An alarming number of self described libertarians/anarchists support Trump.

[agent00f]

At present, many of the most powerful and harmful corporations (e.g. pharma companies) exist BECAUSE of government regulation, not absence of it. That's not universal and fundamentally all shared resources (e.g. land/pollution and utilities) must be regulated at a societal level, but monopolies generally thrive under government regulation.

All corporations and open markets in general necessarily only exist because of some social agreement that they can/should. "Monopoly" only has meaning because it's socially agreed that lack of market competition is harmful. Otherwise it's simply the natural state of things because competition is unprofitable.

 

[woolfe9998]

At present, many of the most powerful and harmful corporations (e.g. pharma companies) exist BECAUSE of government regulation, not absence of it. That's not universal and fundamentally all shared resources (e.g. land/pollution and utilities) must be regulated at a societal level, but monopolies generally thrive under government regulation.

Without government, corporations do not 1) exploit their workers, 2) pollute the environment, 3) create unsafe and even deadly products, 4) defraud the pubic, etc. etc. Is that what you're saying?

You know, it's funny, but I seem to recall that long before there was much in the way of either taxation or regulation, in the early to middle-late 19th century, there were companies (ie.e. mining and railroad concerns) who paid their workers slave wages and had them work in dangerous and deadly conditions. The national standard of living was execrable compared to today. None of that required government. What it required was minimalist government.

Libertarians want to solve the problem of undue influence of corporations on government by...getting rid of government. Which is the same thing as saying, we'll remove all those pesky taxes and regulations that they constantly lobby against, give them everything they always wanted, then they won't have any need to lobby the government any more. Sounds like a lovely idea to me. Corporate CEO's think so too. Many identify as libertarian. The Koch brothers for example. I'm pretty sure the Kochs don't think their power will be weakened when their taxes are slashed and they're suddenly allowed to pollute to their heart's content.

Can you please describe a real world libertarian system that actually works well? ALL successful economies in this world are not libertarian, while every third world crap hole has a government which delivers almost no services, and no has no regulations or none which ever get enforced, and wealth distribution is insanely uneven.

 

[Genx87]

Just curious, if not Somalia what other place is libertarian?

There is no libertarian govts in the wild afaik. But why would you think Somalia is a libertarian govt? It is clearly anarchy as it lacks any govt since the early 1990s..

 

[Genx87]

Oh, so corporations have no power, so long as there is no government regulation or taxation of them? Taking away those taxes and regulations will DIMINISH them? That's what you're saying?

I honestly have no clue what you are trying to say with this response to what I wrote.

This is the most basic fallacy of libertarianism: take away government and there is a vacuum of power where everyone is "free" because it's only government that oppresses people. People have nothing to fear from concentrated wealth.

Horseshit.

Who has absolute power to wield deadly force and oppress people? Last time I checked Macys and the like hasn't oppressed or killed anybody.

I have never understood the fear of concentrated wealth. Unless you believe that wealth will allow these people to buy govt power? Which is a great example of why a large far reaching central govt is a bad idea.

 

[woolfe9998]

I honestly have no clue what you are trying to say with this response to what I wrote.



Who has absolute power to wield deadly force and oppress people? Last time I checked Macys and the like hasn't oppressed or killed anybody.

I have never understood the fear of concentrated wealth. Unless you believe that wealth will allow these people to buy govt power? Which is a great example of why a large far reaching central govt is a bad idea.

You don't understand how wealth translates into power without government? Really? Yeah, that's exactly the problem with libertarianism, that they don't understand something so basic.

 

[desura]

There is no libertarian govts in the wild afaik. But why would you think Somalia is a libertarian govt? It is clearly anarchy as it lacks any govt since the early 1990s..

I've actually seen anarchists speak positively about Somalia's anarchy. It is kind of amusing. it is a combination of naivety and virtue-signallying, because anything from Africa is indigenous and *good*.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Without government, corporations do not 1) exploit their workers, 2) pollute the environment, 3) create unsafe and even deadly products, 4) defraud the pubic, etc. etc. Is that what you're saying?

You know, it's funny, but I seem to recall that long before there was much in the way of either taxation or regulation, in the early to middle-late 19th century, there were companies (ie.e. mining and railroad concerns) who paid their workers slave wages and had them work in dangerous and deadly conditions. The national standard of living was execrable compared to today. None of that required government. What it required was minimalist government.

