• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can the Libertarian party or policies ever work?

Should/Can libertarianism work?

  • Yes of course but first we need to become more known.

    Votes: 18 31.6%
  • Yes but we will never get elected.

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • No and I'm damn glad of it.

    Votes: 27 47.4%
  • No because we will never get well known/enough votes.

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Total voters
    57
Bingo. The oh-so-wonderful "private sector" drives our World Economy off a cliff, creates ecological disasters that might NEVER be overcome, SCREAMS to be bailed out by us when PROVED to be absolutely WRONG and then thumbs their nose at us and STEALS even more...

... the "private sector" and the teabaggers... proven losers.

Greece...the US federal government in a 13.5 trillion dollar hole and counting. Social spending out of control. Cities and even states declaring bankruptcy...Im sorry...I cant stop laughing...at...well...you...actually. Losers...really...losers? :rofl:lol::rofl
 
This is why I can't take libertarians seriously. They live in some sort of Bizarro World where if the government were not involved then things would be perfect and we'd all be holding hands and singing about peace love and understanding.

BTW...you REALLY dont understand ANYTHING about libertarian ideals do you. While politically there is a lot to be desired (which you may have seen here..I get called out on because I espouse some radical NON Libertarian ideals that MIGHT actually make the party politically viable...)

But since you didnt at all address what I actually SAID...let me clue you in. Oh...I have no doubt it will have no impact on YOU...but...here goes...

libertarians dont believe in NO government...they believe in constitutional government. They believe in appropriate LEVELS of federal, state, and local government. And bytheway...they probably believe much the same as you...for example...

The federal government should be allowed to dictate reproductive decisions. Right?

The government SHOULD be jailing people for drug use. Right?

The federal government SHOULD be monitoring your phone calls...emails...anything sent via the US postal service... Right?

See...at heart...MOST people are libertartians. But the hypocrites...they WANT federal government involvement when it involves freesources...taking from someone else and giving to them.

No one is suggesting no laws. No one is suggesting repeal of civil rights laws. All Rand Paul suggested and all I have indicated is that a more healthy, more effective, swifter, change would have occured without federal forced coersion.
 
There is no such thing as "mainstream American Libertarians."

We're weird; that doesn't mean that anymore than a tiny percentage of American Libertarians support no government.
 
There is no such thing as "mainstream American Libertarians."


Actually there are. Every American who lives their day to day life by the maxims of "minding their own business" and "taking care of their own", who doesn't go out of their way to tell their neighbor what to do or how to live, is a libertarian at heart... most of them just haven't realized it yet.
 
Actually there are. Every American who lives their day to day life by the maxims of "minding their own business" and "taking care of their own", who doesn't go out of their way to tell their neighbor what to do or how to live, is a libertarian at heart... most of them just haven't realized it yet.

And the mainstream criticism against libertarians follows: Minding to your own business precludes the notion that you are selfish and cannot be trusted to voluntarily contribute to the worse off in society. It's unfortunate but it's true that such a stigma has arisen out of a relatively harmless philosophy( that I somewhat identify with)
 
And the mainstream criticism against libertarians follows: Minding to your own business precludes the notion that you are selfish and cannot be trusted to voluntarily contribute to the worse off in society. It's unfortunate but it's true that such a stigma has arisen out of a relatively harmless philosophy( that I somewhat identify with)

I assert that there is a huge difference between minding one's own business and taking care of one's own, and an aversion to charity.

Minding your own business doesn't mean you ignore a 4yo wandering around in the road. It doesn't mean that if you know someone who is in need, that you might not offer such help as you are able and willing to give, if you think that is the appropriate response.

It is coerced charity (an oxymoron if ever was one!) that most libertarians find objectionable (ie gov't welfare).
 
And the mainstream criticism against libertarians follows: Minding to your own business precludes the notion that you are selfish and cannot be trusted to voluntarily contribute to the worse off in society. It's unfortunate but it's true that such a stigma has arisen out of a relatively harmless philosophy( that I somewhat identify with)

No. The mainstream criticism against libertarianism is that it is wrong about history, humanity, governance, capitalism, reality, everything. Its a beautiful picture that libertarianism paints, problem is it's a fantasy landscape.

Rand Paul's contention that segregated lunch counters would have gone away without Title II has provoked some excellent new critiques of his belief system. I commend this one:

Excerpted from “The lesson of Rand Paul: libertarianism is juvenile” BY GABRIEL WINANT, Salon, FRIDAY, MAY 21, 2010 08:30 ET
[SIZE="+2"]I[/SIZE]t's time to stop taking libertarianism seriously.

Ironically, the best way into this point comes from another brilliant libertarian, legal scholar Richard Epstein. Says Epstein, "To be against Title II in 1964 would be to be brain-dead to the underlying realities of how this world works."

