Support NeoGAF

[Supast4r]

I understand that the concept of laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights are good for business and will basically make the country debt free, however the consequences can't be justified in my eyes. Libertarians are against any aid from the government (anti food stamps/anti welfare/Obamacare/social security/public education/etc.) If you cut those programs from the US, the poverty rate/racial disparity between the poverty rate, the wealth gap, and a lot of other outside factors that affect lower class citizens only gets worse. The argument that welfare/food stamps are abused is a myth and I'll post the official stats below. In what world are these politics helpful for this country's growth? How does it benefit someone who is lower middle class? I'm asking because I always here these arguments about helping business but how does that help me besides lower taxes? How does privatized education help when people can't afford to go there?

Link to foodstamps/welfare article (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html) shows that over 60 percent use aid for 2 or less years.

 

[andythinkpad]

Huh? Libertarianism ia not mainstream US policy.

 

[kirblar]

Libertarian doesn't work as an ideology because, like it's polar opposite Socialism, it's relying too much on people to not be super crappy.

However, libertarian solutions to problems actually tend to be really good. If you keep them practical, they'll do a world of good for you. You can give them all sorts of tasks- you just really don't want them steering the ship.

 

[The Technomancer]

I mean, theoretically state's rights is a good thing when individual states are ahead of the curve (see: gay marriage or increasingly marijuana legalization)

The problem is that the cost of all the negative examples are so high on their resident populations

 

[platakul]

A dude is entitled to the sweat of his bro

 

[pa22word]

Huh? Libertarianism ia not mainstream US policy.

Yeah, this.

Modern GOP is a mix of neoliberals and social conservatives for the most part. Libertarianism died in the gilded age in the US. No major party really believes it can work.

 

[Eusis]

I think it's one of those things that sounds nice as a general concept but in practice and when you really scrutinize just doesn't hold for a country wide government. It sounds great to not have anyone stick their noses into your business and to just be allowed to do what you want, but a lot of people can and would abuse that, nevermind how it just lets money and resources pool into the few most fortunate.

EDIT: Nevermind how in American Politics the closest adherents actually in office only embraced the unregulated free market angle really, not the unrestricted social freedoms angle. The worst of both worlds: you let these companies pull whatever bullshit and act as if the free market will just magically fix the problems entirely, while ostracizing people for how they may want or even need to live. Screw that.

 

[Clefargle]

Being a contrarian and yelling about idealism

 

[EmSeta]

Yeah, this.

Modern GOP is a mix of neoliberals and social conservatives for the most part. Libertarianism died in the gilded age in the US. No major party really believes it can work.

No, but there's a lot of young voters seeking refuge from Trump by looking at Gary Johnson, who in some respects is more dangerous. I'm all for the social libertarian stuff, but the complete dismantling of government assistance would be a disastrous regression.

 

[Supast4r]

I think it's one of those things that sounds nice as a general concept but in practice and when you really scrutinize just doesn't hold for a country wide government. It sounds great to not have anyone stick their noses into your business and to just be allowed to do what you want, but a lot of people can and would abuse that, nevermind how it just lets money and resources pool into the few most fortunate.

EDIT: Nevermind how in American Politics the closest adherents actually in office only embraced the unregulated free market angle really, not the unrestricted social freedoms angle. The worst of both worlds: you let these companies pull whatever bullshit and act as if the free market will just magically fix the problems entirely, while ostracizing people for how they may want or even need to live. Screw that.

It's not even abuse, it doesn't work on a fundamental level. For example with public education. Are there private schools/public that are nicer than others? Of course there are because of how schools are financed. What happens when you cut public education from the south side of Chicago where 50 plus schools got closed down in the last few years? How do poor people afford a system of only private schools with lax regulation. This is why libertarianism makes no sense to me fundamentally.

 

[Supast4r]

Libertarian doesn't work as an ideology because, like it's polar opposite Socialism, it's relying too much on people to not be super crappy.

However, libertarian solutions to problems actually tend to be really good. If you keep them practical, they'll do a world of good for you. You can give them all sorts of tasks- you just really don't want them steering the ship.

Can you give me an example of where a mix of libertarian policies work?

 

[Eusis]

It's not even abuse, it doesn't work on a fundamental level. For example with public education. Are there private schools/public that are nicer than others? Of course there are because of how schools are financed. What happens when you cut public education from the south side of Chicago where 50 plus schools got closed down in the last few years? How do poor people afford a system of only private schools with lax regulation. This is why libertarianism makes no sense to me fundamentally.

