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

How reduced? In what areas is it too agressive?

Are you talking about Cap and Trade?



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

How about the SEC?


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

Why would you eliminate the FDA? The agency is much more than approving drugs.



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

Really? You don't think we should be protected from bad foreign products, like toys with lead paint? Dog food with melamine in it? Chinese made drywall? The commission is recommending the IRS allow a deduction for homeowners who's only recourse for now is to replace it out of their own pockets. Private consumer groups don't have the teeth the federal government does. They can alert and call attention, but the agency has the capacity to act to protect consumers more quickly. Further, private watch dog groups cannot enforce laws.

Enforcement litigates civil contempt and civil penalty actions to enforce all FTC federal court injunctions and administrative orders that address consumer protection issues, including advertising and financial practices, data security, high-tech fraud, and telemarketing and other scams. The Division also coordinates FTC actions with criminal law enforcement agencies through its Criminal Liaison Unit; litigates civil actions against those who defraud consumers; and develops, reviews, and enforces a variety of consumer protection rules.​

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.

What regulations make sense? I agree, there are regulations that favor big corporations. Those need to be eliminated.

I've given some specific examples. What kind of regulation makes sense in those areas?
 
Can the Libertarian party or policies ever work?
sure. they are at work every day, whenever you tolerate anyone doing whatever they chose to do until they impose on your ability to do as you want
and i would submit that we are slowly adapting that libertarian principle to government
what are the positions Ron Paul espouses with which you disagree. for me, it is only his move to eliminate the fed and adopt a gold standard, and to absent our nation's involvement in the UN. otherwise, i believe his positions make good sense.
as a libertarian running under the republican banner, Dr. Paul has sown the seed of good governance. he advocates a strong defense but sees no point in funding an empire of costly military installations worldwide. that is in keeping with his position of non-intervention, allowing other states to do as they please such that they do not impair the ability of the USA to do the same.
his position on israel is realistic:
There’s one thing being friends, getting along with people and trading with people versus subsidizing them
he wants to end the sanctions against cuba
Dr. Paul opposes trade agreements by recognizing such agreements
serve special interests and big business, not citizens
he recognizes the lack of immigration enforcement is a drain on our nation's resources
his warnings about the looming financial crisis and the loss of confidence in the dollar were spot on
his position to substantially reduce the size of government is something few would oppose
and he is opposed to victimless crimes - he is for real personal freedom
my concept of libertarianism was shaped by the early 70's book The Libertarian Alternative; but as with any political view, how we interpret a philosophy differs with each individual's perspective. Ron Paul's view of libertarian principles applied to governance seems to have gained momentum. that allows me to be optimistic that our government will be guided more by libertarian views than liberal or conservative views over time
 
What regulations make sense? I agree, there are regulations that favor big corporations. Those need to be eliminated.

I've given some specific examples. What kind of regulation makes sense in those areas?

Truth in advertising, anti fraud, product liability(in some cases it should be extended to criminal liability), using anti property crime laws for environmental regulation, leverage standards for banks, probably some more I'm not thinking of but those are pretty intuitive.

I'm not much of a fan of the FDA and see that punitive laws can prevent businesses from doing stupid/criminal things.
 
Gina said:
How reduced? In what areas is it too agressive?

Are you talking about Cap and Trade?

I am never talking about cap and trade. Those are curse words to libertarians.

And it is very aggressive. It only needs to tackle the "obvious suspects", or those who pollute more than their fair share - or in a libertarian society, those who pollute more than their credits allow. Regulation to the point we have it now leads us to things like the Kyoto Protocol which was a choke hold on international and global commerce.

How about the SEC?

Nope. Do away with it. Some of the functions of the SEC can be performed by the Secret Service, and the rest would be deregulated.

Why would you eliminate the FDA? The agency is much more than approving drugs.

The FDA is, without question, the most hostile, useless, and overpowered federal agency/administration we have. For every ounce of good they do, they do a pound of evil. If you need examples, you can easily do a Google search and find some.