There’s the key -- "the underlying realities of how the world works." Because never, and I mean never, has there been capitalist enterprise that wasn't ultimately underwritten by the state. This is true at an obvious level that even most libertarians would concede (though maybe not some of the Austrian economists whom Rand Paul adores): for the system to work, you need some kind of bare bones apparatus for enforcing contracts and protecting property. But it's also true in a more profound, historical sense. To summarize very briefly a long and complicated process, we got capitalism in the first place through a long process of flirtation between governments on the one hand, and bankers and merchants on the other, culminating in the Industrial Revolution. What libertarians revere as an eternal, holy truth is in fact, in the grand scheme of human history, quite young. And if they'd just stop worshiping for a minute, they'd notice the parents hovering in the background.

Libertarians like Paul are walking around with the idea that the world could just snap back to a naturally-occurring benign order if the government stopped interfering. As Paul implied, good people wouldn't shop at the racist stores, so there wouldn't be any.

This is the belief system of people who have been the unwitting recipients of massive government backing for their entire lives. To borrow a phrase, they were born on third base, and think they hit a triple. We could fill a library with the details of the state underwriting enjoyed by American business -- hell, we could fill a fair chunk of the Internet, if we weren't using it all on Rand Paul already.
 
No. The mainstream criticism against libertarianism is that it is wrong about history, humanity, governance, capitalism, reality, everything. Its a beautiful picture that libertarianism paints, problem is it's a fantasy landscape.

Rand Paul's contention that segregated lunch counters would have gone away without Title II has provoked some excellent new critiques of his belief system. I commend this one:

The portion of the article you quoted, does not really critique Rand with any substance, but rather merely disses him and references other works as justification.

I followed some of those links. One that you referred to was the book "The Great Transformation" by Polanyi... who happened to be a socialist, or favor socialist economics.

To quote a bit from the Wiki article:

Polanyi makes the distinction between markets as an auxiliary tool for ease of exchange of goods and Market Societies. Market Societies are those where markets are the paramount institution for the exchange of goods through price mechanisms. Polanyi argues that there are three general types of economic systems that existed before the rise of a society based on a free market economy: Redistributive, Reciprocity and Householding.

Redistributive: Trade and production is focused to a central entity such as a tribal leader or feudal lord and then redistributed to members of their society.
Reciprocity: The exchange of goods is based on reciprocal exchanges between social entities. On a macro level this would include the production of goods to gift to other groups.
Householding: Economies where production is centered around individual household production. Family units produce food, textile goods, and tools for their own consumption.

These three forms were not mutually exclusive nor were they mutually exclusive of markets for the exchange of goods. The main distinction is that these three forms of economic organization were based around the social aspects of the society they operated in and were explicitly tied to those social relationships. Polanyi argued that these economic forms depended on the social principles of Centricity and Symmetry. Markets existed as an axillary avenue for the exchange of goods that were otherwise not obtainable. They relied on the social Principles of Centricity and Symmetry.

Uh-huh. Translation: Redistributive: the peasants work the fields. The Baron or King decides how much they get to keep of their labor. The Ruler then redistributes the production of society according to his own formulae, which usually means that he and his family and his enforcers (knights), buddies and supporters get the lion's share while everyone else stays poor.

Reciprocity is barter. Barter is comparatively inefficient compared to market economies.

Householding is where everyone makes their own. Economically this is terribly ineffecient as it prevents specialization and mass production.

Yes, government has a role to play in market economies: to ensure private property and legitimate exchange, and to punish those who use force or fraud to skew the exchanges in their favor. Libertarians are fully aware of this, that's why they aren't anarchists.

Regarding Polanyi, the article said this:
He ended his work with a prediction of a socialist society, noting, "after a century of blind 'improvement', man is restoring his 'habitation.'"[2]

Sorry but I have trouble taking socialists seriously. If you look at what has happened/is happening in virtually every socialist country, it isn't good. Either the Party Elite gets all the best stuff and everyone else goes hungry, or the economy collapses due to excessive social spending (Greece, also in progress in France), or everyone is rationed and the incentive to work is greatly reduced (much of Europe).

Back to the original point... we can't know for certain what would have happened in the US if the Civil Rights Act and other laws had been different (note that Rand didn't say that NO such laws were needed, just that some of them may have gone too far in gov't intervention!), but when I look around me at how much society/attitudes/norms have changed in the past 25 years, I can't believe that this was all simply because of a few laws.
 
You missed the point. Modern capitalism is the product of a long running collusion of private interests and public interests. Libertarianism's determination to promote the role of the former and demote the role of the latter is based on a dangerous misreading of history and “the underlying realities of how the world works.” It's dangerous when we consider the consequences of a financial system melt down. It's dangerous when we consider the mass contamination of the Gulf of Mexico with raw oil, to name just a couple of recent news items.
 
