VendettaRed07
Member
Against criminalization of drugs, Government spying.
that's it.
that's it.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Explain the positives of US libertarian politics to me
- Thread starter Supast4r
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Pamplemousse
Member
They're right on foreign policy and social issues. Economics? Not so much.
They're right on foreign policy and social issues. Economics? Not so much.
Social issues? Like libertarians wantingto leave abortion and civil rights up to businesses and state governments?
Giant Panda
Member
They're right on foreign policy and social issues. Economics? Not so much.
I'd disagree with such a simplistic categorization of their beliefs. I'd say they're right only in part on foreign, social and economic policy. For foreign policy they are generally right that the US has done too much abroad and intervenes too readily, but from what I've seen they are often too suspicious of the need for international cooperation and occasionally intervention. They can be too isolationist.
On social policy they agree with the right things but I dislike their insistence on not actually giving any legal backing to the correct social policy.
On economics the libertarians are right on many subjects that government regulation is bad, inefficient, anti-competitive, etc. but then they also ignore the areas where there are or would be market failures without government intervention. The need for a carbon tax is one example of this.
Another thing is that these are just the views that I've seen espoused by the most US libertarians, but they are certainly not monolithic in their views like some people paint them to be.
old manatee
Banned
It adds up if you are a person who values property over people.
When a natural disaster hits, the price of materials like wood will increase due to a demand shock. This isn't because people are evil or greedy, its because there's suddenly a lot of people who need to do home repairs and supply will be temporarily hit.
Surge pricing is creating an incentive for their drivers to come out and work during busy times. It allows pricing to react to large demand just like bids on Ebay or tickets on stub hub. This in turn gets more drivers on the road and reduces the time people have to wait for a ride.
Taxi systems are very anticompetitive in many areas. Why? Because they influenced the laws to deliberately try and keep competition out. Protectionism doesn't just happen at the national level.
Does Uber have issues? Of course. But they also have a lot of real net positives in their wake. The massive reduction in racial discrimination is one. This is very different from AirBNB, which appears to have far more downsides (mass discrimination, housing stock being taken off the market) than upsides.
Surge pricing is creating an incentive for their drivers to come out and work during busy times. It allows pricing to react to large demand just like bids on Ebay or tickets on stub hub. This in turn gets more drivers on the road and reduces the time people have to wait for a ride.
Taxi systems are very anticompetitive in many areas. Why? Because they influenced the laws to deliberately try and keep competition out. Protectionism doesn't just happen at the national level.
Does Uber have issues? Of course. But they also have a lot of real net positives in their wake. The massive reduction in racial discrimination is one. This is very different from AirBNB, which appears to have far more downsides (mass discrimination, housing stock being taken off the market) than upsides.
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.
As long as the companies are generous enough to think women should get equal pay, the states decide a woman can choice and so forth.
As long as the companies are generous enough to think women should get equal pay, the states decide a woman can choice and so forth.
But what if companies aren't generous enough? Clearly they haven't been and need regulation on this issue.
The Libertarian party in its infancy was supported by the John Birch Society and the Koch brothers. The Kochs later saw an opening to gain influence in the GOP and moved over there.
But that should tell you all you need to know about whether Libertarianism is good for you or not. It's not good for me. It's pretty good for the Koch brothers.
But that should tell you all you need to know about whether Libertarianism is good for you or not. It's not good for me. It's pretty good for the Koch brothers.
But what if companies aren't generous enough? Clearly they haven't been and need regulation on this issue.
They clearly would be if governments didn't interfere.
I'd disagree with such a simplistic categorization of their beliefs. I'd say they're right only in part on foreign, social and economic policy. For foreign policy they are generally right that the US has done too much abroad and intervenes too readily, but from what I've seen they are often too suspicious of the need for international cooperation and occasionally intervention. They can be too isolationist.
On social policy they agree with the right things but I dislike their insistence on not actually giving any legal backing to the correct social policy.
On economics the libertarians are right on many subjects that government regulation is bad, inefficient, anti-competitive, etc. but then they also ignore the areas where there are or would be market failures without government intervention. The need for a carbon tax is one example of this.