Libertarians want to solve the problem of undue influence of corporations on government by...getting rid of government. Which is the same thing as saying, we'll remove all those pesky taxes and regulations that they constantly lobby against, give them everything they always wanted, then they won't have any need to lobby the government any more. Sounds like a lovely idea to me. Corporate CEO's think so too. Many identify as libertarian. The Koch brothers for example. I'm pretty sure the Kochs don't think their power will be weakened when their taxes are slashed and they're suddenly allowed to pollute to their heart's content.

Can you please describe a real world libertarian system that actually works well? ALL successful economies in this world are not libertarian, while every third world crap hole has a government which delivers almost no services, and no has no regulations or none which ever get enforced, and wealth distribution is insanely uneven.

My point was about your statement of diminishing corporate power upon reduced regulations, and I gave you a specific example of how government regulation actually strengthens corporate power. Do you disagree with that example?

I never said any of those things, and even clearly said that government has a necessary role regarding the environment. Worker exploitation is a bad thing, but not something that determines the success or stability of a nation; we did reasonably well up until the Great Depression with minimal protection of labor, and obviously you could look at a country like China to see how a lack of worker rights can actually aid in rapidly mobilizing an economy and workforce. Same can be said about product safety. For the most part, we don't become successful because of laws concerning either of those things, instead we address those problems because we are successful and can afford to. And I'm not saying I'm against laws to address those either. Fraud is criminal; the most extreme flavor of libertarianism holds two principles, one that person or property cannot be infringed, another that contracts must be faithfully followed.

Somalia is a silly example because they were a nation that under civil war for many years, previously ruled by a military government of Marxists. No region ruled by military decree/power can be called libertarian, they were simply a profoundly failed socialist nation that couldn't sustain its power. They currently practice Sharia Law as well. Outside of pre-New Deal America, I'd say Hong Kong would be the closest to a libertarian "nation", or China's free trade zones, at least as far as economic libertarianism is concerned. Are they "true libertarians"? Probably not, but what's a "true" anything in government?

I can't speak for all self-identified libertarians, but personally I vote that way not because I literally desire a form of government that does nothing but prosecute crime and enforce contracts, but because both major parties promote harmful degrees of regulation to an extent I don't support. Find me a Democrat or Republican that...

1. Supports greatly reducing the size and role of our military and the CIA
2. Opposes no-knock warrants, blanket spying on citizens, and civil forfeiture
3. Opposes the war on drugs
4. Supports reducing regulations on pharmaceutical sales comparable to that of food sales
5. Supports the general principles of the 'Castle Doctrine'

And I'd vote for them. Defense contractors and pharmaceutical companies are two of the biggest drains on our economy, and they only manage to do so thanks to the extent of our government.

 

[agent00f]

There is no libertarian govts in the wild afaik. But why would you think Somalia is a libertarian govt? It is clearly anarchy as it lacks any govt since the early 1990s..

American libertarianism is make belief.

 

[Sunburn74]

I can't speak for all self-identified libertarians, but personally I vote that way not because I literally desire a form of government that does nothing but prosecute crime and enforce contracts, but because both major parties promote harmful degrees of regulation to an extent I don't support. Find me a Democrat or Republican that...

1. Supports greatly reducing the size and role of our military and the CIA
2. Opposes no-knock warrants, blanket spying on citizens, and civil forfeiture
3. Opposes the war on drugs
4. Supports reducing regulations on pharmaceutical sales comparable to that of food sales
5. Supports the general principles of the 'Castle Doctrine'

And I'd vote for them. Defense contractors and pharmaceutical companies are two of the biggest drains on our economy, and they only manage to do so thanks to the extent of our government.

Hmm...the democratic party platform for 2016 directly states and supports everything you're talking about. Seems like you pretty much can vote for any democrat and get most of those things.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

