Stereotypes associated with Libertarianism and Ron Paul

But wouldn't that equat eot modern Liberalism instead of Libertarianism?

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

That's an American aberration, pretty much. Well, not anymore because we're seeding the Uk with similar notions, and they are for all practical purposes a pale reflection of the US at this point.

But you're right, our attitude toward libertarianism is way off the spectrum.

I'm a skeptical squirrel

Libertarianism sounds rather appealing at first. Who doesn't like freedom? Who would want to be coerced? Coincidentally, I was thinking about why I'm opposed to Libertarianism last night. My main thoughts were:

• Non-regulated privatization is dangerous because power corrupts and exploitation is profitable. Even with competition, we need to have checks and balances.
• Abolishing public welfares is immoral.
• Social injustices (racism, sexism, etc.) should not be handwaved.

edited 8th Mar '11 4:55:36 AM by Grain

Anime geemu wo shinasai!

Problems with the notion of Free Market being self-regulating:

1.) First mover advantage ensures that a firm will gain an advantage and use that advantage to reinforce its advantage.

2.) Transaction costs mean there are economies of scale, meaning that in many cases, bigger firms are the only ones who can survive in a market of a given size, which enhances market power, typically leading to an oligopoly.

3.) A lack of freedom of information-specifically, asymmetrical information between the supplier and the consumer.

edited 8th Mar '11 4:58:28 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

"Listne telling me what I can do with my body is crossing the line. My body belongs to me and i'll be damned if anyone tells me what to do with it under threat of force. " - tnu

I take it you are just as opposed to the war on drugs then?

While you may want the right to accidentally poison yourself, most people don't for some reason.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Was that in response to the FDA? Or in response to the War on Drugs?

FDA

Personally, I'm opposed to the War On Drugs, though I do think that (non medically necessary) drugs are bad. But from a pragmatic point of view, there's no real way to stop them, so you might as well try to mitigate the effects through better regulation, decriminalization, availability of sterile needles, etc.

edited 8th Mar '11 6:26:49 AM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

At the risk of sounding terminally geeky, free-market libertarianism always reminds me of The Fellowship from Ultima VII. It sounds really appealing on paper, but then there's the Fine Print.

- Opposition to antitrust laws. Antitrust is a method of punishing successful businesses for producing a more efficient product and glorifies the weak ones.

- Non-belief in a "living wage". Goverment controls on salaries undermine a company's ability to compete, which therefore harms the economy.

- The civil rights act is tyrannical. Any government attempt to regulate "private" discrimination is a violation of consent.

And on and on. I'm not strawmmanning, mind: Ron Paul has come out in favor of these positions.

edited 8th Mar '11 6:47:24 AM by johnnyfog

I'm a skeptical squirrel

on the whole power corrupts thing you would rather all the power be concentrated in the Federal Government? How is that any better? Also you do realize what public welfare is all about right? It's about the state taking money from someone by force and giving it tosomeone else.

edited 8th Mar '11 2:39:33 PM by tnu1138

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

The federal government can be voted out of office. Private industries cannot be.

Also, at least in America, we have a long and sordid history of private industry being outright evil. Individual politicians are evil in America, but on the whole, when the federal government gets too powerful, it's more incompetent than it is malevolent.

STATE government on the other hand-wowee, look at all that racism!

look at all what racism? you havn't pointed to anything in that regard you have cited NOTHING.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

That's because it's so obvious that he shouldn't have to cite anything.

Just pick up a history book if you want to see some of the antics southern state governments used to pull. Or for that matter, just ask someone who was alive at the time.

edited 8th Mar '11 3:45:13 PM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

oh I thought youw ere talking about racism in the state government in the MODERN day.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Giving power to incompetent folks isn't a good idea either, though. I'd rather government had just enough power to keep corporations in check than just give it all to government.

@storyteller It wasn't just the southern state governments.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

That's true-today, it's not racism, it's discrimination against The Gays. Though the federal government hasn't really come out and said-well, until Obama anyway-"Hey guys, let their marriages be" or anything. And even then, that was just a "We're not pursuing this legal course of action" thing.