Another thing is that these are just the views that I've seen espoused by the most US libertarians, but they are certainly not monolithic in their views like some people paint them to be.
This is a very good summary for people who are looking for a concise explanation of some of the pros and cons of libertarianism vs. progressivism. I especially appreciate the acknowledgement at the end that we actually disagree among ourselves on things. For example, I'm strongly in agreement with you on the need for a carbon tax, and I see that as being completely consistent with libertarian prinicples -- it's not even a "compromise." Frustratingly, though, I'm in a pretty small minority on that one among my ideological peers.
Ideological purity is always bad, because it always paints things in black or white, no grays allowed. It's like perpetual motion machines: nice on paper, seem to work at first, then eventually fail due to unforeseen consequences.
A "pure" libertarian country would fail much like the "pure" socialist ones did. Right off the bat practical issues start cropping up and "exceptions" and "workarounds" need to be made.
A "pure" libertarian country would fail much like the "pure" socialist ones did. Right off the bat practical issues start cropping up and "exceptions" and "workarounds" need to be made.
They clearly would be if governments didn't interfere.
So government is causing businesses to not pay women equally to men? Cmon dude does that make any sense?
So government is causing businesses to not pay women equally to men? Cmon dude does that make any sense?
It does to libertarians, who for the record I'm ridiculing and not supporting.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
Can libertarianism explain just exactly who John Galt is though??????
Colin MoriartyCan libertarianism explain just exactly who John Galt is though??????
Can libertarianism explain just exactly who John Galt is though??????
I had to read that book in high school. It's an interesting read even though I obviously don't adhere to Ann Rand ideology
JesseEwiak
Member
When a natural disaster hits, the price of materials like wood will increase due to a demand shock. This isn't because people are evil or greedy, its because there's suddenly a lot of people who need to do home repairs and supply will be temporarily hit.
The price doesn't increase magically. People choose to increase the price because more people want the limited product they have, despite the fact they'd easily sell out at the normal price. So, yes, it is greed.
Surge pricing is creating an incentive for their drivers to come out and work during busy times. It allows pricing to react to large demand just like bids on Ebay or tickets on stub hub. This in turn gets more drivers on the road and reduces the time people have to wait for a ride.
All surge pricing does is limit the availability of Uber to people willing to pay the surge price. It's essentially a way for the well off to avoid waiting like the rest of the plebs and a tax on the poor and desperate. At least with a lack of surge pricing, it's first come first serve and both the rich and poor would have to wait forever for rides.
Taxi systems are very anticompetitive in many areas. Why? Because they influenced the laws to deliberately try and keep competition out. Protectionism doesn't just happen at the national level.
Does Uber have issues? Of course. But they also have a lot of real net positives in their wake. The massive reduction in racial discrimination is one. This is very different from AirBNB, which appears to have far more downsides (mass discrimination, housing stock being taken off the market) than upsides.
Yes, taxi companies are shitty. But, Uber is just as shitty with it's flaunting of rules and regulations, attempts to buy off politicians while whining about taxi companies owning cities, lying to possible drivers about whether or not they'd be able to use their normal insurance while driving, leasing cars to people at loan shark rates, and of course, running the independent contractor scam while continually lowering drivers rates.
That's why frankly, Lyft is a lot better, even if it has some issues.
I would consider myself a libertarian but also believe in government assistance programs. In an ideal world they wouldn't be necessary, but there are too many people who depend upon them to survive. Best case scenario would be to unwind them over a period of several decades, or to replace them with something more efficient/neutral like, perhaps, a guaranteed minimum income. I believe that most libertarians agree. Very few argue that we should shut off food stamps tomorrow. That's a straw man caricature often spun by the left.
I would say a libertarian is someone who believes:
1. Most people are good and can be trusted
2. The government can't solve most problems
3. When the government does solve a problem, it usually does so very poorly
From there, most of the policy decisions flow. We should legalize drugs and trust people to use them responsibly. We should trust business people to run their businesses fairly. When there's a problem, the government should be the last institution we look to in order to solve it. Our military shouldn't try to fix the world. Etc. In many ways it's a very optimistic philosophy that places its emphasis on maximizing freedom, as opposed to other philosophies that may advocate different values (ie, socialism with fairness).
