Libertarian policies

[haymarket]

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

Right?

nope.

 

[Dittohead not!]

nope.

I didn't think so either.

 

[soylentgreen]

Your socialist utopian view that Capitalism is the root of all evil is laughable.

I have never said that capitalism is the root of all evil. I see that your ability to debate is so poor that you are now down to mud slinging.

Too much available labor means low wages. ECON 101.

That is a fact of life.

No one has disputed that. All i have done is point out how inconsistent you are in your beliefs. After all, you did point out that, " We grow plenty of native born unskilled, under-educated workers of our own. "
Your argument is a pool of unemployed will keep wages down and then argue that a pool of native unemployed will raise wages??? How ridiculous.
You argue that it is the good business practice to pay the least that can be paid. And then sugggest if the government interferes by getting rid of illegals business will be forced to raise wages. The interference that you protest from government suddenly becomes wanted from a government.

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.

Your patriarchal stereotyping nonsense is laughable. Another example of a person who relies on ideology and is not only clueless about reality but has no idea how his nonsense ideology effects reality.

 

[Waddy]

I have never said that capitalism is the root of all evil. I see that your ability to debate is so poor that you are now down to mud slinging.


No one has disputed that. All i have done is point out how inconsistent you are in your beliefs. After all, you did point out that, " We grow plenty of native born unskilled, under-educated workers of our own. "
Your argument is a pool of unemployed will keep wages down and then argue that a pool of native unemployed will raise wages??? How ridiculous.
You argue that it is the good business practice to pay the least that can be paid. And then sugggest if the government interferes by getting rid of illegals business will be forced to raise wages. The interference that you protest from government suddenly becomes wanted from a government.

Your patriarchal stereotyping nonsense is laughable. Another example of a person who relies on ideology and is not only clueless about reality but has no idea how his nonsense ideology effects reality.

Your attempt at spin is laughable. Getting rid of unnecessary foreign low cost unskilled labor would create a labor shortage and make the labor surplus evaporate and leave those jobs open to native born unskilled labor which in turn would push up wages. That is how markets work. Supply and demand. That isn't a difficult concept. Even you should get it. It works at all levels of employment. That's why a guy like Michael Jordan was worth so much. Few, if any, could do what he did. And he made the business a healthy profit doing it. If it's "patriarchal" to advise unskilled people to get trained-up in a marketable skill leading to good wages then I'm definitely "patriarchal". Your ideology keeps them on the Democrat plantation forever.

 

[soylentgreen]

Your attempt at spin is laughable. Getting rid of unnecessary foreign low cost unskilled labor would create a labor shortage and make the labor surplus evaporate and leave those jobs open to native born unskilled labor which in turn would push up wages. .

Nice theory that does not reflect the reality that the employers were criminals themselves in hiring illegals and they are not likely to be the type who will suddenly play fair.

That is how markets work.

No, that is a theory taught to children which yoiu obviously never progressed from.

Supply and demand. That isn't a difficult concept. Even you should get it. It works at all levels of employment.

Of course it does as a basic theory taught to a child in their very first class of economics. But not as an actual cause and effect in real life.

Tobacco companies would have no demand for a product had the tobacco companies revealed the truth that a cigarette is a carcinogenic poison that will shorten your life and is addictive. So instead they created demand by obscuring the truth and telling lies while giving cigarettes an image that made them seem popular.

An example of supply can be seen with the old bendy banana law of europe. A law that served no other purpose than to limit supply to the advantage of the distributor while being harmful to both the consumer and manufacturer of the product.
Supply and demand is not a law. It is a simple theory taught to children in the way you express it.

That's why a guy like Michael Jordan was worth so much. Few, if any, could do what he did. And he made the business a healthy profit doing it. If it's "patriarchal" to advise unskilled people to get trained-up in a marketable skill leading to good wages then I'm definitely "patriarchal". Your ideology keeps them on the Democrat plantation forever

Your comprehension skills are as bad as your understanding of economics. I did not claim up skilling was patriarchal i claimed your poor excuses as to why women are underpayed is patriarchal.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

1 Of course not all government regulations, just the ones that only serve special interestss
2. All government programs need to be subject to reductions, not just the ones one party or the other disagrees with. The deficit is out of control, and spending has to be reduced.
3. Agreed. The purpose of government is to protect liberty, not to protect us from ourselves.
4. No, open borders would mean the end of sovereignty.
5. Of course. The Fourth Amendment is more important today than ever. We need to bring the fifth one back from the brink of disaster as well, but that's another issue.