Yeah, you start looking at the public services and thinking about what'd actually happen to those if you went full libertarian and yeaaah, it just isn't a great idea.

EDIT: Seriously, even when it sounded like a great idea to me I'd take a political identification quiz and I'd ping as democrat instead. I just know you need to have at least some regulations and public services, and it's really looking like if anything we're inadequate there.

 

[Steel]

Yeah, this.

Modern GOP is a mix of neoliberals and social conservatives for the most part. Libertarianism died in the gilded age in the US. No major party really believes it can work.

Huh?

 

[Hazmat]

Libertarians occasionally get good support and numbers (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson now) from people either not liking the more mainstream Republican candidate (or Trump) or from voters who prioritize a few issues and vote on them only. If you hate the idea of the US doing anything overseas or really really really want weed (and other drugs) to be legal, then a libertarian candidate seems like a good fit.

Until you think about roads. And bridges. And schools. And firefighters. And, you know, civil rights.

 

[Eusis]

Huh?

Economic liberals I believe.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Libertarian doesn't work as an ideology because, like it's polar opposite Socialism, it's relying too much on people to not be super crappy.

Errrrr.... Socialism is there to keep people from being crappy. Or lessen their crapiness.

 

[Steel]

Economic liberals I believe.

But they're not?

 

[jdstorm]

The thing I don't understand about Libetarianism is how can you have police and enforce laws if you believe in freedom.

If a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, shouldn't a man capable of stealing it through hard work and clever planning be able to take it?
Thieving is hard work too and thieves should be rewarded for the sweat of their brows.

So in practice libertarians are just selfish anarchists

 

[kirblar]

Can you give me an example of where a mix of libertarian policies work?

Deregulation (when done in the correct places) is one. Occupational licensing reform has been a big cause for them, and they managed to convince a big chunk of the left that it needed to be done as well. (The "technocrat" wing of the party is in many ways a liberal/libertarian hybrid.) Businesses love to keep competitors out, and many licensing regulation are not the result of actual safety concerns, but instead are protectionist measures designed to protect existing business's hold on a market.

The trick is, of course, Lassez Faire doesn't work here. You have to actively legislate and regulate (at a high level) to make this work - if you just let business run wild, you'll get even worse business practices in your wake.

The libertarian critique of the drug war is also pretty valid, especially on Marijuana.

Errrrr.... Socialism is there to keep people from being crappy. Or lessen their crapiness.

It ultimately fails because people are selfish and self-interested. You can't fix people from being shitty, you have to account for it in the calculus.

 

[Supast4r]

Libertarians occasionally get good support and numbers (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson now) from people either not liking the more mainstream Republican candidate (or Trump) or from voters who prioritize a few issues and vote on them only. If you hate the idea of the US doing anything overseas or really really really want weed (and other drugs) to be legal, then a libertarian candidate seems like a good fit.

Until you think about roads. And bridges. And schools. And firefighters. And, you know, civil rights.

I had a libertarian at my college justify that segregation should be legal in stores because as a black guy I could choose not to go in that store. I can't even...

 

[i_am_ben]

Basically, the positives of libertarianism is that you get to like marijuana and hate on minorities

 

[Eusis]

But they're not?

Take it literally: being liberal about what the private businesses can do and letting them handle most everything.

EDIT: Also, Wikipedia.

 

[Gun Animal]

I'd say 95% of the libertarian support you'll see on a mostly liberal group like NeoGAF can be summed up as "I want to be able to smoke weed and say the N word." I don't think many people here actually buy into Objectivism.

edit: it seems liberal can mean "very left-wing" or "not left-wing enough" or "very right wing" depending on who you're talking to.

 

[Brakke]

#NotAllLibertarians are against government programs. Most reasonable libertarians assert that free markets are the most efficient method of allocating resources, but concede that naturally-emerging markets aren't necessarily free. Plus, most credible libertarians recognize that the government can guarantee property rights more easily than private citizens can. A government is useful for keeping transactions cost low enough to allow free markets to emerge, at the very least.

Libertarians face the same problem every system faces: humans are good at playing games, and any institution can be corrupted. The libertarian's main folly is putting too much stock in the one institution, the "free" market, but not enough in the other institutions that can check un-free markets. Libertarianism often produces institutions that are easy to corrupt, and doesn't produce institutions strong enough to oppose that corruption. It's an easy one-way ticket to oligarchy.