I would say a libertarian is someone who believes:
1. Most people are good and can be trusted
2. The government can't solve most problems
3. When the government does solve a problem, it usually does so very poorly
From there, most of the policy decisions flow. We should legalize drugs and trust people to use them responsibly. We should trust business people to run their businesses fairly. When there's a problem, the government should be the last institution we look to in order to solve it. Our military shouldn't try to fix the world. Etc. In many ways it's a very optimistic philosophy that places its emphasis on maximizing freedom, as opposed to other philosophies that may advocate different values (ie, socialism with fairness).
I find it funny reading people say Libertarians are Republicans who smoke weed, etc.
Growing up (in a very Republican household) I grew up thinking they were Democrats who liked guns.
All about perspective I guess, it's definitely not mainstream politics though. At least where I'm from the only people who call themselves libertarian are hipster college students.
Growing up (in a very Republican household) I grew up thinking they were Democrats who liked guns.
All about perspective I guess, it's definitely not mainstream politics though. At least where I'm from the only people who call themselves libertarian are hipster college students.
JesseEwiak
Member
I would consider myself a libertarian but also believe in government assistance programs. In an ideal world they wouldn't be necessary, but there are too many people who depend upon them to survive. Best case scenario would be to unwind them over a period of several decades, or to replace them with something more efficient/neutral like, perhaps, a guaranteed minimum income. I believe that most libertarians agree. Very few argue that we should shut off food stamps tomorrow. That's a straw man caricature often spun by the left.
I would say a libertarian is someone who believes:
1. Most people are good and can be trusted
2. The government can't solve most problems
3. When the government does solve a problem, it usually does so very poorly
From there, most of the policy decisions flow. We should legalize drugs and trust people to use them responsibly. We should trust business people to run their businesses fairly. When there's a problem, the government should be the last institution we look to in order to solve it. Our military shouldn't try to fix the world. Etc. In many ways it's a very optimistic philosophy that places its emphasis on maximizing freedom, as opposed to other philosophies that may advocate different values (ie, socialism with fairness).
Who has more freedom, a worker in France or the UK who can quit his job to persue something he cares about more, knowing that if he fails, he still has health care for his children and a safety net to make sure he doesn't become destitute or a worker in America who has to keep his soulless desk job because he has a good health care plan?
Who has more freedom, a worker in someplace like Denmark who knows that they can go to a union steward to complain about the actions of their boss or a worker in the US who can be fired at will for any reason and risks their bosses finding any reason to fire them if they breathe the word union.
Libertarianism is a freedom for the privileged, who never need help when they fall and have a secured future. All the federal government has ever done is destroy endemic severe poverty among the elderly, defeat fascism, and help create the Internet.
All surge pricing does is limit the availability of Uber to people willing to pay the surge price. It's essentially a way for the well off to avoid waiting like the rest of the plebs and a tax on the poor and desperate. At least with a lack of surge pricing, it's first come first serve and both the rich and poor would have to wait forever for rides.
Did you ever take econ 101? This is basic law of supply, law of demand.
When you raise the price, you push marginal buyers out of the market and pull marginal sellers in. Surge pricing adjusts the price so the market clears. Without surge pricing, you would have market failure. Its existence ensures that, no matter where you are, you can call an Uber if you absolutely need it.
When there's surge pricing, the drivers make more money. It encourages them to work and take riders. When there's surge pricing, it encourages riders to explore other options -- public transportation, getting a ride from a friend, staying home that night, etc.
Basically you could take your sentence and plug anything you want in there like: "All the price of filet monyet does is limit to people who are willing to pay the price" etc.
How can you believe that most people can be trusted if women are paid less than men by most businesses? Even though government intervention is done subpar it's still there to help those that need it. Every libertarian idea that I hear sounds like some kind of unrealistic utopia that humanity isn't ever going to reach. We live in the real world were assholes like trump make their living from ripping people off.I would consider myself a libertarian but also believe in government assistance programs. In an ideal world they wouldn't be necessary, but there are too many people who depend upon them to survive. Best case scenario would be to unwind them over a period of several decades, or to replace them with something more efficient/neutral like, perhaps, a guaranteed minimum income. I believe that most libertarians agree. Very few argue that we should shut off food stamps tomorrow. That's a straw man caricature often spun by the left.