1. "Defense Spending We support a smart, predictable defense budget that meets the strategic challenges we face, not the arbitrary cuts that the Republican Congress enacted as part of sequestration. We must prioritize military readiness by making sure our Active, Reserve, and National Guard components remain the best trained and equipped in the world. We will seek a more agile and flexible force and rid the military of outdated Cold War-era systems. We must end waste in the defense budget. We will audit the Pentagon, launch a high-level commission to review the role of defense contractors, and take greater action against those who have been involved in fraud. And we will ensure that the Department of Defense invests its budget wisely."
2 "Democrats reject the false choice between privacy interests and keeping Americans safe. We need liberty and security, and each makes the other possible. We will protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people—standing firm against the type of warrantless surveillance of American citizens that flourished during the Bush Administration. We support recent reforms to government bulk data collection programs so the government is not collecting and holding millions of files on innocent Americans."
3. "The "war on drugs" has led to the imprisonment of millions of Americans, disproportionately people of color, without reducing drug use. Whenever possible, Democrats will prioritize prevention and treatment over incarceration when tackling addiction and substance use disorder. We will build on effective models of drug courts, veterans’ courts, and other diversionary programs that seek to give nonviolent offenders opportunities for rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration. Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1" federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization. We believe that the states should be laboratories of democracy on the issue of marijuana, and those states that want to decriminalize it or provide access to medical marijuana should be able to do so. We support policies that will allow more research on marijuana, as well as reforming our laws to allow legal marijuana businesses to exist without uncertainty. And we recognize our current marijuana laws have had an unacceptable disparate impact in terms of arrest rates for African Americans that far outstrip arrest rates for whites, despite similar usage rates."
4. Nothing on pharmaceutical regulations, but honestly thats not a widely supported position. I am highly knowledgeable myself about drugs, medicine, hospital administration, and see no real reason to loosen regulations on pharmaceutical sales in a broad capacity, though there are piecemeal things here and there than should probably be tweaked.
5. "While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe."


Honestly it has been well established that if you poll american's on their views on most issues, the democratic party platform fits those views the most. However, people are stupid and don't vote or vote against their own general interests based on emotion or single issue stuff or just plain on racism/tribalism.

 

[woolfe9998]

My point was about your statement of diminishing corporate power upon reduced regulations, and I gave you a specific example of how government regulation actually strengthens corporate power. Do you disagree with that example?

I never said any of those things, and even clearly said that government has a necessary role regarding the environment. Worker exploitation is a bad thing, but not something that determines the success or stability of a nation; we did reasonably well up until the Great Depression with minimal protection of labor, and obviously you could look at a country like China to see how a lack of worker rights can actually aid in rapidly mobilizing an economy and workforce. Same can be said about product safety. For the most part, we don't become successful because of laws concerning either of those things, instead we address those problems because we are successful and can afford to. And I'm not saying I'm against laws to address those either. Fraud is criminal; the most extreme flavor of libertarianism holds two principles, one that person or property cannot be infringed, another that contracts must be faithfully followed.

Somalia is a silly example because they were a nation that under civil war for many years, previously ruled by a military government of Marxists. No region ruled by military decree/power can be called libertarian, they were simply a profoundly failed socialist nation that couldn't sustain its power. They currently practice Sharia Law as well. Outside of pre-New Deal America, I'd say Hong Kong would be the closest to a libertarian "nation", or China's free trade zones, at least as far as economic libertarianism is concerned. Are they "true libertarians"? Probably not, but what's a "true" anything in government?

I can't speak for all self-identified libertarians, but personally I vote that way not because I literally desire a form of government that does nothing but prosecute crime and enforce contracts, but because both major parties promote harmful degrees of regulation to an extent I don't support. Find me a Democrat or Republican that...

1. Supports greatly reducing the size and role of our military and the CIA
2. Opposes no-knock warrants, blanket spying on citizens, and civil forfeiture
3. Opposes the war on drugs
4. Supports reducing regulations on pharmaceutical sales comparable to that of food sales
5. Supports the general principles of the 'Castle Doctrine'

And I'd vote for them. Defense contractors and pharmaceutical companies are two of the biggest drains on our economy, and they only manage to do so thanks to the extent of our government.

I didn't make the comparison with Somalia in particular. Somalia is a talking point of certain people on the left when they critique libertarianism. I don't like using it as an example because it limits the case too much. Somalia is supposed to be like a libertarian system because it had virtually no government, but that isn't the real issue. It has to do with the entire world of developing countries, not just Somalia. While I agree that many of these countries have authoritarian governments and hence could not be called libertarian, they resemble a libertarian system in the one way which matters most when we're talking about economic prosperity: these governments do not provide services to their citizens. Services such as the following:

1. a public retirement system, 2. healthcare for the elderly (or for everyone), 3. safety nets for those who lose their jobs, 4. a minimum wage, 5. regulations on business to protect the environment and to curb other abuses, 6. a protected right to strike, 7. free K-12 education, and others.

