SomedayTheFire
Member
Libertarianism is a scary mess of an ideology.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Explain the positives of US libertarian politics to me
- Thread starter Supast4r
- Start date
- Status
UltimaPooh
Member
I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
PdotMichael
Banned
For example?
TheRedSnifit
Member
Venezuala, for a current one.
PdotMichael
Banned
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Yes, but Nordic countries aren't socialist.
They're more social democracy.
Socialist are Venezuela and the rest.
I hope Chavez is rotting in hell.
They're more social democracy.
Socialist are Venezuela and the rest.
I hope Chavez is rotting in hell.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Lmao, state capitalism. Literally just means "failed socialist state" at this point.
Maybe after every single attempt at "socialism" becoming "state capitalism," you'd think "Maybe this doesn't work."
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Not really? It has a distinct meaning. In socialism, workers are supposed to own the means of production, which is a fairly fancy way of saying capital/factories/tools and so on. In Soviet Russia, the state owned those things. Now, that's not necessarily incompatible with socialism: if the state is just an organised collective of the workers, then the workers own the means of production through the state. But that's not what Soviet Russia did. The proceeds of the Soviet state went to an elite class who controlled the state and so controlled the capital - hence, state capitalism.
When the world goes more automatic, how can we justify not going socialist?
If you can point to people like Chavez and Stalin, I'd suggest you're just pointing to dictatorships instead of true equal societies.
If you can point to people like Chavez and Stalin, I'd suggest you're just pointing to dictatorships instead of true equal societies.
I get that Libertarians don't like paying taxes. I also get that Libertarians tend to view taxation at the same level as theft. It just feels like an incredibly narrow ideological point to get hung up on.
In terms of property rights I'm a pragmatist and frankly the current Western setup of a high degree of personal property freedom but not absolute property freedom is the best that we have come up with in terms of maximizing opportunity for the most members of our non post scarcity societies.
Absolutes are for ideologues anyway.
In terms of property rights I'm a pragmatist and frankly the current Western setup of a high degree of personal property freedom but not absolute property freedom is the best that we have come up with in terms of maximizing opportunity for the most members of our non post scarcity societies.
Absolutes are for ideologues anyway.
killamajig
Member
Penn Jillette on Libertarianism, Taxes, Trump, Clinton and Weed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAO100hYcQ
It was posted Aug 20 and is 18 mins. He gives a pretty good explanation of what Libertarianism is to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAO100hYcQ
It was posted Aug 20 and is 18 mins. He gives a pretty good explanation of what Libertarianism is to him.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
It's basically anarchy for rich people. IF you are rich enough to afford all those services yourself, or able to hire an army of lawyers to sue when you are wronged, it's great.
Everyone else gets screwed.
Everyone else gets screwed.
cubicle47b
Member
That's a good video.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
None
-Major de-regulation
-Removal of federal protections on citizens
-Trust in companies to do the right thing because "the people will have some choice in where they go for the product, so the bad companies will just vanish if they are screwing over people!"
-Major de-regulation
-Removal of federal protections on citizens
-Trust in companies to do the right thing because "the people will have some choice in where they go for the product, so the bad companies will just vanish if they are screwing over people!"
Manmademan
Member
I don't think that's as good an example as you think it is.
Uber's entire business model revolves around residential drivers using their vehicles for commercial purposes that are nearly ALWAYS underinsured for the purpose.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/rideshare-drivers-lack-insurance/
Uber's "Surge pricing" is damned near predatory- leading to situations where stranded concergoers were charged hundreds to make it to safety. https://thump.vice.com/en_us/articl...c-disaster-of-near-riots-and-looming-lawsuits
Uber is currently experimenting with jacking up pricing on people whose phones are about to die, after determining those users are less sensitive to surge pricing for obvious reasons. http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/...9-times-surge-pricing-phone-battery-low/#gref
There definitely needs to be more taxi medallions than there are, but the taxi industry is nowhere near as busted as Uber is.
AirBnB for what it's worth has a significant and pervasive problem with racial discrimination in renting from hosts using the service:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/travel/airbnb-discrimination-lawsuit.html?_r=0
Both of these services are flawed at best, and need significant regulation and oversight before they're an acceptable alternative.
Autumn Wind
Member
Libertarians such as Gary Johnson are mostly what a reasonable Republican should be. They are not Jesus freaks and would probably agree with most of the reasonable things the left would want such as equal pay., woman's right to choose, and so forth.
I'm a (small-l) libertarian who usually votes (big-L) Libertarian because I align most closely with candidates nominated by that party. What you said here though highlights on my complaints about Libertarians -- in my experience, they tend to obsess over ideological purity and are mostly unwilling to make the kind of compromises that you need to make if you're going to broaden your appeal. As long as Libertarians sit around debating whether the government is justified in making people get drivers licences to drive, they're going to stay way out there on the electoral fringes. That's one reason why I'm happy to see them nominate folks like Gary Johnson, who seem to get this.