Really? You don't think we should be protected from bad foreign products, like toys with lead paint? Dog food with melamine in it? Chinese made drywall? The commission is recommending the IRS allow a deduction for homeowners who's only recourse for now is to replace it out of their own pockets. Private consumer groups don't have the teeth the federal government does. They can alert and call attention, but the agency has the capacity to act to protect consumers more quickly. Further, private watch dog groups cannot enforce laws.

You vastly underestimate the power of the educated American consumer. First of all, I would encourage more domestic production for consumption. Every single example you gave was from a foreign good - mostly from China and southeast Asia. Those obviously need to be monitored alot more than American products. Guess what? With reduced oppressive legislation, they'd be cheaper too. Win/win from my perspective.

The problem I see is that while we were built as a nation whose core individuals existed to suspect and question government and authority, we've become a people who are absolutely complacent and ignorant to what Washington does. Government, for most people, has become a replacement for eyes, ears, and brain. Social Security, from a financial perspective, is an awful investment. Taking TVM into account, you'd make more by sticking it in a low-interest checking account. However, nobody questions it. Nobody challenges it. And that's just what the government wants, because they use Social Security as something akin to a corporate petty cash fund, where they can take from it when they feel like it and maybe pay it back if they felt so inclined (which, to this point, they haven't).

When you sit around and do nothing, you're a de facto statist. America's laziness brought us to this.
 
You vastly underestimate the power of the educated American consumer. First of all, I would encourage more domestic production for consumption. Every single example you gave was from a foreign good - mostly from China and southeast Asia. Those obviously need to be monitored alot more than American products. Guess what? With reduced oppressive legislation, they'd be cheaper too. Win/win from my perspective.

The obvious question is why are these bad items coming out of china? The most obvious answer is because they have lax regulation. If we reduce our regulation here, our products will be no better.
 
The obvious question is why are these bad items coming out of china? The most obvious answer is because they have lax regulation. If we reduce our regulation here, our products will be no better.

I don't believe that to necessarily be the case due to differences in culture and mindset. Americans (at least the ones in generations past) are fairly detail-oriented and get satisfaction from a job well-done. In China, you are dealing with a fair number of peasant-types who are more interested in day-to-day survival, and are accustomed to living under tight governmental controls. The difference in mindset and educational levels make a big difference imo.
 
The Libertarian Party will accomplish nothing so long as it remains an outpost for Republicans seeking an exotic label, issues unthinking defenses of corporate capitalism despite its lack of relationship to free market principles, and maintains centralized dictatorial structure reminiscent of Communist practice.

Let's go over those one by one. Firstly, there's the matter of the somewhat chauvinistic mentality prevalent in the LP atmosphere: Libertarian Democraphobia

Libertarianism does have public relations problems, and it’s not because most people are stupid or immoral. It’s because libertarians have done a terrible job countering the widespread suspicion that it’s a uselessly abstract ahistorical ideology for socially retarded adolescent white guys. The sadly common libertarian-conservative penchant for “brave” counter-PC truthiness (e.g., 'Women do love the welfare state!' 'Blacks really do have lower IQs!') certainly doesn’t help.

As to a more general comment on ideology, I've mentioned the cognitive scientist George Lakoff several times, as I believe that he provides insightful analyses of the mindsets of the politically involved regardless of his own liberalism. He says this of libertarians in his book Moral Politics:

Libertarians provide a very interesting challenge to the study of variations on a central model. Libertarians see themselves as forming a separate political category, neither liberal nor conservative, but something unto itself. An analysis in terms of variations on central models suggests that their view of themselves is not entirely accurate.

Suppose we start by looking at the central conservative model. Consider a variant on that model that is pragmatic in the extreme, that is, think of a conservative who sees the pursuit of self-interest as the principal end and conservative morality (self-discipline, self-reliance, etc.) as a means to that end. Someone who is extremely pragmatic will be willing to sacrifice aspects of conservative morality if it interferes with the pursuit of self-interest. Now imagine such a pragmatic conservative having the moral focus: noninterference by the government.