Basically my stance. I think the borders can be more open than they are now but purely open borders is moronic.

 

[Helix]

Which libertarian stances do you hold?

out of the choices listed, i would choose social freedom and right to privacy. i'm also with them on some of the drug stuff. as for the rest, i think that the effect of a libertarian sea change would be that corporations would have an even more intrusive level of control over my life than government.

 

[soylentgreen]

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

Right?

That is an interesting insight into how much libertarianism has changed. Once upon a time the high priestess of libertarianism ayn rand was quite clear that altruism did not exist. Of course her argument was pure crap. But at that time her disciples followed her blindly.

Now days a libertarian argues that they are altruistic. My, my, how time changes.

 

[Waddy]

Nice theory that does not reflect the reality that the employers were criminals themselves in hiring illegals and they are not likely to be the type who will suddenly play fair.
No, that is a theory taught to children which yoiu obviously never progressed from.
Of course it does as a basic theory taught to a child in their very first class of economics. But not as an actual cause and effect in real life.
Tobacco companies would have no demand for a product had the tobacco companies revealed the truth that a cigarette is a carcinogenic poison that will shorten your life and is addictive. So instead they created demand by obscuring the truth and telling lies while giving cigarettes an image that made them seem popular.
An example of supply can be seen with the old bendy banana law of europe. A law that served no other purpose than to limit supply to the advantage of the distributor while being harmful to both the consumer and manufacturer of the product.
Supply and demand is not a law. It is a simple theory taught to children in the way you express it.
Your comprehension skills are as bad as your understanding of economics. I did not claim up skilling was patriarchal i claimed your poor excuses as to why women are underpayed is patriarchal.

Your dream of a socialist utopia is fading with every post. You obviously have no idea how markets work. Employers don't have to play "fair", whatever that means. If there were a shortage of unskilled labor wages would rise. Works that way all through the wage system. Skills in short supply and high demand command higher wages. It's a fact.

Tobacco companies deserved to be charged with criminal intent. By obscuring what tobacco did they weren't practicing Capitalism, they were criminals. For a Capitalist system to function properly it has to be transparent and information readily available so people can make wise choices.

And I agree with you that laws such a the "bendy' law in Europe serve only to protect the distributor. Those types of practices undermine Capitalism, where a level playing field is needed. That's where regulation comes in; it should always seek to level the playing field while preventing manipulation of the market.

You're learning, grasshopper. The market works when regulations are established that keep it honest; and that should be the only goal of regulation. Setting wages artificially isn't within that purview. Up-skilling raises wages. I know that doesn't fit your liberal meme. Keep 'em on the liberal plantation.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That is an interesting insight into how much libertarianism has changed. Once upon a time the high priestess of libertarianism ayn rand was quite clear that altruism did not exist. Of course her argument was pure crap. But at that time her disciples followed her blindly.

Now days a libertarian argues that they are altruistic. My, my, how time changes.

I never was much on following anyone blindly.

 

[Masterhawk]

Libertarian means neoliberal far right-wing; be careful what you support.

Well, if the idea that government interference with people's lives should be minimal is neoliberal far right wing, then yeah.

 

[jet57]

Well, if the idea that government interference with people's lives should be minimal is neoliberal far right wing, then yeah.

Then yeah what?

 

[soylentgreen]

I never was much on following anyone blindly.

it gives me with that "rat leaving sinking ship" feeling. Not that long ago you could always tell who was a libertarian on these boards because they would have an avatar picture of one of her book covers. Now it's hard press to find one who will admit even having heard of her.
Not that i am pointing any fingers or making any accusations.

 

[soylentgreen]

Your dream of a socialist utopia is fading with every post. You obviously have no idea how markets work. Employers don't have to play "fair", whatever that means. If there were a shortage of unskilled labor wages would rise. Works that way all through the wage system. Skills in short supply and high demand command higher wages. It's a fact.