In the United States, libertarians have opposed all of these things, and/or advocated scaling them way back. Not all self-identified libertarians. I'm talking about doctrinaire libertarians. I'm not going to get into a definitional argument about this, but if you read what the intellectuals of this movement say, and their party platform, it's quite extreme. Moderate conservatives and liberals can call themselves libertarians if they want, but just being sort of fiscally conservative and supporting the Second Amendment isn't really libertarian. The core of it is a belief in minimalist government, not a government which is like 85% of what we have now.

The point of all of this is to look at the world around us, and ask the basic question: which countries supply services like the ones I listed above, and which do not? And how well off economically are the ones who do offer such services versus the ones who do not? The answer provides a staggering contrast; it isn't merely a general trend in favor of the one over the other. ALL governments which supply most/all of these kinds of services are at least in the upper third of countries in the world in terms of economic prosperity, most in the upper 10%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

While the ones who do not are farther down, most being in the crapper. It's interesting that you point out the fact that many developing countries have authoritarian government. What that proves is that "big government" is not the same thing as authoritarian government. Equating the two is another fallacy of libertarians.

Broadly, this world consists largely of countries with "big government" i.e. high taxes and lots of services provided by the government, and "small government" with low/minimal taxes and little in the way of services. The former are generally democracies, while the latter are generally dictatorships. The former are generally prosperous, while the latter are generally not.

Either way, democracy or dictatorship, it's clear when you look around the world that minimalist government doesn't work.

Even if you look within the United States, you can see that red states which offer fewer services are generally less prosperous than are blue states which offer more.

http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-q4-2015-2016-1/#12-new-york-40

All the arguments over theory aside, the empirical evidence simply does not support this bizarre American only ideology that we call libertarian. It cuts forcefully the other way.

Libertarians are great when it comes to individual liberty. When it comes to matters of economic prosperity, they're terrible. Doing what libertarians want will turn us into a developing country, where every state has an economy like West Virginia or Arkansas, or worse.

 

[glenn1]

Hmm...the democratic party platform for 2016 directly states and supports everything you're talking about. Seems like you pretty much can vote for any democrat and get most of those things.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

1. "Defense Spending We support a smart, predictable defense budget that meets the strategic challenges we face, not the arbitrary cuts that the Republican Congress enacted as part of sequestration. We must prioritize military readiness by making sure our Active, Reserve, and National Guard components remain the best trained and equipped in the world. We will seek a more agile and flexible force and rid the military of outdated Cold War-era systems. We must end waste in the defense budget. We will audit the Pentagon, launch a high-level commission to review the role of defense contractors, and take greater action against those who have been involved in fraud. And we will ensure that the Department of Defense invests its budget wisely."
2 "Democrats reject the false choice between privacy interests and keeping Americans safe. We need liberty and security, and each makes the other possible. We will protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people—standing firm against the type of warrantless surveillance of American citizens that flourished during the Bush Administration. We support recent reforms to government bulk data collection programs so the government is not collecting and holding millions of files on innocent Americans."
3. "The "war on drugs" has led to the imprisonment of millions of Americans, disproportionately people of color, without reducing drug use. Whenever possible, Democrats will prioritize prevention and treatment over incarceration when tackling addiction and substance use disorder. We will build on effective models of drug courts, veterans’ courts, and other diversionary programs that seek to give nonviolent offenders opportunities for rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration. Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1" federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization. We believe that the states should be laboratories of democracy on the issue of marijuana, and those states that want to decriminalize it or provide access to medical marijuana should be able to do so. We support policies that will allow more research on marijuana, as well as reforming our laws to allow legal marijuana businesses to exist without uncertainty. And we recognize our current marijuana laws have had an unacceptable disparate impact in terms of arrest rates for African Americans that far outstrip arrest rates for whites, despite similar usage rates."
4. Nothing on pharmaceutical regulations, but honestly thats not a widely supported position. I am highly knowledgeable myself about drugs, medicine, hospital administration, and see no real reason to loosen regulations on pharmaceutical sales in a broad capacity, though there are piecemeal things here and there than should probably be tweaked.
5. "While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe."


Honestly it has been well established that if you poll american's on their views on most issues, the democratic party platform fits those views the most. However, people are stupid and don't vote or vote against their own general interests based on emotion or single issue stuff or just plain on racism/tribalism.

People like you actually believing that line of bullcrap from the party platform is a big part of the reason why our country suffers from those maladies. At some point you might actually look what the party you support actually DOES rather than what they say. Eight years of Obama and the civil liberties are in worse shape than they've been in generations. Democrats aren't exactly doing a whole lot more than Republicans on ratcheting down defense spending or war on drugs either. The Republicans absolutely suck on pretty much all your points but if you honestly think the Democrats are clearly better than you honestly need some new glasses. You couldn't pick much better an example of "both sides do it" than the ones you posted; if nothing else you could have picked something where there was an actually perceivable difference like LGBTQ issues.