So far as I can tell, this is what a 'libertarian' is, namely an extremely pragmatic conservative whose moral focus is on noninterference by the government. In short, a libertarian is two steps away from a mainline conservative.

Such a person will believe that free enterprise should be as unrestricted as possible and that people should be self-disciplined and self-reliant in order to pursue their self-interest. He will be very much against social programs, taxation, government support of education and the arts, government regulation, and gun control. But the libertarian’s moral focus on noninterference by the government and his extreme support of the pursuit of self-interest will make him a radical advocate of civil liberties. He will oppose any governmental restrictions on free speech, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, and so on. He will probably support the rights of women, gays, and minorities to equal opportunity, but be strongly against affirmative action on the grounds that it gives individuals things that they haven’t individually earned. He will most likely be pro-choice on abortion, but not believe that the government should pay for abortions. And since he gives priority to the pursuit of self-interest over the rest of the conservative moral system, he will not have the moralism of mainline conservatives; the seven deadly sins may not be sins for him.

A good example would be drug addiction, which, to many libertarians, would not in itself be immoral. Libertarians commonly favor the decriminalization of drug use and sale on the grounds of maximum noninterference by the government and maximum pursuit of self-interest. They frequently argue that government interference in the drug trade has artificially driven up the price of drugs, brought criminals into the drug market, and forced drug addicts to turn to crime to support their habits. Decriminalization, they argue, would allow honest businesses to pursue the drug trade, bring in competition, lower prices enormously, not force users to turn to crime, and not make it profitable enough for major crime syndicates to bother with.

The libertarian’s advocacy of civil liberties will bring him into overlap with liberals on many positions. But the source of that advocacy comes from a different place – from a conservative model with minimally restricted pursuit of self-interest and a moral focus on noninterference. The advocacy of civil liberties in a Nurturant Parent morality comes from the nurturance model, especially the concern with empathy, with fair distribution, with happiness, with development of one’s potential, and so on. Empathy and fair distribution are not libertarian concerns.

The fact that libertarians and political liberals both strongly advocate civil liberties is a superficial similarity. They do so for very different reasons, out of different moral impulses, with a very different spirit. Though two steps away from mainline conservatism, libertarians are conservatives in three very important respects: (1) Their concern with noninterference by the government comes directly out of conservatism, out of the idea that the government is inappropriately paternalistic, that mature citizens should be left to take care of themselves. (2) They preserve primary conservative moral priorities: self-discipline, self-reliance, and individualism, rather than the cultivated interdependence required by the nurturance model. (3) They do not give priority to the values of Nurturant Parent morality: empathy, nurturance, interdependence, fairness, and responsibility for others.

There are, of course, lots of variations possible within the category of libertarians. One would no more expect uniformity there than in any other radial category. But variation within the ranks of libertarians is not random. One source of variation is the degree to which a given libertarian preserves conservative moral positions; for example, some libertarians might echo the conservatives’ aversion to drugs because drugs arise from, and perpetuate, moral weakness. In general, the variation among types of libertarians reflects their conceptual links with conservatism. We don’t tend to find libertarians supporting welfare or the progressive income tax or government protections of various kinds.

Thus, despite the claims of libertarians to be a category unto themselves, they appear to be just two steps – two important steps – from central conservatism, and the variation within their ranks seems to tend toward conservatism. There is, after all, a reason why the scholars at the libertarian Cato Institute seem largely to be writing in support of conservative rather than liberal positions.

Nonetheless, there is no objective answer here. They are far away enough to think of themselves as a separate category and close enough for others to think of them as conservatives.

So long as libertarian principles continue to stem from the same root as mainline social rightist ideas, and so long as they fall into the petty stereotype of the reactionary defenders of wealth and power that they're depicted as, the LP and adherents to the party line will remain isolated from the general public, which might otherwise be sympathetic to principles of liberty.