Tobacco companies deserved to be charged with criminal intent. By obscuring what tobacco did they weren't practicing Capitalism, they were criminals. For a Capitalist system to function properly it has to be transparent and information readily available so people can make wise choices.

And I agree with you that laws such a the "bendy' law in Europe serve only to protect the distributor. Those types of practices undermine Capitalism, where a level playing field is needed. That's where regulation comes in; it should always seek to level the playing field while preventing manipulation of the market.

You're learning, grasshopper. The market works when regulations are established that keep it honest; and that should be the only goal of regulation. Setting wages artificially isn't within that purview. Up-skilling raises wages. I know that doesn't fit your liberal meme. Keep 'em on the liberal plantation.

As i have not even mentioned socialist let alone your incompetent understanding of it if you think utopia has anything to do with it. I can only assume it is your dishonest attempt to deny that what i am actually doing is pointing out how badly you understand economics and capitalism because you display nothing more than the mindlessness of someone told what to think instead of how to think.

Once again all you do is tell me comprehension is one of your many failings. I did not bring up tobacco companies or the bendy banana to say they were capitalists or not. I brought that point up to demonstrate your childish understanding of demand and supply.

And your mystical belief in the magical ability of a market to keep business honest is laughable. As i pointed out your religious belief in dogma has no real connection to reality. I bring up two good examples of how the market did absolutely nothing to keep dishonest business practices happening and yet still you bring up your belief in a magical market as a solution.

It really is bad enough i have to deal with your lame understanding of capitalism or economics. I have no intention of discussing something way above your understanding as socialism would obviously be. Trying rather stupid slander of calling it utopian only demonstrates your own lack of intelligence. You fail at trying to pretend i am anti capitalist when all i am doing is pointing out how badly you understand how capitalism works.

 

[Waddy]

As i have not even mentioned socialist let alone your incompetent understanding of it if you think utopia has anything to do with it. I can only assume it is your dishonest attempt to deny that what i am actually doing is pointing out how badly you understand economics and capitalism because you display nothing more than the mindlessness of someone told what to think instead of how to think.

Once again all you do is tell me comprehension is one of your many failings. I did not bring up tobacco companies or the bendy banana to say they were capitalists or not. I brought that point up to demonstrate your childish understanding of demand and supply.

And your mystical belief in the magical ability of a market to keep business honest is laughable. As i pointed out your religious belief in dogma has no real connection to reality. I bring up two good examples of how the market did absolutely nothing to keep dishonest business practices happening and yet still you bring up your belief in a magical market as a solution.

It really is bad enough i have to deal with your lame understanding of capitalism or economics. I have no intention of discussing something way above your understanding as socialism would obviously be. Trying rather stupid slander of calling it utopian only demonstrates your own lack of intelligence. You fail at trying to pretend i am anti capitalist when all i am doing is pointing out how badly you understand how capitalism works.

You have no idea how a market works, but most believers in a socialist utopias don't. The market works setting wages; you haven't refuted that at all. The role of government is to provide competent regulation and identify and punish criminal behavior. That's basic ECON 101 once again. The market and government work together to keep the playing field level. That includes enforcing transparency. You are incapable of grasping these basic elements of an economy.
And to deny that supply and demand drives a market economy is just plain stupid, and shows just how out of touch with reality far left wingnuts get. Your utopian dream of enforcing wage equality by government decree would be a disaster here just like it has been in Russia.
Once again; if you want to make above minimum wage, get trained in a SKILL that is in DEMAND. Want to make as much as a man? Make the same career choices men do.

 

[soylentgreen]

You have no idea how a market works, but most believers in a socialist utopias don't. The market works setting wages; you haven't refuted that at all. .

I had no intention of refuting it. It is nothing more than you trying a distraction from the point that you have absolutely no clue how economics work beyond that of what a child is taught.

The role of government is to provide competent regulation and identify and punish criminal behavior. That's basic ECON 101 once again. The market and government work together to keep the playing field level. That includes enforcing transparency. You are incapable of grasping these basic elements of an economy.

Because i disagree with your idiotic suggestions on how the government and the market should work together. (That is socialism by the way. Not that someone who uses the word utopia would have a clue about it.)

