• 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!

Libertarian policies

Which libertarian stances do you hold?

  • deregulation

    Votes: 11 25.0%
  • low taxes

    Votes: 16 36.4%
  • social freedom

    Votes: 38 86.4%
  • open borders

    Votes: 15 34.1%
  • right to privacy

    Votes: 34 77.3%
  • I don't hold any libertarian stances

    Votes: 4 9.1%

  • Total voters
    44
Social freedoms and right to privacy are the two I most identify with. Aren't Libertarians generally anti-war as well? I'd check that box too.

The undeclared wars like Vietnam and Iraq are definitely contrary to libertarian philosophy. So is the US getting involved in situations like Afganistan or Syria.
 
We grow plenty of native born unskilled, under-educated workers of our own. They just won't work for starvation wages. Better off on government assistance. And that's what a surplus of imported unskilled laborers does; hold down wages. So let's get our unskilled workers employed at somewhat higher wages before we import more of the same. And, we have a surplus of engineers. More new grads than can be absorbed in the market; except for software engineers. That field has a huge shortage, so letting in immigrants with software engineering skills makes sense.

They re not that uneducated if they can work out that there is no good reason to work for starvation wages. And the problem with imported unskilled is not that they will work for low wages but that unscrupulous business people will exploit them. After all, they set the wages, not the immigrants.

And of course you have the problem of this " hold down wages " concept. Libertarians and many americans are against government interference especially on the subject of a minimum wage. Which would allow authorities to prosecute the unscrupulous business people who exploit workers. As well as give your plenty of native born unskilled, under-educated workers an incentive to work.

But without a minimum wage standard the idea of "hold down wages " is nothing more than a subjective personal concept. None of you can really complain that immigrants are holding down wages when your argument is that capitalism has the magical ability to self regulate.
 
If one believes that doctors should be licensed; buildings should meet fire codes; banks insured by the FDIC shouldn't make risky investments; and commercial aircraft should have mechanical parts replaced on a schedule, you believe in government regulations.

I haven't seen any real evidence that government wastes any more money than large private businesses.

It is cases like California that take the regulation thing to a whole different level.... To the point businesses are regulated out of existence...
 
It is cases like California that take the regulation thing to a whole different level.... To the point businesses are regulated out of existence...

Meanwhile, California has a GDP greater than most countries. Somehow, companies seem to be staying in business to produce that GDP.
 
Which libertarian policies do you hold? If there's one you don't hold, please comment below as to why.

1. deregulation means removing any government regulations

2. reducing government spending means cutting spending in social programs, subsidies, and in military to reduce taxes

3. social freedom means that you believe that the government should stay out of people's lives. In other words, government intervention in recreational drug use, gambling, and people's sex lives is minimal if at all present.

4. open borders

5. right to privacy not only means that the authorities should not search property without probable cause but also that surveillance should be restricted

To varying degrees. There is some amount of government regulation that is necessary, for sure. We certainly need to get our spending under control, and stay out of undeclared, interventionist wars. Certain social programs behoove the Republic on whole and aid in the general welfare. Government should, for the most part, stay out of the lives of individuals less they are infringing upon the rights of others, but it still needs to be present in some amount. We need immigration, immigration drives innovation and helps us from stagnating. Completely open boarders aren't well advisable, there needs to be a certain amount of regulation there too. Big Brother certainly needs to be reigned in and the full of the 4th amendment returned in all its intended glory.
 
To varying degrees. There is some amount of government regulation that is necessary, for sure. We certainly need to get our spending under control, and stay out of undeclared, interventionist wars. Certain social programs behoove the Republic on whole and aid in the general welfare. Government should, for the most part, stay out of the lives of individuals less they are infringing upon the rights of others, but it still needs to be present in some amount. We need immigration, immigration drives innovation and helps us from stagnating. Completely open boarders aren't well advisable, there needs to be a certain amount of regulation there too. Big Brother certainly needs to be reigned in and the full of the 4th amendment returned in all its intended glory.

Exactly right. Let's not forget the fifth amendment as well. It seems to be on the ropes currently.
 
They re not that uneducated if they can work out that there is no good reason to work for starvation wages. And the problem with imported unskilled is not that they will work for low wages but that unscrupulous business people will exploit them. After all, they set the wages, not the immigrants.

And of course you have the problem of this " hold down wages " concept. Libertarians and many americans are against government interference especially on the subject of a minimum wage. Which would allow authorities to prosecute the unscrupulous business people who exploit workers. As well as give your plenty of native born unskilled, under-educated workers an incentive to work.