I next mentioned a principle that stems from this, that of opposition to capitalism. Libertarian support of capitalism is a betrayal of free market principles; the capitalist economy is a bastard child of the state. It was created through systematic violation of property rights, through the imposition of force and fraud on numerous people. The most critical point is that all existing capitalist property was at either directly acquired through aggression at some point in time, or else created through productive resources that were themselves gained through aggression, many of those being capital goods created through still other productive resources themselves gained through aggression. The inference is that state capitalism is unacceptable, and that we don't want some bloated state system; we want free markets created through voluntary associations and interactions between rational, consenting adults!

The third issue might not be apparent to outsiders, and so I'd hesitate to elaborate on it more until I have something substantive to say on it.
 
The Libertarian Party will accomplish nothing so long as it remains an outpost for Republicans seeking an exotic label, issues unthinking defenses of corporate capitalism despite its lack of relationship to free market principles, and maintains centralized dictatorial structure reminiscent of Communist practice.

Let's go over those one by one. Firstly, there's the matter of the somewhat chauvinistic mentality prevalent in the LP atmosphere: Libertarian Democraphobia



As to a more general comment on ideology, I've mentioned the cognitive scientist George Lakoff several times, as I believe that he provides insightful analyses of the mindsets of the politically involved regardless of his own liberalism. He says this of libertarians in his book Moral Politics:



So long as libertarian principles continue to stem from the same root as mainline social rightist ideas, and so long as they fall into the petty stereotype of the reactionary defenders of wealth and power that they're depicted as, the LP and adherents to the party line will remain isolated from the general public, which might otherwise be sympathetic to principles of liberty.

I next mentioned a principle that stems from this, that of opposition to capitalism. Libertarian support of capitalism is a betrayal of free market principles; the capitalist economy is a bastard child of the state. It was created through systematic violation of property rights, through the imposition of force and fraud on numerous people. The most critical point is that all existing capitalist property was at either directly acquired through aggression at some point in time, or else created through productive resources that were themselves gained through aggression, many of those being capital goods created through still other productive resources themselves gained through aggression. The inference is that state capitalism is unacceptable, and that we don't want some bloated state system; we want free markets created through voluntary associations and interactions between rational, consenting adults!

The third issue might not be apparent to outsiders, and so I'd hesitate to elaborate on it more until I have something substantive to say on it.

I don't see a lot wrong with that with a few exceptions.
Libertarianism has existed for quite some time, emerging with the cynics to the physiocrats to what we have now.
It was the original liberalism until that title was usurped by quasi social libertarians "the progressives."

Modern conservatism was born out of the Dixiecrat shift.

The defense of corporations is usually for contextual reasons and not because of actual agreement with corporatism.

This I think is a more accurate form of what progressed libertarians think of a more perfect society.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism]Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
I think the best way to describe the libertarian thought process is;

We see the world for what it is, imperfect.
To attempt to perfect it through imperfect means(government), will not lead to perfection.

It is the most rational, reasonable form of thought, in my opinion.
 
I think people overthink things.

The libertarian party is by and large peopled by contrarians. They dont know what they ARE...they just know they dont want to be...democrats or republicans. The average libertarian is the epitome of the old saying, doing a good job is like wetting your pants in a dark suit...no one really notices...it feels warm for a while, but eventually it just gets cold and clammy.

And yes...I AM a libertarian.

Look...both major parties are invested in ideology and they can afford to treat the Tea party, the Libertarians, and the green party as merely a voting block. The libertarian party itself has this great concept...the worlds shortest political quiz, which shows that really...deep down MOST people are libertarian. But then to avoid the responsibility of actual party and politics they adopt platforms that will GUARANTEE that they will never get elected.

I cant abide being a republican...not when republican politicians arent a dime different then democrats. So...I either abandon all politics...seek some comfort in affiliation with a fringe group, or become an independent (with the same results).