And to deny that supply and demand drives a market economy is just plain stupid, and shows just how out of touch with reality far left wingnuts get.

And once again your comprehension skills are pathetic. I have not denied supply and demand are a part of the mechanics of the market. What i have done is demonstrate that they are manipulated by business people rather than a driving force.

Your utopian dream of enforcing wage equality by government decree would be a disaster here just like it has been in Russia.

And you resort to telling lies. No where have i said there should be wage equality. Pointing out that a minimum wage is needed in order for to get rid of your own contradiction that wages are set to low for native americans to do the work that illegals do now is hardly wage equality.

Once again; if you want to make above minimum wage, get trained in a SKILL that is in DEMAND. Want to make as much as a man? Make the same career choices men do

And we are back to you attempting the dishonest trick of distraction. The conversation was supposedly on your massive unemployed and uneducated taking over the work only an illegal would do. You remember, the kind of work that required no training so as to be able to skill up would not occur.

Your pathetic attempt to argue your side do no credit to libertarianism. it is obvious your a person who has been taught what to say without any real understandiong of what you are saying.

 

[NeverTrump]

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

I am not a libertarian, nor do I hold any libertarian views. Why does this sound like an interrogation?

 

[Fledermaus]

Libertarian means neoliberal far right-wing; be careful what you support.

Incorrect...

 

[jet57]

Incorrect...

READ - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot


https://beinglibertarian.com/libertarians-right-wing/

To understand why the libertarians are, for the most part, right-wing, we need to first understand what it means to be a libertarian as well as what it means to be on the right-wing.

Now research the Koch brothers and James Mcgill Buchanan and others who are attached to that ideology.

 

[blackjack50]

Actually, all of those, in moderation.

Generally that is how I feel. Libertarian is more of a party about getting rid of government than anything else. It is down on the spectrum. Not left and right.

 

[OlNate]

And?

California is blessed with three major ports on the Pacific....

And.... you got dusted by dragging out the California example, which always tends to frustrate more than validate libertarians. It might sound like a ****hole to you, and perhaps me as well in certain respects, but at this point, given the facts, it seems you are blaming regulation on companies failing that couldn't survive in the biggest American market, while being blessed with three major ports on the Pacific....lol... Sometimes businesses fail because they suck.

If you can't survive in an regulated environment, while other businesses can, it's not the regulation, it's you.

 

[Goshin]

Said yes to 3 and 4.

Said no to 1, because corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves to put the well being of citizens ahead of profits.
Said no to 2, because social programs are important to ensuring that a civilized society leaves no one behind. Also, because I'm not selfish, and care about others.
Said no to 5, because there are dangers in the world, and without making major overall changes to how we treat people, at home and abroad, there will always be someone pissed off enough to do something heinous to get theirs.

To me libertarianism is the epitome of an immature political ideology. They want all the perks, but none of the responsibility, and they're the first to change their tune when something impacts them personally. Doing what you want and not paying taxes does not make for a great system to run a country as powerful or as important as America.

Not that it gets it all wrong, and not that it is ill intentioned...it's just a little silly in some of the fundamental ways it misunderstands what it takes to run a country.

When it comes to what I call "pure libertarianism", I tend to agree. I've known too many libertarians who take the principles as absolutes, refuse any compromise whatsoever for any reason, and would apparently rather ride their ideology to hell-in-a-handbasket than give an inch.

I've said many times in the past, that is nuts. You can't have an ideologically pure government unless everyone is in 100% agreement on all things... without that, you're left with either compromise or coercion. Also I firmly believe that no matter what your ideology or principles you have to take real-world issues into consideration and make adjustments for how things really are, as compared to how they "ought to be".

Another libertarian (who used to be active here) and I discussed many times the need for a "Libertarian Light" version... that is, libertarianism that takes those things into account and is willing to compromise where necessary to accommodate reality and politics.


For instance you can't get a "pure" Libertarian to agree to the existence of ANY social safety net administered by gov't, regardless of real needs and human suffering, because their principles are against it. No matter how efficiently run, no matter how focused on getting people on their feet and OFF gov't assistance, even a temporary program offends their principles and is not to be tolerated.