But without a minimum wage standard the idea of "hold down wages " is nothing more than a subjective personal concept. None of you can really complain that immigrants are holding down wages when your argument is that capitalism has the magical ability to self regulate.

Capitalism does self-regulate when actually allowed to function. A shortage drives up prices. Econ 101. Business doesn't "set" wages, it pays the minimum it takes to get employees. The market sets that wage. Employers just pay what that market demands. What "exploits" unskilled workers, or any worker, is the market, not "evil" businessmen.
 
Capitalism does self-regulate when actually allowed to function. A shortage drives up prices. Econ 101. Business doesn't "set" wages, it pays the minimum it takes to get employees. The market sets that wage. Employers just pay what that market demands. What "exploits" unskilled workers, or any worker, is the market, not "evil" businessmen.
Such claw in tooth capitalism results in poverty for many, who have no access to affordable health care -- or, as Flint, Michigan has shown, access to drinkable water. Most civilized nations have moved beyond the Jonathan Swift world of unbridled capitalism. They tax those who have done very well so as to provide a safety net for those who have not.

If one read Upton Sinclair, one would know what happens when capitalism is left to its own devices.
 
It is a good question, because I would basicallly agree to all the suggestions of the poll, but in a different way. (We are talking about the Libertarianism of the Libertarian Party fo rexample, isn´t it?) As a liberal, I feel myself of course obliged to be for the most individual freedom as possible. However I would not agree to the radical way of Libertarianism. I am against high taxes but sometimes needs a society to achieve individual liberty for all citizens social programs for the most poor people. The free market finds its legitimation and its regulation in the general welfare of the entirety of all individuums and so the state must be, in my point of view, there for them. I really support the thinking of the social-market economics, which connects individual liberty with social sustainability. And of course the state is a necessity to prevent monopolies and cartells to maintain the free market. In social issues, I would probaply to the most libertarian stances with exceptions, I believe

(Gosh, this was not easy to say on English. I really hope it possible to understand me.^^)
 
Such claw in tooth capitalism results in poverty for many, who have no access to affordable health care -- or, as Flint, Michigan has shown, access to drinkable water. Most civilized nations have moved beyond the Jonathan Swift world of unbridled capitalism. They tax those who have done very well so as to provide a safety net for those who have not.

If one read Upton Sinclair, one would know what happens when capitalism is left to its own devices.

Straw man argument. Where have I proposed doing away with the welfare state? That's a different discussion. What I have said is businesses respond to market realities. If there were a shortage of unskilled laborers the cost of unskilled labor would rise. We see that in practice all the time. In an affluent suburb, with little or no unskilled labor, fast food pays well above the current minimum wage. They have to pay more to incentivize people to travel to the suburb to work at that fast food restaurant. Fast food restaurants in the inner city have a ready supply of surplus unskilled labor to draw on and are under no such pressure to pay more. All of my own grown children makes a six figure income, because they are highly trained in fields that require a certain skill set. The answer to minimum wage is training, not legislation. Mike Rowe states there are four million good paying trade jobs out there currently unfilled. This is the market working. Low wages is the market's way of telling you to get yourself trained-up.
 
Straw man argument. Where have I proposed doing away with the welfare state? That's a different discussion. What I have said is businesses respond to market realities. If there were a shortage of unskilled laborers the cost of unskilled labor would rise. We see that in practice all the time. In an affluent suburb, with little or no unskilled labor, fast food pays well above the current minimum wage. They have to pay more to incentivize people to travel to the suburb to work at that fast food restaurant. Fast food restaurants in the inner city have a ready supply of surplus unskilled labor to draw on and are under no such pressure to pay more. All of my own grown children makes a six figure income, because they are highly trained in fields that require a certain skill set. The answer to minimum wage is training, not legislation. Mike Rowe states there are four million good paying trade jobs out there currently unfilled. This is the market working. Low wages is the market's way of telling you to get yourself trained-up.

When you write about "Capitalism does self-regulate when actually allowed to function," as you did in post #33, you are implicitly writing that government shouldn't interfere with the invisible hand of capitalism, and impose minimum wage laws (explicitly stated above); payroll taxes, like Social Security; and mandates for health care.

Having a minimum wage avoids the wages of workers racing to the bottom. American workers, especially low-skilled workers, would be forced to compete with the wages of foreign 3rd world countries, which will result in more use of supplemental social safety net programs funded by taxpayers.