I would say a libertarian is someone who believes:
1. Most people are good and can be trusted
2. The government can't solve most problems
3. When the government does solve a problem, it usually does so very poorly
From there, most of the policy decisions flow. We should legalize drugs and trust people to use them responsibly. We should trust business people to run their businesses fairly. When there's a problem, the government should be the last institution we look to in order to solve it. Our military shouldn't try to fix the world. Etc. In many ways it's a very optimistic philosophy that places its emphasis on maximizing freedom, as opposed to other philosophies that may advocate different values (ie, socialism with fairness).
JesseEwiak
Member
Did you ever take econ 101? This is basic law of supply, law of demand.
When you raise the price, you push marginal buyers out of the market and pull marginal sellers in. Surge pricing adjusts the price so the market clears. Without surge pricing, you would have market failure. Its existence ensures that, no matter where you are, you can call an Uber if you absolutely need it.
When there's surge pricing, the drivers make more money. It encourages them to work and take riders. When there's surge pricing, it encourages riders to explore other options -- public transportation, getting a ride from a friend, staying home that night, etc.
Basically you could take your sentence and plug anything you want in there like: "All the price of filet monyet does is limit to people who are willing to pay the price" etc.
There's a big difference between having to buy a hamburger because you can't afford filet mignon and having to pay $100.00 for a ride home because you worked late on a holiday and missed the last bus.
I mean, if Uber is just about getting more people out there to drive, obviously, they've donated any excess profits they make from surge pricing either to their drivers or to charity, right? Instead of surge pricing, maybe Uber could just use some of their billions in VC funding to just pay their drivers more to get out there on busy days like most normal businesses do. I don't have to pay more for a PS4 on the day after Christmas from Wal-Mart because they have to have more people at the register.
All the federal government has ever done is destroy endemic severe poverty among the elderly, defeat fascism, and help create the Internet.
And genocide American Indians. And protect slavery. And murder tens of millions of innocent people across a dozen major wars. And wipe two cities off the map with nuclear bombs. And imprison millions of non-violent drug users. And intentionally infect American citizens with deadly diseases. And assist in the overthrow of countless foreign governments. And conduct massive surveillance Etc. etc. etc.
The most evil corporation in the history of the world can't hold a candle to what the US government has done. It's not even a contest.
Most people are good and can be trusted.
When there's surge pricing, the drivers make more money. It encourages them to work and take riders.
These points are contradictory when applied to the situations where Uber has applied surge pricing: emergency situations requiring a fast move of people. These are good people that are only motivated in helping people by the price that has skyrocketed. They did so during the Sidney attack, the New York blizzard, the Paris attacks, ...
JesseEwiak
Member
And genocide American Indians]. And protect slavery. And murder tens of millions of innocent people across a dozen major wars. And wipe two cities off the map with nuclear bombs. And imprison millions of non-violent drug users. And intentionally infect American citizens with deadly diseases. And assist in the overthrow of countless foreign governments. And conduct massive surveillance Etc. etc. etc.
The most evil corporation in the history of the world can't hold a candle to what the US government has done. It's not even a contest.
Of course, most of the things you listed were usually done to help capitalists and private industry to thrive.
But they've sure done their best to keep up, even with their limited resources. Or should we ask the fine people in Bhopal, India about how kind our corporate masters are when they're not leashed?
Yes, the government has done a lot of shitty things. The difference is, they've actually done good things as well, unlike the fictions protected by government who exist only to create profit.
There's a big difference between having to buy a hamburger because you can't afford filet mignon and having to pay $100.00 for a ride home because you worked late on a holiday and missed the last bus.
I mean, if Uber is just about getting more people out there to drive, obviously, they've donated any excess profits they make from surge pricing either to their drivers or to charity, right? Instead of surge pricing, maybe Uber could just use some of their billions in VC funding to just pay their drivers more to get out there on busy days like most normal businesses do. I don't have to pay more for a PS4 on the day after Christmas from Wal-Mart because they have to have more people at the register.
