi or KGB.

There are so many people who are envisioning an anarcho-capitalist society when they are posting. Stop it. Now.

I think this topic has proven how many things people don't understand at all.
That is why libertarians can't make it to the polls.

People think an ideology can be wrapped up in a nice neat little package.

Gipper said:

Oh for the love of God. That has infinitely more to do with China's corruption and not their desire of deregulation. You don't think authoritarian states have similar situations? Hell, they have worse. On one side you have people poisoned, but at least if they report it they're not "erased" by a ruthless Stasi or KGB.

There are so many people who are envisioning an anarcho-capitalist society when they are posting. Stop it. Now.

Click to expand...

Whatever the motivation ineffective or lack of regulation, the fact remains, they don't have it and companies are exploiting it for profit. Which was the point of megaprogman's post.

Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
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.

Click to expand...

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.

Chappy said:

For me, Haiti is the Libertarian ideal: a place where there are no building standards, no zoning policies, no government regulation of any sort. It is the true laissez faire society.

The greatest catastrophe in modern times, at least in terms of percentage of population killed, was the recent earthquake in Haiti. Even the Governor's mansion was so ill constructed that it collapsed.

Whereas Chile had a far more severe earthquake a few weeks later and the death toll it experienced in comparison to Haiti's was minuscule. The difference? Government regulation in the form of building codes, zoning codes, inspections, etc., etc.

Click to expand...

Let's ignore the fact that most Libertarians aren't against all government regulation such as building codes. Again Libertarian doesn't mean Anarcho-Capitalist.

Why does Haiti have no building codes to begin with? Obviously it is a very poor state where people can't really afford up to code buildings. Why is it poor? Because of a corrupt government, you can't really start a business in Haiti or many developing countries without friends in the government. It is a bloated government, not a failure of capitalism that caused Haiti's poverty.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Let's ignore the fact that most Libertarians aren't against all government regulation such as building codes. Again Libertarian doesn't mean Anarcho-Capitalist.

Why does Haiti have no building codes to begin with? Obviously it is a very poor state where people can't really afford up to code buildings. Why is it poor? Because of a corrupt government, you can't really start a business in Haiti or many developing countries without friends in the government. It is a bloated government, not a failure of capitalism that caused Haiti's poverty.

Click to expand...

Stop, you're destroying their simplistic understanding of a political philosophy.

Gipper said:

People who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Click to expand...

Meh, useless quote.

Gipper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ahh now you are going to extremes and showing how absurd it is. And I agree, the extreme is absurd. But, as I typed in an earlier post, I think there is too much regulation at times. So this means you are misrepresenting my stance. (Look here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...arty-policies-ever-work-7.html#post1058680361 )

Gipper said:

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...

More going to extremes in an attempt to show absurdity.

It just comes down to a difference in mentality. The far left are a bunch of spineless bed-wetters who are afraid to sink and swim on their own, so they need a nanny government to come in and hold their hands. Libertarians just want to be left alone by big government and social parasites. Of course, the welfare statists will kick and scream before they stop sticking their hands in the wallets of independent-minded, self-reliant Americans.

Gander said:

It just comes down to a difference in mentality.

Click to expand...

True.

Gander said:

The far left are a bunch of spineless bed-wetters who are afraid to sink and swim on their own, so they need a nanny government to come in and hold their hands. Libertarians just want to be left alone by big government and social parasites. Of course, the welfare statists will kick and scream before they stop sticking their hands in the wallets of independent-minded, self-reliant Americans.

Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion.

megaprogman said:

True.



Appeal to emotion.

Click to expand...

It's an appeal to reality. The far-left are afraid of their own shadows. They think the world will come crashing down if we start reducing the size of the Federal government.

Gander said:

It's an appeal to reality. The far-left are afraid of their own shadows. They think the world will come crashing down if we start reducing the size of the Federal government.

Click to expand...

Strawman. :lol:

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.

megaprogman said:

Strawman. :lol:

Click to expand...

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

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...

A scale like that would make you *gasp* left wing. :2razz:

Gipper said:

I don't find libertarianism to be that extreme.

Click to expand...

That's not the extreme I was pointing out. I was pointing out the extreme in the idea that nonlibertarians want to regulate everything. Which is not the case.

Gipper said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think there should be enough regulation to protect from obviously harmful things and common dangers. The stuff that happens once in a blue moon should probably be handled in another manner, unless it is something catastrophic. I am pretty sure most people feel this way. However different people have different perspectives, so the threshold for appropriate regulation is different for each individual. I am not sure how I would rate it on a scale because it depends on circumstances for each individual case.

Gipper said:

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...

At one point you say you want people's basic needs taken care of and now you say you are a Social Darwinist. Which one are you?