Right now, the nation is effectively at full-employment. There may be unfilled jobs. That's largely due to baby-boomers retiring, not lack of skills. What you wrote reminds me of this:
A few days ago, I read an authoritative-sounding paper in The American Economic Review, one of the leading journals in the field, arguing at length that the nation’s high unemployment rate had deep structural roots and wasn’t amenable to any quick solution. The author’s diagnosis was that the U.S. economy just wasn’t flexible enough to cope with rapid technological change. The paper was especially critical of programs like unemployment insurance, which it argued actually hurt workers because they reduced the incentive to adjust.

O.K., there’s something I didn’t tell you: The paper in question was published in June 1939. Just a few months later, World War II broke out, and the United States — though not yet at war itself — began a large military buildup, finally providing fiscal stimulus on a scale commensurate with the depth of the slump. And, in the two years after that article about the impossibility of rapid job creation was published, U.S. nonfarm employment rose 20 percent — the equivalent of creating 26 million jobs today.
Source
 
When you write about "Capitalism does self-regulate when actually allowed to function," as you did in post #33, you are implicitly writing that government shouldn't interfere with the invisible hand of capitalism, and impose minimum wage laws (explicitly stated above); payroll taxes, like Social Security; and mandates for health care.

Having a minimum wage avoids the wages of workers racing to the bottom. American workers, especially low-skilled workers, would be forced to compete with the wages of foreign 3rd world countries, which will result in more use of supplemental social safety net programs funded by taxpayers.

Right now, the nation is effectively at full-employment. There may be unfilled jobs. That's largely due to baby-boomers retiring, not lack of skills. What you wrote reminds me of this:

Functioning capitalism and social programs are not mutually exclusive. Where do you think the money comes from to fund that safety net? Capitalism.

The job vacancies are indeed largely the result of baby boomers retiring, and an expanding economy. And at the bottom we are far from full employment. Millions of imported unskilled workers willing to work for low wages provides a pool of low cost labor which depresses wage gains. In today's technological world, unskilled workers are becoming less and less necessary. Why import more?
 
Not the ones out of business.

Wow, that's deep. The businesses that have gone out of business aren't contributing to the GDP.

Then, there's this:
Calfornia GDP

2.448 trillion USD
2015

Texas
1.639 trillion USD
United States of America
United States of...
18.57 trillion USD
Canada
Canada
1.53 trillion USD
 
Capitalism does self-regulate when actually allowed to function. A shortage drives up prices. Econ 101. Business doesn't "set" wages, it pays the minimum it takes to get employees. The market sets that wage. Employers just pay what that market demands. What "exploits" unskilled workers, or any worker, is the market, not "evil" businessmen.

A wonderful example of how magic controls capitalism. It just all happens magically and never once is influenced or manipulated by greedy profiteers.

Econ 101 is about the level of understanding here.

If you are happy with the magic that business pays the minimum wages to get employees then what problem would you have with illegals taking jobs your natives will not do for that wage? Business is just paying the minimum it takes.

If the market sets the wages then why the discrimination of wages between men and women doing similar work, is the market sexist?

And how does this market understand what exploitation is. Is the market sentient?

Yours is a rather weak justification to exploit by blaming a magical force that controls the actions of those who seek profit at the expense of exploitation.
 
My political views have gone from Republican, to Libertarian, to centrist. The more I learn, the more I adjust. I still lean libertarian in many areas, but not on deregulation and low taxes. In an ideal world, absolutely. But I've acknowledged faults in our society and in human nature (though obviously I don't succumb to such faults myself). Special interests should stop being supported; however safety nets are required because people simply do not plan ahead and/or have incredibly unfortunate luck.

I also believe that we are reaching a point of technological advancement that the wealth produced is not necessarily earned by the top 1%. They were born into a time that, though they work just as hard as the previous century's top 1%, they are rewarded significantly more multiples of income than the mean. This is primarily due to technological efficiencies.
 
A wonderful example of how magic controls capitalism. It just all happens magically and never once is influenced or manipulated by greedy profiteers.

1. Econ 101 is about the level of understanding here.
2. If you are happy with the magic that business pays the minimum wages to get employees then what problem would you have with illegals taking jobs your natives will not do for that wage? Business is just paying the minimum it takes.
3. If the market sets the wages then why the discrimination of wages between men and women doing similar work, is the market sexist?
4. And how does this market understand what exploitation is. Is the market sentient?
5. Yours is a rather weak justification to exploit by blaming a magical force that controls the actions of those who seek profit at the expense of exploitation.