Last edited:
You missed the point. Modern capitalism is the product of a long running collusion of private interests and public interests. Libertarianism's determination to promote the role of the former and demote the role of the latter is based on a dangerous misreading of history and “the underlying realities of how the world works.”

This collusion has often just enriched a few at the expense of others. Just because the status quo is what you've experienced, doesn't make that the best.

It's dangerous when we consider the consequences of a financial system melt
down.

The government encouraged people to make risky loans, gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac blank checks to make risky loans, and the Fed had an inflationary monetary policy that made some sort of a bubble inevitable.

It's dangerous when we consider the mass contamination of the Gulf of Mexico with raw oil, to name just a couple of recent news items.

Most Libertarians consider pollution to be an issue of the commons and don't mind government regulation.
 
I think nearly everyone has some libertarian ideals however the problem with full on libertarians is they are all or nothing.They complain no one will join their club but if anyone argues against one tiny point they will kick them out of it.
 
Libertarians are, if nothing else, consistent.

Conservatives hate government involvement in the economy but love to have the government stick its nose in our "moral" lives (abortion, prayer in schools, gay rights, etc.)

Liberals hate government involvement in our moral lives but love to have the government oversee and manage the economy.

Libertarians hate government involvement.
 
I think nearly everyone has some libertarian ideals however the problem with full on libertarians is they are all or nothing.They complain no one will join their club but if anyone argues against one tiny point they will kick them out of it.

Libertarians are a diverse group. Many are unyielding, wanting 0 government involvement. Others are more moderate and believe that government has its place, albeit a much smaller one than most others.
 
Libertarians are, if nothing else, consistent.

Conservatives hate government involvement in the economy but love to have the government stick its nose in our "moral" lives (abortion, prayer in schools, gay rights, etc.)

Liberals hate government involvement in our moral lives but love to have the government oversee and manage the economy.

Libertarians hate government involvement.

again...about as wrong as you can be...Libertarians dont disbelieve in government involvement. They believe in local and state levels of government under the control of the citizens and they belive in a constitutionally backed federal government. No on is or has advocated anarchy or the overthrow of government...only the effective and efficient administration of taxpayer dollars and resources. Looking at the dismal failure that is the federal government SURELy you cant actually believe that what the democrats AND republicans have done is a GOOD thing...
 
Libertarians are, if nothing else, consistent.

Conservatives hate government involvement in the economy but love to have the government stick its nose in our "moral" lives (abortion, prayer in schools, gay rights, etc.)

Liberals hate government involvement in our moral lives but love to have the government oversee and manage the economy.

Libertarians hate UNWARRANTED government involvement.

fixed that for you
the modification was necessary to differentiate between anarchists who oppose any government authority and those libertarians who want no more government than is necessary
and divining how much is necessary is the rub
not just for libertarians
so called conservatives say they want smaller government - but they are unable to point to the programs they would end, which elimination would amount to significant reduction of government expenditures
our population wants all that government can provide without having to pay the cost
which is what has caused us to recently change from being the world's major creditor nation to now be the world's major debtor nation
 
You missed the point. Modern capitalism is the product of a long running collusion of private interests and public interests. Libertarianism's determination to promote the role of the former and demote the role of the latter is based on a dangerous misreading of history and “the underlying realities of how the world works.” It's dangerous when we consider the consequences of a financial system melt down. It's dangerous when we consider the mass contamination of the Gulf of Mexico with raw oil, to name just a couple of recent news items.


Ah. So our current mess is the result of gov't collusion with private industry, and your solution is more government.

Don't think so.

Also, don't confuse corporatism with capitalism. I'm not overly fond of big corporations; most of them couldn't exist in their bloated forms without that gov't collusion you speak of... and what I want to do is remove the gov't collusion and make the market more-free, with only that amount of regulation that is necessary.
 
Ah. So our current mess is the result of gov't collusion with private industry, and your solution is more government.

Don't think so.

Also, don't confuse corporatism with capitalism. I'm not overly fond of big corporations; most of them couldn't exist in their bloated forms without that gov't collusion you speak of... and what I want to do is remove the gov't collusion and make the market more-free, with only that amount of regulation that is necessary.

necessary. We must find a way to quantitatively measure "necessary" ;)
 
No because they are a contradiction unto themselves.
 
Of course libertarian policies are going to work - for the rich and powerful who don't like someone forcing them to act like decent human beings when they prove unwilling to do it themselves.