A good model for this sort of thing is Milton Friedman. He was very open about the fact that libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchism, and he realized that you need to have some kind of social safety net. The particular solution that Friedman pushed was a negative income tax, kind of like the current Earned Income Tax Credit, but you could do something like a basic guaranteed income instead. These sorts of programs probably aren't justifiable if you want to maintain a 100% pure non-coercion ideology, but as a practical matter it has the virtues of simplicity and transparency, and it would allow you to get rid of a large patchwork of other anti-poverty programs, which seems like a clear win to me.
One quick side note: Obamacare actually started out exactly along these lines, as a libertarian-oriented alternative to health care reform. Reason magazine wrote a long advocacy piece in favor of mandatory health insurance years before Romney, and later Obama picked it up. I support it, although admittedly that's a minority position among folks like me.
An effective and robust legal system actually requires a really powerful government. The tool necessary for their system to work requires the thing they hate.
Seems a little ironic that you start off saying my example does not work as a libertarian gut check, then proceed to show it working perfectly on you.
Yeah, the sharing economy as it exists is not utopian, but neither is the status quo. Whether you choose to focus on the positive aspects, the negative aspects, or take a more balanced view is indicative of your underlying openness toward basic libertarian principles. For instance, the fact that you brought up the possibility for racial discrimination with Airbnb but did not think about Uber's role in eliminating the chronic racial discrimination issue with taxi pickups is pretty telling, even if you hadn't signed off with a call for "significant regulation and oversight".
Manmademan
Member
it doesn't work as a "gut check" because those services are seriously flawed, libertarian tendencies or not. They aren't an acceptable alternative to taxis or hotels, at all.
this is putting it lightly.
the status quo is far superior, personally. I don't need to worry about racial discrimination at Hilton, because the civil rights act makes that bit of business illegal. It does not apply to AirBnB reservations.
1.) Racial discrimination AND disabled discrimination in taxi pickups is flat out illegal. When it happens there are legal avenues to rectify that. This doesn't exist for AirBnB. On top of that, taxi services have had phone based reservations and pickups long before Uber was a twinkle in silicon valley's eye, and app based pickup now for YEARS.
The only issue comes when trying to flag down one at night from a street corner, which Uber doesn't do at all.
Try again, pal.
What dream world is that? I had to flag down cabs for my black coworkers almost every night after work. Yes it is illegal it is also almost impossible to prove. The phone reservation system is a joke. In 30 minutes a cab may or may not show up. Uber isn't perfect but I've been able to avoid the hell that is DC cabs for 3 years thanks to them.
Manmademan
Member
As I mentioned before, the "flagging" system is archaic and the only area where discrimination is still an issue- and Uber doesn't allow "flagging" at all. As a black man, I've had issues with flagging occasionally and prefer not to do it- but those circumstances were fairly rare.
Except when it IS proven, which isn't as rare as you think in the era where everyone has a video recording device on them.
i've had no problems using the phone reservation system in my area, but you seem to ignore that cab companies have had app based reservations for a while now, if flagging and phone calls don't work for you.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
He's pro-choice but would leave the legality of abortion up to the states, which is a terrible idea.
Giant Panda
Member
You still don't get it that the example worked? Many people have a much better opinion of Uber and AirBnb than you do. You're acting like everyone shares your opinion.
For example, surge pricing is not predatory. It helps increase supply of drivers during periods of high demand.
Manmademan
Member
Many people have lots of shit opinions. Doesn't change much at all. Uber and AirBnB are convenient, but that convenience comes at a cost I find unacceptable. If Hotels and Taxis were to vanish overnight and the only alternatives were Uber and AirBnB, we'd all be worse off, not better. Those two services are highly flawed and not an acceptable substitute. they exist alongside of but cannot replace traditional services.
Charging concergoers stranded in a natural disaster hundreds of dollars to evacuate isn't predatory?
Charging customers with phones who are about to die 2 to 10 times more than those who aren't isn't predatory?
Surge pricing is complete bullshit, taxis at least are standardized and don't penalize customers for using them when people need them most.
shadowsdarknes
Member
The whole idea of "don't like something? Vote with your wallet" really works for those who can afford alternatives and can afford to wait for the changes brought about by a free market.
I think there are pretty obvious flaws and major inefficiencies in the current system and these are issues at least worth considering in the balance. Not saying I expect everyone to think Uber and Airbnb are great - that really isn't the point. Rather, recognizing that they address some serious problems with the status quo while introducing a new set of issues and then considering whether they are a net positive is an exercise in reflecting on your values.