 

[greatnoob]

People like you actually believing that line of bullcrap from the party platform is a big part of the reason why our country suffers from those maladies. At some point you might actually look what the party you support actually DOES rather than what they say. Eight years of Obama and the civil liberties are in worse shape than they've been in generations. Democrats aren't exactly doing a whole lot more than Republicans on ratcheting down defense spending or war on drugs either. The Republicans absolutely suck on pretty much all your points but if you honestly think the Democrats are clearly better than you honestly need some new glasses. You couldn't pick much better an example of "both sides do it" than the ones you posted; if nothing else you could have picked something where there was an actually perceivable difference like LGBTQ issues.

Did you vote for Trump? This should be directed at his followers.

 

[glenn1]

Did you vote for Trump? This should be directed at his followers.

No of course not, I'm on record here saying I would have ranked my choices in the last election as Libertarian, Green, Dem, Rep. And not to worry I do indeed give grief to both sides about these issues as both are terrible on civil liberties plus a whole lot else.

 

[Jhhnn]

No of course not, I'm on record here saying I would have ranked my choices in the last election as Libertarian, Green, Dem, Rep. And not to worry I do indeed give grief to both sides about these issues as both are terrible on civil liberties plus a whole lot else.

And there you have it- Both Sides!

Your bit about civil liberties is one of the most dishonest things you ever posted, btw.

 

[glenn1]

And there you have it- Both Sides!

Your bit about civil liberties is one of the most dishonest things you ever posted, btw.

Dude, grow up and use the brain you were given for once. You're the saddest most predictable shill for the Democratic party on here. Does Obama have to personally give you a colonoscopy before you'll admit what's right in front of your eyes that Democrats have been terrible for civil liberties since 9/11? Do you think Snowden and Manning were just lying, or the NSA isn't listening to every fvckign word you say? Hell, even fskimospy admits that Dems have been terrible for civil liberties.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dude, grow up and use the brain you were given for once. You're the saddest most predictable shill for the Democratic party on here. Does Obama have to personally give you a colonoscopy before you'll admit what's right in front of your eyes that Democrats have been terrible for civil liberties since 9/11? Do you think Snowden and Manning were just lying, or the NSA isn't listening to every fvckign word you say? Hell, even fskimospy admits that Dems have been terrible for civil liberties.

Well, there's the NSA boogieman & then there are minor matters of reproductive rights, voting rights, civil rights, consumer rights, marriage rights & so forth. Nothing important, obviously, nor are the consent decrees forced on some abusive cop shops, either, I suppose.

Meanwhile, Trump & the Repubs made it possible for your ISP to sell your entire browsing history to the highest bidder.

 

[Genx87]

You don't understand how wealth translates into power without government? Really? Yeah, that's exactly the problem with libertarianism, that they don't understand something so basic.

Without a strong central govt to corrupt with that wealth. They have a pile of wealth and nothing else.

 

[Jaskalas]

I have never understood the fear of concentrated wealth.

It's not so much that concentrated wealth is bad per say... it's that in order to obtain that share of our GDP, it is first taken or withheld from everyone else. Workers and, hell, the 99% earn LESS money today than they did 40 years ago. Their share is less, they have less. Inequality For All covers this topic extensively comparing and contrasting the spread of wealth during a time when Americans were happier with the value of their labor.

Machine shop workers earned more (in value) than college degree career professionals do today. People have been fighting and clawing not to lose everything as they comparatively earn less and less every year for the past 40 years.

That trend has not stopped. The coping mechanisms of sending both spouses into work, of working longer hours, and of borrowing massive debt are tried and spent. There's nothing left to fight the decline of their labor anymore. Hence the devastating impact of the 2008 housing crash when so many had leveraged increasing home values. That economy was falsely propped up. Now our people have reached the end of the line. Working and enjoying a good life is slipping away from more people every year as cost of living rises faster than income.

$15 minimum wage doesn't even make up for the losses, it just tries to close some of the gap.
A fundamental shift and a new way of life awaits us at the end of this road.

 

[glenn1]

Well, there's the NSA boogieman & then there are minor matters of reproductive rights, voting rights, civil rights, consumer rights, marriage rights & so forth. Nothing important, obviously, nor are the consent decrees forced on some abusive cop shops, either, I suppose.