Libertarian policies are going to be an absolute disaster to everyone else who will experience a harsher society, fewer protections and more inequalities. All those "evil" government regulations were put in place for a reason. Product safety standards were put in place because the markets was unable to provide safe products by itself, environmental standards were introduced because the private sector did not care a bit about acting responsibly towards non-economic goods like biodiversity or clean air, workplace safety standards were introduced because people got maimed and killed by the private sector's reckless behaviour. Market forces and tort law proved itself ineffective and useless in preventing these things, thus there was a need for government regulation.

How can one think that things will not return to their prior state if all these regulations are abandoned? Just like Soviet-style communism, the success of libertarianism is dependent upon a new and more moral race of men to replace the current, a thing that will never happen; homo libertaricus is as much a fantasy creation as homo sovieticus.
 
I don't think libertarian policies could ever work. A libertarian limited government philosophy is compatible to communism. Both are very good in theory but very unpractical. People are not moral enough to be given more liberty in their lives. Plus we need a strong government.
 
I don't think libertarian policies could ever work. A libertarian limited government philosophy is compatible to communism. Both are very good in theory but very unpractical. People are not moral enough to be given more liberty in their lives. Plus we need a strong government.

See everything right there? Nothing proved. We need a strong government? Not proved. Libertarianism is unpractical? Not proved. People are not moral enough to be given more liberty? Not proved.

You have a lot to show before you throw around those kinds of claims.
 
See everything right there? Nothing proved. We need a strong government? Not proved. Libertarianism is unpractical? Not proved. People are not moral enough to be given more liberty? Not proved.

You have a lot to show before you throw around those kinds of claims.

It depends on the type of libertarian one is. I know some who are borderline anarchist that want to legalize all drugs and weapons, these such policies would never work. Can we really allow everyone the right to own a weapon? Absolutely not. Having a strong central government is a good thing. Without it we wouldn't have things like the FDA, EPA, welfare, NASA, and other government agencies that benefit us. I would think libertarianism would result in runaway capitalism which leaves a minority insanely rich and everyone else on the poverty line.
 
Of course libertarian policies are going to work - for the rich and powerful who don't like someone forcing them to act like decent human beings when they prove unwilling to do it themselves.

That's pretty much what's going on right now. In case you ever, you know, want to pay attention instead of hurling simplistic notions of other political platforms out the window without much consideration of them.

Libertarian policies are going to be an absolute disaster to everyone else who will experience a harsher society, fewer protections and more inequalities. All those "evil" government regulations were put in place for a reason. Product safety standards were put in place because the markets was unable to provide safe products by itself, environmental standards were introduced because the private sector did not care a bit about acting responsibly towards non-economic goods like biodiversity or clean air, workplace safety standards were introduced because people got maimed and killed by the private sector's reckless behaviour. Market forces and tort law proved itself ineffective and useless in preventing these things, thus there was a need for government regulation.

Some of the government regulations were put in there for a reason. Most government regulations were put in there so government could interject into places it didn't need to be to ensure that the aristocracy and the elite where watched after at the expense of true capitalism and contrive a system they can more easily control. Libertarianism is not anarchism, there is an understanding of some government and some regulation being a necessity. But not all of what we have is necessary and more times than not it's established for protection of the status quo. It's how we ended up in the corporate capitalism state we have now where the government and the entrenched aristocracy rule over government and market. Instead of having proper regulation and letting people fairly participate in the market to succeed or fail by their own power. Additionally, proper consumer pressure is well more effective than government law at elitciting change while preserving choice. If at all possible, the system of local businesses and economy best servo is that of educated consumer choice.

What we have in your little paragraph here isn't an addressing of libertarian policies or platform. It's someone's incorrect and biased view about what libertarianism brings to the table and nothing short of an emotionalized rant trying to make it seem like libertarians wouldn't do any of this. Like there would be no environmental or labor laws under libertarianism. Only a fool who knows nothing of libertarian policy would say such things. And in such case, said person should keep their mouths shut about libertarian political philosophy till such time as they have educated themselves about it.

How can one think that things will not return to their prior state if all these regulations are abandoned? Just like Soviet-style communism, the success of libertarianism is dependent upon a new and more moral race of men to replace the current, a thing that will never happen; homo libertaricus is as much a fantasy creation as homo sovieticus.

How can one think that by supporting the status quo, we're going to change the status quo? More than your emotionalized rant, one should ask themselves this. Less they are perfectly happy with the big government, big interventionist, big spending, big war, big brother policies the government has been adopting and expanding upon for quite some time. The status quo will not change the status quo.
 
Having a strong central government is a good thing. Without it we wouldn't have things like the FDA, EPA, welfare, NASA, and other government agencies that benefit us.

I strongly contest the goodness of those programs.
 
I strongly contest the goodness of those programs.

Well, without them we would live in a polluted cesspool with unhealthy food and drugs. Have you read The Jungle?
 
Back
Top Bottom