It is also pretty easy for me to imagine other people approaching the same issue with a different set of values and coming to a different overall conclusion. Based on that, I can chart myself on the spectrum from most to least accepting of libertarian solutions.
However, I guess I'm coming around to the understanding that for people who believe in moral absolutism or who cannot conceptualize of a rational person disagreeing with their viewpoint, this concept of a gut check would be incomprehensible and the exercise impossible.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
It's why libertarian ideals don't work unless you're talking about some small nation of like 1000 people. In that society, a person's market participation is hugely important. If a business there refuses to serve you, they could lose a lot of money.
In a large nation (and I use large loosely, something like the size of Wyoming would still be too large), you can freely discriminate against minorities because there are still probably enough people to sustain your business.
Libertarians are just racists that hate paying taxes (even though they use a shit ton of services that are paid for by taxes).
Perfect Blue
Banned
There are none unless you're rich, male, and white.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Positives: works if you have no perspective
Gives non-racist or embarrassed conservatives somewhere to go when the Republican Party is crazy as hell
Gives non-racist or embarrassed conservatives somewhere to go when the Republican Party is crazy as hell
Team Alucard
Banned
It's an ideology based entirely on personal responsibility and radical freedom.
Individuals with a deterministic view of life and an external locus of control obviously are not going to find it appealing.
Individuals with a deterministic view of life and an external locus of control obviously are not going to find it appealing.
If America had like 5,000 people scattered across the entire country, Libertarian policies would probably be okay. Might work for a bigger country if absolutely everyone was born perfectly healthy, there are no birth defects, mental illness, or drugs to get addicted to. Oh and if absolutely everyone put ethics over profit. Basically, Libertarian would only work if we lived in a perfect world.
humansarehorses
Member
Yeah, they're really not. For example, car manufacturers cannot sell directly to consumers in most states regardless of that state's political leaning.
Yes they do. It's the long wait -- that's a cost even though it isn't a direct cost. Moreover, many taxi drivers only work until they have made a certain quota. Meaning on busy days, they hit that quota faster and are less likely to continue to work. So that cost increases on busy days which is typically when people need them the most (e.g. when it's raining).
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Still da best political cartoon on this
Exactly. And while there are some libertarians who claim to still advocate for a social safety net (which basically makes them Democrats), since they never really care about that part when vetting their own candidates, I find it unlikely that they're saying these things in good faith.
Like when my Trump supporting family says, "Who cares if the gays get married? I say let 'em!" If they actually believed that, then they wouldn't have been raging after the Court ruled on it (which happened during a family reunion, God that sucked).
gutter_trash
Banned
when highways, bridges, subways and tunnels are left in ruin... then they will be begging k to back out of Libertarinism
To be fair, that's happening right now. It would just be much worse under Libertarianism.
Surge pricing ensures that people are able to get rides when they need them the most.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_2bC0xviyL9hsNLL
shadowsdarknes
Member
Deregulation or lifting restrictions to trade and commerce is not a libertarian concept.
Supporting competition in the marketplace is not a libertarian principle, either. Our government happens to allow restrictive regulations put into place due to money interests by the bigger players.
Any decent politician knows that regulation is not inherently good or bad. Sometimes regulations are unfair and restrictive, and other times they are painfully absent or ineffective.
Supporting competition in the marketplace is not a libertarian principle, either. Our government happens to allow restrictive regulations put into place due to money interests by the bigger players.
Any decent politician knows that regulation is not inherently good or bad. Sometimes regulations are unfair and restrictive, and other times they are painfully absent or ineffective.
Giant Panda
Member
So from from other people's perspective you might have the bad opinion. Like I find your logic to be pretty faulty.
Gary Johnson is for equal pay in theory but has admitted he would have trouble supporting a bill that legislates it.
Statements like this are why Johnson is such a deceptive candidate. He says he's for stuff but in reality just means that personally he's for it. Not that he would actually do anything legislation wise to fix the problem.
Vicetrailia
Banned
There are issues with uber and discrimination as well. Google it.
As an Airbnb user, I fight with my wife over it. I tell her to not include a picture of both her and I, in favor of only using hers.
But the results have spoken for itself, especially recently as I find in Nashville, TN. It's such a stark difference. Edit: Costs me $105 to do it too.
Amibguous Cad
Member
Still da best political cartoon on this
http://www.cfr.org/somalia/better-off-stateless-somalia-before-after-government-collapse/p10120
CFR ain't exactly a libertarian outlet, either.
Of course, a lot of that has to do with the fact that most African states barely function, but if you've got a choice between Zimbabwe or Somalia, I'll go with Somalia every time.
Pure socialist countries always fail once the first leader dies.
titiklabingapat
Member
One is a crime, the other is a social contract.
Imperfected
Member
Pros: FREEDOM!
Cons: Basically everything else.
Cons: Basically everything else.
- Status