You do know Uber is massively unprofitable, right? They don't make money. The VCs are funding the company in the hopes that they make tons of money some day in the future. Moreover, much of the surge pricing does go to the drivers.
As for PS4 pricing staying the same -- you're using a narrow example and acting like it applies generally. The example fails, and it doesn't apply generally.
Back when the Wii was released (and the PS2 before that), there were shortages for months. If you wanted one, you had to buy one from a reseller. In order to purchase one "the day after Christmas" you had to pay several times over the sticker price. Again, reflecting fundamental laws of supply/demand.
And you can see this is many, many other industries where time is a premium, or where demand is lumpy. Vacations are an obvious one: It's much cheaper to go to Las Vegas in August than it is to go on New Year's Eve. Restaurants will often run specials Monday-Wednesday when fewer people go out to eat (the price to eat out on Thurs/Fri/Sat/Sun is effectively higher).
I can't get over your sense entitlement: Uber isn't a utility. The guy who missed the last bus should be thrilled that Uber even exists. 10 years ago I missed a bus and had to wait for literally 2 hours for a Taxi to show up. No one is forcing you to use Uber during surge pricing times.
These points are contradictory when applied to the situations where Uber has applied surge pricing: emergency situations requiring a fast move of people. These are good people that are only motivated in helping people by the price that has skyrocketed. They did so during the Sidney attack, the New York blizzard, the Paris attacks, ...
Let's say you do Uber part-time.
Let's say there's a blizzard in your town.
Do you:
A. Go out, get food, stay indoors and play video games
or
B. Drive in terrible conditions for near minimum-wage?
If you answered "A" I think you'd be among the majority of people. And there's nothing wrong or evil about that -- that's what most people would do. The surge pricing is there to make it more enticing for you to go outside and drive.
Let's put it in less emotionally-charged terms. Say it's New Year's Eve. You can:
A. Go out with your friends, have a great time and get drunk
or
B. Drive drunk strangers around while they have a great time
Again, most people are going to choose A. The surge pricing is there to encourage people to forgo their own personal pleasure and drive other people around. If you're going to make $100, you might decide to go hangout with your friends; But if you can make $500, you might decide to tell your friends you'll see them another time and go work.
JesseEwiak
Member
Let's say you do Uber part-time.
Let's say there's a blizzard in your town.
Do you:
A. Go out, get food, stay indoors and play video games
or
B. Drive in terrible conditions for near minimum-wage?
If you answered "A" I think you'd be among the majority of people. And there's nothing wrong or evil about that -- that's what most people would do. The surge pricing is there to make it more enticing for you to go outside and drive.
Let's put it in less emotionally-charged terms. Say it's New Year's Eve. You can:
A. Go out with your friends, have a great time and get drunk
or
B. Drive drunk strangers around while they have a great time
Again, most people are going to choose A. The surge pricing is there to encourage people to forgo their own personal pleasure and drive other people around. If you're going to make $100, you might decide to go hangout with your friends; But if you can make $500, you might decide to tell your friends you'll see them another time and go work.
Maybe Uber shook take the hit in situations like A TERRORIST ATTACK or a possibly fatal weather event so that everybody who isn't an unfeeling robot with an economics degree doesn't think they're complete soulless assholes. Now, I realize that mean a Silicon Valley VC billionaire might only get to sleep with 19 high price escorts that month, so obviously, it's impossible to do, right?
Maybe Uber shook take the hit in situations like A TERRORIST ATTACK or a possibly fatal weather event so that everybody who isn't an unfeeling robot with an economics degree doesn't think they're complete soulless assholes. Now, I realize that mean a Silicon Valley VC billionaire might only get to sleep with 19 high price escorts that month, so obviously, it's impossible to do, right?
I count what, three logical fallacies here?
I would encourage you to crack open a basic economics textbook before posting on the subject going forward.
The surge pricing is there to make it more enticing for you to go outside and drive.
The pricing is there to make you do the 'good' thing and help people. So instead of donating their time out of the goodness of their heart, they have to get a reward for it. And that is why people don't trust libertarian politics on welfare when you replace time with money.
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.