 

[Supast4r]

#NotAllLibertarians are against government programs. Most reasonable libertarians assert that free markets are the most efficient method of allocating resources, but concede that naturally-emerging markets aren't necessarily free. Plus, most credible libertarians recognize that the government can guarantee property rights more easily than private citizens can. A government is useful for keeping transactions cost low enough to allow free markets to emerge, at the very least.

Libertarians face the same problem every system faces: humans are good at playing games, and any institution can be corrupted. The libertarian's main folly is putting too much stock in the one institution, the "free" market, but not enough in the other institutions that can check un-free markets. Libertarianism often produces institutions that are easy to corrupt, and doesn't produce institutions strong enough to oppose that corruption. It's an easy one-way ticket to oligarchy.

This claim is the same issue that I have with conservative poltics. It's the "fuck you I got mine" policies that don't take into account that we all don't start at the same starting line nor do we drive the same cars in the race that we call life. So why do we even pretend that these poltics will help people who are disenfranchised? How does cutting taxes that go into helping social programs help?

 

[Joni]

Basically, the positives of libertarianism is that you get to like marijuana and hate on minorities

And that people get to pull themselves up on their bootstraps without being burdened by foodstamps.

 

[Brakke]

The thing I don't understand about Libetarianism is how can you have police and enforce laws if you believe in freedom.

If a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, shouldn't a man capable of stealing it through hard work and clever planning be able to take it?
Thieving is hard work too and thieves should be rewarded for the sweat of their brows.

So in practice libertarians are just selfish anarchists

The one thing most libertarians stand united over is the idea of property rights. Some libertarians hold that property is the only right.

"Life, liberty, and property."

 

[iamblades]

It's not even abuse, it doesn't work on a fundamental level. For example with public education. Are there private schools/public that are nicer than others? Of course there are because of how schools are financed. What happens when you cut public education from the south side of Chicago where 50 plus schools got closed down in the last few years? How do poor people afford a system of only private schools with lax regulation. This is why libertarianism makes no sense to me fundamentally.

The point is not that private schools are better or that free public education is a bad thing(though I do believe that market forces lead to improvement over time), the question is whether it is moral to put a gun to someone's head to force them to pay for it. I personally believe that we can find ways to pay for things that people deem a public good that do not require coercive force, and I believe that utilizing market forces can result in lower costs of government services.

The thing I don't understand about Libetarianism is how can you have police and enforce laws if you believe in freedom.

If a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, shouldn't a man capable of stealing it through hard work and clever planning be able to take it?
Thieving is hard work too and thieves should be rewarded for the sweat of their brows.

So in practice libertarians are just selfish anarchists

The point of libertarianism is that the government should only use it's monopoly on the use of force when it is moral to do so. It is fundamentally about non-violence.

Now where this line is varies from person to person, but most libertarians believe that use of force to enforce crimes with victims is perfectly moral. Theft and fraud have victims. Prostitution and drug use do not.

 

[RedSparrows]

My basic problem with libertarianism is that it demands freedom, but ignores that no money = no freedom. So the poor lose, as ever. I do not believe for one second everyone can thrive if we all had more freedom. Freedom for the wolves, etc.

 

[Brakke]

This claim is the same issue that I have with conservative poltics. It's the "fuck you I got mine" policies that don't take into account that we all don't start at the same starting line nor do we drive the same cars in the race that we call life. So why do we even pretend that these poltics will help people who are disenfranchised? How does cutting taxes that go into helping social programs help?

Totally fair. Inheritance is always a struggle for libertarians: is a father entitled to freely bequeath his wealth to his descendants, or is a son free to compete against his peers regardless of their inheritance? People regularly bungle this, since the instinct to give your own child the best possible chance is so deeply ingrained.

Does a "true" libertarian advocate for 0% estate tax or 100% estate tax? It's never been clear to me how to resolve this.

 

[Supast4r]

The point is not that private schools are better or that free public education is a bad thing(though I do believe that market forces lead to improvement over time), the question is whether it is moral to put a gun to someone's head to force them to pay for it. I personally believe that we can find ways to pay for things that people deem a public good that do not require coercive force, and I believe that utilizing market forces can result in lower costs of government services. Even though it sucks that people that have to pay for public goods can afford better options, the reality is that many of us can't.



The point of libertarianism is that the government should only use it's monopoly on the use of force when it is moral to do so. It is fundamentally about non-violence.