1. You're not there yet. Keep reading..
2. Exactly. Without a surplus of unskilled labor wages would rise due to market forces and more Americans would take those jobs.
3. That's a myth. Women choose lower paying career fields and often take breaks in their careers.
4. The market doesn't have to understand exploitation.
5. All markets seek to exploit; it's competition that corrects that tendency. What businesses really strive for is monopoly (remember that, there will be a test later) ; it is the duty of government to preserve competition. That's proper regulation.
 
1. You're not there yet. Keep reading..
2. Exactly. Without a surplus of unskilled labor wages would rise due to market forces and more Americans would take those jobs.
3. That's a myth. Women choose lower paying career fields and often take breaks in their careers.
4. The market doesn't have to understand exploitation.
5. All markets seek to exploit; it's competition that corrects that tendency. What businesses really strive for is monopoly (remember that, there will be a test later) ; it is the duty of government to preserve competition. That's proper regulation.

If you tackle economics at a 101 level then it is no wonder you have such a poor understanding of it.
Your two simply contradicts the argument you made that business seeks to pay the minimum of wages.
No there is no myth you use denial to ignore a real problem. Not to mention stereotyping women.
No the market does not understand exploitation because it is not the controlling mind behind corrupt capitalism. Corrupt business people are the ones who understand and us exploitation. Your superstitious belief in market forces is nothing more than ideology ignoring reality.
Do not be obtuse or so dishonest as to misrepresent the word exploitation here. Nor does competition correct the tendency. It is merely a force that can drive exploitation.

Really! you have a monopolistic style of governance that is supposed to control competition when it clearly takes bribes from business and lobby groups. How laughable.
 
If you tackle economics at a 101 level then it is no wonder you have such a poor understanding of it.
Your two simply contradicts the argument you made that business seeks to pay the minimum of wages.
No there is no myth you use denial to ignore a real problem. Not to mention stereotyping women.
No the market does not understand exploitation because it is not the controlling mind behind corrupt capitalism. Corrupt business people are the ones who understand and us exploitation. Your superstitious belief in market forces is nothing more than ideology ignoring reality.
Do not be obtuse or so dishonest as to misrepresent the word exploitation here. Nor does competition correct the tendency. It is merely a force that can drive exploitation.

Really! you have a monopolistic style of governance that is supposed to control competition when it clearly takes bribes from business and lobby groups. How laughable.

Your socialist utopian view that Capitalism is the root of all evil is laughable. Too much available labor means low wages. ECON 101. That is a fact of life. Want higher wages; get a skill that's in DEMAND, meaning in short SUPPLY. Meaning shortage, the opposite of surplus. Minimum wage was never meant to be a career. It should be a stepping stone. Temporary. Get a skill and you will never have to worry about minimum wage again. And when women go into careers that pay well they will make more. Working in a daycare or clerking in a store will never get them equal to men. How many HVAC techs are women? Vehicle mechanics? Electrical linemen? All good paying jobs. All in demand. All 99% male.
 
Which libertarian policies do you hold? If there's one you don't hold, please comment below as to why.

1. deregulation means removing any government regulations

2. reducing government spending means cutting spending in social programs, subsidies, and in military to reduce taxes

3. social freedom means that you believe that the government should stay out of people's lives. In other words, government intervention in recreational drug use, gambling, and people's sex lives is minimal if at all present.

4. open borders

5. right to privacy not only means that the authorities should not search property without probable cause but also that surveillance should be restricted

Libertarian means neoliberal far right-wing; be careful what you support.
 
Realistically speaking I don't think any one set of policies work long term. Sooner or later you'll have a stagnant economy or worse under anyone's policy, too liberal, well high taxes needed to support those policies, too conservative, well, no one is spending money, there is not enough completion. Too much freedom can lead to poor construction practices, too much drug use, deregulation can lead to industry taking advantage of those not well educated.

As much as I want less govt. I know we need some, it's time fore smaller govt. and at some point it will again be time for larger govt. It's a ball that keeps rolling.
 
What is called libertarianism is merely personal selfishness disguised in the halloween costume of a political ideology. If it ever caught on in large numbers, it would pose a significant threat to our society and nation. Fortunately, it is something which only a small minority of persons subscribe to and many then grow out of it as they mature and age realizing it is not at all practical.
 
What is called libertarianism is merely personal selfishness disguised in the halloween costume of a political ideology. If it ever caught on in large numbers, it would pose a significant threat to our society and nation. Fortunately, it is something which only a small minority of persons subscribe to and many then grow out of it as they mature and age realizing it is not at all practical.

Authoritarianism, on the other hand is very mature and totally all about altruism and doing good to the rest of society.

Right?
 
Back
Top Bottom