Advertising uses decades of psychological research to specifically target advertising to customers so that they will buy the advertised product. They might not be holding a gun to your head but add agency's are definitely trying to influence the purchasing decisions of the general consumer. They aren't there to innocuously inform a consumer about a product.
This seems like an argument much more in favor of an anarchist society than the type I presume you're arguing for.
I'm personally not in favour of Anarchy. I'm just trying to understand where libertarians draw the lines as to what their beliefs actually are.
MistakenMobius
Member
You know, I have a few hardcore libertarian friends and they are all for abortion.Social issues? Like libertarians wantingto leave abortion and civil rights up to businesses and state governments?
They have a very coherent (if strange) reasoning;
A fetus didn't sign a lease for the uterus of the woman. So an abortion is not murder, it is just eviction of a squatter and a woman have no moral obligation to help it survive
And your "equality" is the problem - everything being equal, you'd rather have everyone waiting around forever rather than actually getting a ride in a timely manner. Making everyone poor does not make everyone better off.The price doesn't increase magically. People choose to increase the price because more people want the limited product they have, despite the fact they'd easily sell out at the normal price. So, yes, it is greed.
All surge pricing does is limit the availability of Uber to people willing to pay the surge price. It's essentially a way for the well off to avoid waiting like the rest of the plebs and a tax on the poor and desperate. At least with a lack of surge pricing, it's first come first serve and both the rich and poor would have to wait forever for rides.
Bingo. Uber isn't the only option. Don't like it? Don't use it. They set their rates, you're more than welcome to pick another option and wait for a regular taxi.I can't get over your sense entitlement: Uber isn't a utility. The guy who missed the last bus should be thrilled that Uber even exists. 10 years ago I missed a bus and had to wait for literally 2 hours for a Taxi to show up. No one is forcing you to use Uber during surge pricing times.
The problems with libertarianism are many.
Firstly, and chiefly in this country, is that they are typically very inclined to roll back any type of federal regulations. This means that things like the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) and Civil Rights legislations are gone. This means that the same protections given to ensure equal rights for everyone are being replaced by the same protections as the Reconstruction Era. They would rather have 50 failed nation-states than 1 well regulated country. Kansas is typically held up as a massive failure of the Republican party and conservative ideology as a whole, but a Libertarian state would not only get there faster, it would likely have none of the safety nets that Kansas kind of has right now.
Secondly, the ideology is one of the local tyrant. The person or group who collectively has the most power or influence is now the de-facto ruler of that locality. If that's the police, then that's who runs things. If that's moneyed interest, then that's how it is, and you can't do anything about it until you get on their level or leave. Cartel moved into town and started selling weed in the house next to yours? Tough shit. They blew up their garage making some other hard drug? Tough shit. Make them leave or pay for security. Also, pay for the police to come investigate, but don't expect them to do anything like arrest anyone unless they harm you or kill you. Good luck.
Thirdly, it's a thought exercise. Nearly every Libertarian I've ever encountered in real life or online has got this idea that if we could miraculously elect Libertarians to office, we would turn into Freedom-land, No Tax-ia and our troubles would be over. They lack basic understanding of Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, and the differences between the two. They see Free Market like most religious people view their deity of choice. The market will resolve itself, always. Except that one iota of thought given to their "no regulations" policies should lead you to understand that means there are no federal protections against monopoly or crony capitalism. This means...if I'm a company like Microsoft and I want to be evil, I start locking you into long-term Windows only contracts to buy a device, while simultaneously using my cash stores to buy out my competition in an area. Or if I'm Wal-Mart, since I don't have a federal minimum wage anymore, I'm not paying my cashiers any more than 2 dollars an hour. Also I've used my purchasing power to drive my competition out of business. The utopian idea of maximum freedom does not hold up to basic scrutiny.
Fourth, it hews uncomfortably close to the sovereign citizen movement in that there's a vein running through it that carries the same type of "I don't remember signing up for the social contract" mentality. Self-interest to an absurd degree.
Shortly...trash ideology with pie in the sky idealism mixed in with lack of foresight and an over-reliance on arguments from 100 years ago on already adjudicated matters.