Now where this line is varies from person to person, but most libertarians believe that use of force to enforce crimes with victims is perfectly moral. Theft and fraud have victims. Prostitution and drug use do not.

I'm gonna be honest I think that's impossible. If you got to choose to pay for public education, then that means that public edu becomes even more underfunded. The issue is that many public goods are underfunded as is right now.

 

[iamblades]

I'm gonna be honest I think that's impossible. If you got to choose to pay for public education, then that means that public edu becomes even more underfunded. The issue is that many public goods are underfunded as is right now.

It's fine if you think it's impossible, but we still have to deal with the morality issue.

How does it become moral to take money from someone who has done nothing wrong?

Everyone is 100% in agreement that it would be illegal and immoral if I robbed a bank and donated the money to the school system, so at what point does this change, and for what reason?

 

[Hazmat]

Totally fair. Inheritance is always a struggle for libertarians: is a father entitled to freely bequeath his wealth to his descendants, or is a son free to compete against his peers regardless of their inheritance? People regularly bungle this, since the instinct to give your own child the best possible chance is so deeply ingrained.

Does a "true" libertarian advocate for 0% estate tax or 100% estate tax? It's never been clear to me how to resolve this.

I don't think I've ever heard of a libertarian supporting a 100% inheritance tax. Do these libertarians also believe that their wealth shouldn't provide their children with better schools or gifts? If not how are my children supposed to have the freedom to compete with theirs?

 

[Joni]

It's fine if you think it's impossible, but we still have to deal with the morality issue.

How does it become moral to take money from someone who has done nothing wrong?

Everyone is 100% in agreement that it would be illegal and immoral if I robbed a bank and donated the money to the school system, so at what point does this change, and for what reason?

They have used the roads, counted on the police, went to school.

 

[iamblades]

I don't think I've ever heard of a libertarian supporting a 100% inheritance tax. Do these libertarians also believe that their wealth shouldn't provide their children with better schools or gifts? If not how are my children supposed to have the freedom to compete with theirs?

I don't know of any mainstream libertarian thinkers in favor of inheritance taxes, but it is a fairly mainstream libertarian opinion that inheritance should not be automatic, ie. that in the absence of a will, assets are inherited by the nearest living relative. The thought is that if the owner of said property did not designate a recipient, it is declared unclaimed or abandoned.

Though this distinction is likely to be completely meaningless in the vast majority of cases, as the closest living relative will most likely be the person who is in the best position to claim the assets anyway.

Technically this does allow for the state to create a law that claims ownership of unclaimed assets(some states already do this with things like wrecked and abandoned vehicles), which would probably be acceptable to most libertarians, as the previous owner consented to allow the government to take ownership if they did not declare a beneficiary.

 

[Zoggy]

Republicans who smoke weed

 

[jdstorm]

The one thing most libertarians stand united over is the idea of property rights. Some libertarians hold that property is the only right.

"Life, liberty, and property."

But if they are truely free, why should another person defend another persons property (via law or any other means) without compensation?
And if so wouldn't Libetarian's support private security as opposed to government security. In which case wouldn't organised security cartels be Te most powerful people in a libertarians world view?

So basically they want Mob Rule?

The point is not that private schools are better or that free public education is a bad thing(though I do believe that market forces lead to improvement over time), the question is whether it is moral to put a gun to someone's head to force them to pay for it. I personally believe that we can find ways to pay for things that people deem a public good that do not require coercive force, and I believe that utilizing market forces can result in lower costs of government services.




The point of libertarianism is that the government should only use it's monopoly on the use of force when it is moral to do so. It is fundamentally about non-violence.

Now where this line is varies from person to person, but most libertarians believe that use of force to enforce crimes with victims is perfectly moral. Theft and fraud have victims. Prostitution and drug use do not.

But who decides what is moral? Why is something like stealing viewed as a crime and not a learned skill? Why is prostitution considered not to have victims when the spouse of a person using that service is potentially having their money/resources and time stolen by another person.

Sounds like Libetarians just want a rigged system that enables them to do whatever they want

 

[makingmusic476]

The point is not that private schools are better or that free public education is a bad thing(though I do believe that market forces lead to improvement over time), the question is whether it is moral to put a gun to someone's head to force them to pay for it. I personally believe that we can find ways to pay for things that people deem a public good that do not require coercive force, and I believe that utilizing market forces can result in lower costs of government services.