It's a bit of a red herring though, because as much as there's a strong correlation between limited government aficionados and state's rights believers, it's not an inherit part of Libertarian platform that the state gets to make all the decisions.

The government was made by the people for the people. It was created with immensely complicated systems of checks and balances in order to prevent corruption. If our government treats us wrongly, we have the power to fix it, because the people hold sovereignty.

I don't think that all power should go to the government. That's called totalitarianism. The U.S.A. is a democratic republic.

The only objective of for-profit businesses is to further their own ends. Successful businesses have a long history of doing exploitative things.

The purpose of public welfares is to help people not starve to death, not let their houses burn down, aid people who weren't born privileged, et cetera. Nobody wants to lose money, but money is not the most important thing in the world.

Some people—not all of them libertarians—honestly don't give a darn if other people are starving to death. Those people are immorally selfish. The government should force those people to help other people not perish. Keeping all of your money while other people suffer and die is not a virtuous thing.

edited 8th Mar '11 5:58:55 PM by Grain

Anime geemu wo shinasai!

People are part of a social contract. Society is a benefit for everyone due to economies of scale. Roads are a public good. But you're thinking "The rich don't collect welfare, so they're being unfairly taxed!" But no, you are wrong, because it is the rich-not the poor-who benefit the most from the social contract. After all, without society, those greenbacks are just kindling. The man who owns nothing has nothing to lose in the event of an apocalyptic collapse of the country, after all.

Long story short: Yeah, it's redistribution of wealth, but the collection of wealth isn't even to begin with, so the assertion that it's somehow unfair is shortsighted-or, alternatively, a belief held to reaffirm the idea that "Dude, don't take stuff away from me-I like stuff."

^Good Samaritan laws! No, not that type. If someone is about to fall down a manhole, it is economically efficient if I help them. So why shouldn't the government make it LAW that I have to help them?

Probably because it's just too goddamned complicated.

edited 8th Mar '11 5:13:41 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Bingo. It's frustrating to have to constantly remind people that big business is in no way tethered to the U.S., nor do they stand to lose much if the economy tanks. They can wire their assets to the opposite side of the planet with barely a second's effort.

The government is trying to hold its tax base together. "Libertarians" are intentionally doing everything in their power to accelerate the collapse of that base.

edited 8th Mar '11 5:55:23 PM by johnnyfog

I'm a skeptical squirrel

The pro - business libertarians I hear, seem to hold the opposite point of view: the whole point of being pro - buisiness is to keep your tax base by not making life difficult for buisness (or the types of busness you want in your state / country) so that even if the economy tanks, the business stay. It is an idea that in the global marketplace, rather than fight reality, government should compete for jobs from companies.

Except that we can't compete with third world nations without becoming one (China's not really third world, but if you're looking at working conditions, it might as well be). If America has to give up its superpower status in order to maintain a middle class, so be it. And that does indeed appear to be the case-at least, if you think the only way we can keep business is tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans and next to no regulations on businesses.

edited 8th Mar '11 6:06:50 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

way I see it both sides are being foolish you can't afford to save everyone you can't make everything "free"without quality suffering and progress being impeded because there is no incentive for progress or innovation under such a system. I do hold that we need some regulation of corperations but notto the extent that we have right now. Resources are finite.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

I dunno.... do we want to compete with China? I'm no economist but it seems like the global marketplace has done nothing much for real wages or the global financial system as a whole, not least because china owns half of our asses already.

Let's be careful not to get dragged into an argument over U.S. "competitiveness". The idea is to paint a picture of spoiled, lazy American workers.

Victim blaming. For kids!

edited 8th Mar '11 6:47:17 PM by johnnyfog

I'm a skeptical squirrel

^^ Deepwater Horizon suggests otherwise.

If anything, I'd say our current regulation isn't good enough.

edited 8th Mar '11 6:40:04 PM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play