I once joked that since pure libertarians were adamantly opposed to eminent domain in any form, a libertarian highway would look like a broke-back snake since they'd have to divert around property owners that refused to sell...

 

[Harshaw]

If you can't survive in an regulated environment, while other businesses can, it's not the regulation, it's you.

You make it sound like there are never regulations designed to favor X company over Y, or to protect entrenched interests against competition.

 

[OlNate]

When it comes to what I call "pure libertarianism", I tend to agree. I've known too many libertarians who take the principles as absolutes, refuse any compromise whatsoever for any reason, and would apparently rather ride their ideology to hell-in-a-handbasket than give an inch.

I've said many times in the past, that is nuts. You can't have an ideologically pure government unless everyone is in 100% agreement on all things... without that, you're left with either compromise or coercion. Also I firmly believe that no matter what your ideology or principles you have to take real-world issues into consideration and make adjustments for how things really are, as compared to how they "ought to be".

Another libertarian (who used to be active here) and I discussed many times the need for a "Libertarian Light" version... that is, libertarianism that takes those things into account and is willing to compromise where necessary to accommodate reality and politics.


For instance you can't get a "pure" Libertarian to agree to the existence of ANY social safety net administered by gov't, regardless of real needs and human suffering, because their principles are against it. No matter how efficiently run, no matter how focused on getting people on their feet and OFF gov't assistance, even a temporary program offends their principles and is not to be tolerated.

I once joked that since pure libertarians were adamantly opposed to eminent domain in any form, a libertarian highway would look like a broke-back snake since they'd have to divert around property owners that refused to sell...

lol...yup. I agree with you all over the place here, big time.

I'm also not opposed to "liberty". I mean, if you were to ask me what my idea of a utopian society would look like, I'd sum it up by saying that it would be where everyone can be free to be whoever they want to be, so long as it does not impede another's ability to do the same. When I do those "What political lean are you" questionnaires, which plots answers on Right / Left and Authoritarian / Libertarian axis, I usually end up Left / Libertarian. It's not so much the issue of Freedom I'm opposed to, it's the idea that a fellow citizen gets left behind.

As we race towards a world where automation and robotics continue to take bigger and bigger chunks out of the job market, we will need to care about that, or be responsible for a lot of hardship and suffering. I can't always do something for the person who's down on their luck personally, or maybe I just don't like the cut of their gib and I pass them by, so I support government running those programs for the sake of everyone who needs the help, but doesn't have anyone to help them. Pure Libertarianism's time ended a long time ago, but I think the future holds a lot of personal freedom if we do it right...but nothing's free.

 

[Waddy]

I had no intention of refuting it. It is nothing more than you trying a distraction from the point that you have absolutely no clue how economics work beyond that of what a child is taught.


Because i disagree with your idiotic suggestions on how the government and the market should work together. (That is socialism by the way. Not that someone who uses the word utopia would have a clue about it.)


And once again your comprehension skills are pathetic. I have not denied supply and demand are a part of the mechanics of the market. What i have done is demonstrate that they are manipulated by business people rather than a driving force.


And you resort to telling lies. No where have i said there should be wage equality. Pointing out that a minimum wage is needed in order for to get rid of your own contradiction that wages are set to low for native americans to do the work that illegals do now is hardly wage equality.



And we are back to you attempting the dishonest trick of distraction. The conversation was supposedly on your massive unemployed and uneducated taking over the work only an illegal would do. You remember, the kind of work that required no training so as to be able to skill up would not occur.

Your pathetic attempt to argue your side do no credit to libertarianism. it is obvious your a person who has been taught what to say without any real understandiong of what you are saying.

Look, I can't help it if you're frustrated with your minimum wage job. Get yourself skilled-up and you, too, could be a plumber or a carpenter. Well, maybe not, you do need minimum smarts. You obviously have no idea how economic markets work. You keep demanding a raise in the minimum wage, while I say minimum wage should never be a career goal; get trained in a skill that is in DEMAND. You just can't get around that point. Frustrating, I know. For you socialists, government is the answer to everything. Big government, the bigger the better. Keep 'em on the liberal plantation.