If the libertarian party wanted to get people elected they would find a niche. There are literally MILLIONS of disenfranchised voters, republican AND democrat, that are disgusted by the actions of congress and the president. Congressional approval is...what...11%? Avoid the non-starters like legalizing drugs and prostitution and the like. Focus on foundation concepts...small and responsible federal government with powers centralized on constitutional concepts. Focus on strong individual and states rights. Pay off the debt then reduce federal taxes while allowing states to tax and provide social services as they deem prudent. I believe they could begin to be legitimate contenders. I also dont believe that will ever happen.
 
I think people overthink things.

The libertarian party is by and large peopled by contrarians. They dont know what they ARE...they just know they dont want to be...democrats or republicans. The average libertarian is the epitome of the old saying, doing a good job is like wetting your pants in a dark suit...no one really notices...it feels warm for a while, but eventually it just gets cold and clammy.

And yes...I AM a libertarian.

Look...both major parties are invested in ideology and they can afford to treat the Tea party, the Libertarians, and the green party as merely a voting block. The libertarian party itself has this great concept...the worlds shortest political quiz, which shows that really...deep down MOST people are libertarian. But then to avoid the responsibility of actual party and politics they adopt platforms that will GUARANTEE that they will never get elected.

I cant abide being a republican...not when republican politicians arent a dime different then democrats. So...I either abandon all politics...seek some comfort in affiliation with a fringe group, or become an independent (with the same results).

If the libertarian party wanted to get people elected they would find a niche. There are literally MILLIONS of disenfranchised voters, republican AND democrat, that are disgusted by the actions of congress and the president. Congressional approval is...what...11%? Avoid the non-starters like legalizing drugs and prostitution and the like. Focus on foundation concepts...small and responsible federal government with powers centralized on constitutional concepts. Focus on strong individual and states rights. Pay off the debt then reduce federal taxes while allowing states to tax and provide social services as they deem prudent. I believe they could begin to be legitimate contenders. I also dont believe that will ever happen.

I would agree but things have gone to far for that to happen.

It would take a government calamity to change the thought process of millions of people to realize what they have caused.

Maybe the eventual meltdown of our budget will do that.
I don't know though.
 
I don't believe that to necessarily be the case due to differences in culture and mindset. Americans (at least the ones in generations past) are fairly detail-oriented and get satisfaction from a job well-done. In China, you are dealing with a fair number of peasant-types who are more interested in day-to-day survival, and are accustomed to living under tight governmental controls. The difference in mindset and educational levels make a big difference imo.

I think the two go hand in hand, honestly. Americans are used to buying a safe product and are used to making a safe product because we have regulatory mechanisms of accountability for products that cause injury. These mechanisms cause a company to be more successful if they product a safe product. For society it then becomes normal to have safe products, and inversely it means there will be outrage when there is an unsafe product, this indirectly creates support for these regulatory agencies, however if those mechanisms went away, safety would slowly decline as profit concerns take over. It wouldn't happen overnight, but I think over time, our mindset would shift towards survival as well since the safety of an item would become a gamble at best.
 
Last edited:
I don't see a lot wrong with that with a few exceptions.
Libertarianism has existed for quite some time, emerging with the cynics to the physiocrats to what we have now.
It was the original liberalism until that title was usurped by quasi social libertarians "the progressives."

Modern conservatism was born out of the Dixiecrat shift.

The defense of corporations is usually for contextual reasons and not because of actual agreement with corporatism.

This I think is a more accurate form of what progressed libertarians think of a more perfect society.
Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe you're correct.

Have you heard of a man named Kevin Carson, who seems to advocate some kind of market socialism while trying to remain under the "libertarian" banner? I don't agree with much of that, but he did make what I consider to be insightful commentary on what he calls "vulgar libertarianism." Here is a passage from a book he wrote called Studies in Mutualist Political Economy:

This school of libertarianism has inscribed on its banner the reactionary watchword: "Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get." For every imaginable policy issue, the good guys and bad guys can be predicted with ease, by simply inverting the slogan of Animal Farm: "Two legs good, four legs baaaad." In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury. As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse."