Firstly, and chiefly in this country, is that they are typically very inclined to roll back any type of federal regulations. This means that things like the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) and Civil Rights legislations are gone. This means that the same protections given to ensure equal rights for everyone are being replaced by the same protections as the Reconstruction Era. They would rather have 50 failed nation-states than 1 well regulated country. Kansas is typically held up as a massive failure of the Republican party and conservative ideology as a whole, but a Libertarian state would not only get there faster, it would likely have none of the safety nets that Kansas kind of has right now.
Secondly, the ideology is one of the local tyrant. The person or group who collectively has the most power or influence is now the de-facto ruler of that locality. If that's the police, then that's who runs things. If that's moneyed interest, then that's how it is, and you can't do anything about it until you get on their level or leave. Cartel moved into town and started selling weed in the house next to yours? Tough shit. They blew up their garage making some other hard drug? Tough shit. Make them leave or pay for security. Also, pay for the police to come investigate, but don't expect them to do anything like arrest anyone unless they harm you or kill you. Good luck.
Thirdly, it's a thought exercise. Nearly every Libertarian I've ever encountered in real life or online has got this idea that if we could miraculously elect Libertarians to office, we would turn into Freedom-land, No Tax-ia and our troubles would be over. They lack basic understanding of Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, and the differences between the two. They see Free Market like most religious people view their deity of choice. The market will resolve itself, always. Except that one iota of thought given to their "no regulations" policies should lead you to understand that means there are no federal protections against monopoly or crony capitalism. This means...if I'm a company like Microsoft and I want to be evil, I start locking you into long-term Windows only contracts to buy a device, while simultaneously using my cash stores to buy out my competition in an area. Or if I'm Wal-Mart, since I don't have a federal minimum wage anymore, I'm not paying my cashiers any more than 2 dollars an hour. Also I've used my purchasing power to drive my competition out of business. The utopian idea of maximum freedom does not hold up to basic scrutiny.
Fourth, it hews uncomfortably close to the sovereign citizen movement in that there's a vein running through it that carries the same type of "I don't remember signing up for the social contract" mentality. Self-interest to an absurd degree.
Shortly...trash ideology with pie in the sky idealism mixed in with lack of foresight and an over-reliance on arguments from 100 years ago on already adjudicated matters.
Giant Panda
Member
There's a big difference between having to buy a hamburger because you can't afford filet mignon and having to pay $100.00 for a ride home because you worked late on a holiday and missed the last bus.
I mean, if Uber is just about getting more people out there to drive, obviously, they've donated any excess profits they make from surge pricing either to their drivers or to charity, right? Instead of surge pricing, maybe Uber could just use some of their billions in VC funding to just pay their drivers more to get out there on busy days like most normal businesses do. I don't have to pay more for a PS4 on the day after Christmas from Wal-Mart because they have to have more people at the register.
It's exactly your kind of thinking that private businesses should be required to be run as a charity that leads to a socialist hellhole economy like Venezuela.
Ideological purity is always bad, because it always paints things in black or white, no grays allowed. It's like perpetual motion machines: nice on paper, seem to work at first, then eventually fail due to unforeseen consequences.
A "pure" libertarian country would fail much like the "pure" socialist ones did. Right off the bat practical issues start cropping up and "exceptions" and "workarounds" need to be made.
I.e. governance actually has to occur.
Libertarians are great at shitting on solutions but providing none of their own. Governance always wins.
Libertarianism is a freedom for the privileged, who never need help when they fall and have a secured future. All the federal government has ever done is destroy endemic severe poverty among the elderly, defeat fascism, and help create the Internet.
The internet might be the single worst example you could give of the government creating something. 99.9% of the good stuff on the internet is the result of the private sector. I guess in some sense the government "helped" create the internet by providing basic infrastructure, but that's like saying that government helped create Apple because the county built a road that connects its headquarters to everybody else. It's true on some really basic pedantic level, but it misses the point.
I mean, think about your typical online day. You fire up an electronic device created by a private firm and connect to the web through a private ISP. Thanks to Netflix (private), you can watch tens of thousands of programs on demand. Thanks to Amazon (private) you can buy just about anything you want. Thanks to a bunch of private sites, you can watch strangers engage in sex acts. You can download video games through private services like Steam and play online against players on privately-owned servers. You can get real-time news and share your thoughts with people on private social media platforms. Sure, the government built the road, but all of the cool stuff is due to the private sector. The government's main role here was getting out of the way and not regulating things too much.