The point of libertarianism is that the government should only use it's monopoly on the use of force when it is moral to do so. It is fundamentally about non-violence.

Now where this line is varies from person to person, but most libertarians believe that use of force to enforce crimes with victims is perfectly moral. Theft and fraud have victims. Prostitution and drug use do not.

Why is it that 'market forces' demanding certain funds to enable people to live a worthwhile life is okay, but a government demanding such funds is not? Simply because a diffusion of blame makes it harder to claim anybody in particular is the cause of the demand?

 

[iamblades]

Why is it that 'market forces' demanding certain funds to enable people to live a worthwhile life is okay, but a government demanding such funds is not? Simply because a diffusion of blame makes it harder to claim anybody in particular is the cause of the demand?

Because one is voluntary and one involves the use of coercive force.

But if they are truely free, why should another person defend another persons property (via law or any other means) without compensation?
And if so wouldn't Libetarian's support private security as opposed to government security. In which case wouldn't organised security cartels be Te most powerful people in a libertarians world view?

So basically they want Mob Rule?



But who decides what is moral? Why is something like stealing viewed as a crime and not a learned skill? Why is prostitution considered not to have victims when the spouse of a person using that service is potentially having their money/resources and time stolen by another person.

Sounds like Libetarians just want a rigged system that enables them to do whatever they want

Some libertarians would prefer private security over government police sure, but others view this as one of the morally justified uses of force for the government to engage in. There is almost no topic which 100% of libertarians agree on.

As for the bolded, that's a hard question, but also not really the point. The point isn't that the government should punish immoral behavior, the point is that the government(that is supposed to represent me) should not engage in behavior I believe is immoral on my behalf(with my tax money as well).

 

[jdstorm]

Because one is voluntary and one involves the use of coercive force.

Advertising is a coercive force. Does that mean businesses would be unable to advertise?

 

[Wafflecakes]

Advertising is a coercive force. Does that mean businesses would be unable to advertise?

False equivalency is false.

 

[iamblades]

Advertising is a coercive force. Does that mean businesses would be unable to advertise?

No it is not.

Well I shouldn't generalize, I could imagine some hypothetical advertisement that did use coercive force, but that would generally be illegal, it's called extortion.

 

[Jonm1010]

Libertarianism fails worst when it comes to aspects of society where their self imposed aversion to government coercion and the inability of the market to produce a optimal outcome under their strict parameters would create a societal and economic catastrophe.

For instance health care.

Beyond that there's things like the whole barren regulatory philosophy that essentielly sanctions racism. Issues of the commons in an increasingly resource strained and enviorenmentally vulnerable world. The over reliance on people making rational economic decisions(which behavioral economics continues to show us is not nearly as often as classic economists liked to believe). And the ever present problem of intentional information asymmetry in consumer markets that is often compounded when high functioning regulatory bodies are not in place.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

But who decides what is moral? Why is something like stealing viewed as a crime and not a learned skill? Why is prostitution considered not to have victims when the spouse of a person using that service is potentially having their money/resources and time stolen by another person.

Sounds like Libetarians just want a rigged system that enables them to do whatever they want

This seems like an argument much more in favor of an anarchist society than the type I presume you're arguing for.

 

[PdotMichael]

Libertarian doesn't work as an ideology because, like it's polar opposite Socialism, it's relying too much on people to not be super crappy.

However, libertarian solutions to problems actually tend to be really good. If you keep them practical, they'll do a world of good for you. You can give them all sorts of tasks- you just really don't want them steering the ship.

Socialism isn't the opposite of anything.

 

[UltimaPooh]

It ultimately fails because people are selfish and self-interested. You can't fix people from being shitty, you have to account for it in the calculus.

That can literally be applied to any economic/political philosophy ever.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

That can literally be applied to any economic/political philosophy ever.

Most economic philosphies take self interest into account, though.

 

[PdotMichael]

Most economic philosphies take self interest into account, though.

So do pretty much all socialist theories.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I AM MY OWN GOD AND THEREFORE ANYONE WHO I DEEM BENEATH ME IS LESSER. ALSO AYN RAND.

I DO NOT OWN THE STATE. THE STATE OWNS ME BECAUSE I AM A BRILLIANT STEM ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER.

THE ARTS ARE A LESSOR SUBJECT. THEY AREN'T DOER'S LIKE ME.

Basically, what it boils down to it.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

So do pretty much all socialist theories.

Is that why all attempts at making a socialiststate have become borderline failed states plagued by corruption?