The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.

Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."

That's why I'm not inclined to join the crowd in attacking progressive taxation as "theft" from the upper class; that would presume that the system of wealth distribution that they benefited from was based on legitimate principles of consensual and voluntary transaction, i.e. a free market. Since it was not...the thievery of already stolen goods doesn't tend to alarm me. But the Libertarian Party and mainline libertarianism does not acknowledge this.

The same is true of the differences between classical liberalism and modern corporate capitalism, the former which involved agrarian self-reliance and the latter which was built upon industrial serfdom. Modern corporate capitalism, dependent upon the state for its survival, is the enemy of the free market.
 
I believe you're correct.

Have you heard of a man named Kevin Carson, who seems to advocate some kind of market socialism while trying to remain under the "libertarian" banner? I don't agree with much of that, but he did make what I consider to be insightful commentary on what he calls "vulgar libertarianism." Here is a passage from a book he wrote called Studies in Mutualist Political Economy:

Definitely familiar with him, I haven't picked up any of his books yet but it's on the list.

People treat competition and mutualist ideas as opposites when in reality they are complimentary.

That's why I'm not inclined to join the crowd in attacking progressive taxation as "theft" from the upper class; that would presume that the system of wealth distribution that they benefited from was based on legitimate principles of consensual and voluntary transaction, i.e. a free market. Since it was not...the thievery of already stolen goods doesn't tend to alarm me. But the Libertarian Party and mainline libertarianism does not acknowledge this.

The same is true of the differences between classical liberalism and modern corporate capitalism, the former which involved agrarian self-reliance and the latter which was built upon industrial serfdom. Modern corporate capitalism, dependent upon the state for its survival, is the enemy of the free market.

Can't argue with that at all.
Glad to have another enlightened libertarian in the ranks. :thumbs:
 
That is true but in the sense we are speaking of, being irrational has consequences.

Living examples can be great a motivator.
People need to feel more of the cause and effect of their choices.

I agree with that in principal, however, the failure or bad choice of another person can harm me indirectly, even if I had nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
I agree with that in principal, however, the failure or bad choice of another person can harm me indirectly, even if I had nothing to do with it.

Of course but that happens whether it is the fault of a government program or individual transactions.
I guess I favor the more natural approach.
 
Of course but that happens whether it is the fault of a government program or individual transactions.
I guess I favor the more natural approach.

True. But (and this is just my perception) I feel I have a better chance of getting justice if there is a control mechanism. This comes down to preference, I tend to put more faith into rules than into people, because people are usually unreliable.
 
Last edited:
True. But (and this is just my perception) I feel I have a better chance of getting justice if there is a control mechanism. This comes down to preference, I tend to put more faith into rules than into people, because people are usually unreliable.

I agree with that, I have no problem with a firm set of general rules.
We are speaking in no specifics though so it's hard to pin down which rules we would disagree on.
 
I agree with that, I have no problem with a firm set of general rules.
We are speaking in no specifics though so it's hard to pin down which rules we would disagree on.

Of course. We are 10,000 feet up. However, it has been my experience that a good system in which people participate does more to mitigate the negative sides of human nature than most other societal controls, such as law enforcement. On the flip side, people usually express a desire to be "a part of something" which means they tend to enjoy it as well.
 
Last edited:
Of course. We are 10,000 feet up. However, it has been my experience that a good system in which people participate does more to mitigate the negative sides of human nature than most other societal controls. On the flip side, people usually express a desire to be "a part of something" which means they enjoy it as well.

I think that the mitigating factors need to be felt more by the individuals who make irrational decisions.
When it is less of a deciding factor, the moral hazard comes into play more and more.
We have to figure out how to keep the moral hazard at bay.
 
Back
Top Bottom