Imagine an alternative universe where the internet was a government product. Is there any sliver of a reason for thinking that it would be anywhere near as good as it actually is? Or is it more likely that the internet would be some kind of online equivalent of PBS, much-praised and rarely-watched?
In some respects, the internet is a textbook example of what can happen when you have a libertarian-style "night watchman" state that provides basic economic infrastructure (defense, courts, roads) and very little else. The private sector is really, really good at innovation and giving consumers what they want, in a way that governments intrinsically aren't.
The internet might be the single worst example you could give of the government creating something. 99.9% of the good stuff on the internet is the result of the private sector. I guess in some sense the government "helped" create the internet by providing basic infrastructure, but that's like saying that government helped create Apple because the county built a road that connects its headquarters to everybody else. It's true on some really basic pedantic level, but it misses the point.
I mean, think about your typical online day. You fire up an electronic device created by a private firm and connect to the web through a private ISP. Thanks to Netflix (private), you can watch tens of thousands of programs on demand. Thanks to Amazon (private) you can buy just about anything you want. Thanks to a bunch of private sites, you can watch strangers engage in sex acts. You can download video games through private services like Steam and play online against players on privately-owned servers. You can get real-time news and share your thoughts with people on private social media platforms. Sure, the government built the road, but all of the cool stuff is due to the private sector. The government's main role here was getting out of the way and not regulating things too much.
Imagine an alternative universe where the internet was a government product. Is there any sliver of a reason for thinking that it would be anywhere near as good as it actually is? Or is it more likely that the internet would be some kind of online equivalent of PBS, much-praised and rarely-watched?
In some respects, the internet is a textbook example of what can happen when you have a libertarian-style "night watchman" state that provides basic economic infrastructure (defense, courts, roads) and very little else. The private sector is really, really good at innovation and giving consumers what they want, in a way that governments intrinsically aren't.
Also if we want to get technical, in the case of the internet, the private sector built most of the roads as well. The government built the first horse trails(ARPAnet and NSFnet), but private entities built the highways. Even that is technically inaccurate, as the internet was a public/private partnership from the beginning, the basic research was mostly done by private entities with varying degrees of public funding. I'd argue the bulk of the work was done at Bell Labs(evil monopolists), IBM, Xerox, and RCA Labs. The colleges and non-profits like SRI did plenty of work, but if you go back and look at the history, it is those large corporations who built the modern world.
I.e. governance actually has to occur.
Libertarians are great at shitting on solutions but providing none of their own. Governance always wins.
There are plenty of libertarian solutions for problem that have been proposed, and some have been adopted. The basic idea is to use incentives instead of force. The carrot instead of the the stick. Not that all libertarians are 100% against using force, they just have a much higher bar for justification than others. Look up consequentialist libertarianism. This is more the Johnson/Weld wing of the libertarianism.
I personally am someone of a hybrid. In theory I am a natural-rights libertarian (or a deontological libertarian), as I do belief that the use of a force is an immoral violation of individual rights, but when there is a conflict between multiple parties rights(note this is strictly negative rights, I do not believe in any basis for positive rights), a sort of modified consequentialist position in the only really valid policy solution. An example is homelessness. A homeless person has the right to use of the public spaces in theory, but homelessness decrease property rights, so there is a conflict between rights here. We could punish homelessness, and violate the rights of the homeless, or allow rampant homelessness and allow the rights of the property owners to be diminished. Or we could take the money that would be used for punishing homelessness or dealing with the negative effects and spend it on housing, thus maximizing individual liberty.
Libertarianism in any sort of pure strain is completely incapable of dealing with:
* The right of a child to grow up in a safe and nourishing environment.
* Contagious disease
To the latter, they argue if Ebola brokeout or something it becomes a defence issue. I for the record think they are full of shit.
Maybe, but even there how would a Libertarian society even recognize silent carriers of a virulently contagious disease? Like males infected by Zika for example.To the latter, they argue if Ebola brokeout or something it becomes a defence issue. I for the record think they are full of shit.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.