Meanwhile, Trump & the Repubs made it possible for your ISP to sell your entire browsing history to the highest bidder.

The Libertarian and Green Parties are better than Democrats on all those issues as well. I really don't give a sh!t that you're trying to compare the two worst parties and say "aha, one is even worse than the other" when both suck.

It's not so much that concentrated wealth is bad per say... it's that in order to obtain that share of our GDP, it is first taken or withheld from everyone else. Workers and, hell, the 99% earn LESS money today than they did 40 years ago. Their share is less, they have less. Inequality For All covers this topic extensively comparing and contrasting the spread of wealth during a time when Americans were happier with the value of their labor.

Machine shop workers earned more (in value) than college degree career professionals do today. People have been fighting and clawing not to lose everything as they comparatively earn less and less every year for the past 40 years.

That trend has not stopped. The coping mechanisms of sending both spouses into work, of working longer hours, and of borrowing massive debt are tried and spent. There's nothing left to fight the decline of their labor anymore. Hence the devastating impact of the 2008 housing crash when so many had leveraged increasing home values. That economy was falsely propped up. Now our people have reached the end of the line. Working and enjoying a good life is slipping away from more people every year as cost of living rises faster than income.

$15 minimum wage doesn't even make up for the losses, it just tries to close some of the gap.
A fundamental shift and a new way of life awaits us at the end of this road.

Yeah, fancy that 3rd world folks wouldn't want to remain subsistence farmers forever and never compete in the global labor marketplace just so Americans could enjoy outsized wages in perpetuity. Because dammit Americans deserve as a birthright to not have anyone else in the world allowed to do work which requires no education or training and receive premium wages for it.

 

[BigDH01]

This is a common mis-perception of Libertarians. Libertarians believe in a form of govt. Mainly to protect personal property and human rights. And I agree with you that most everybody is a libertarian at heart. That is until they want to force other people to do things against their will. Suddenly the ideals of libertarians flies out the door. Many of these people in the OP are classic cases of this. They are all about being left alone until they cant leave others alone.

Libertarians don't ignore history history. Why would you think otherwise? So many examples of collectivism and authoritarians using govt to carry out horrible things. I think the whole racist angle in critique of libertarians is fascinating to me given the vast example of collectivist govts carrying our racist policies. In a libertarian world that white surpremacy movement would lack the govt force necessary to be forced upon everybody else.

I consider myself to be a small "L" libertarian, by which I generally agree that markets are the best solution to resource distribution problems and personal freedom is the answer to many social problems. However, I recognize there are resources for which markets fail. This *can* be due to gov't intervention, but they can also be due to any of the other reasons markets are inefficient (although almost always more efficient than government force). Healthcare is an example I'm thinking of, and can be thought of in terms of completely inelastic demand on the tail end, but this is neither here nor there.

It's with this disclaimer that I say the same criticism can be levied against big "L" Libertarianism that can be used against Communism. If it's so fucking good, why can't I find it "in vivo" at any large scale? This is especially true if "most everybody is a libertarian at heart." I believe the reality of the situation is that it's simply not possible because the system (again, at any large scale) isn't stable. At some point, someone will expand the role of limited government to address exogenous events. Need to feed the hungry, need to protect the environment (address the tragedy of the commons), etc, etc. The final result of all these tiny expenditures is a much larger and more powerful entity than originally intended. And like any libertarian, I think this might be where we're currently at, but I also understand that even if these agencies were killed, we'd likely end back up here at some point in the future. I think the best we can hope to accomplish is maximize human happiness within the confines of human nature.

Somalia IMO, is not a good example of libertarianism or anarchism, although I think it can serve as an example. The elimination of their government didn't result in some sort of individualistic paradise, the powerful simply took up arms and hired private armies. Somalians now exist under the rule of localized warlords, men who sought power from the chaos. That's human nature, libertarians, communists, etc, all have one thing in common, the natural human tendency to expand their power and influence. Eliminate the government, certain of these people will form their own. Make a government small enough to drown in a bathtub, certain people will simply expand it.

It also helps to explain why these "libertarians" in the OP say what they say. They're just manipulating people for their own expansion of wealth. They're not necessarily libertarians, just manipulators, and this manipulation is really what defines them. The GOP has been far closer to fascism than libertarianism for quite awhile now.

 

[BigDH01]

It's not so much that concentrated wealth is bad per say... it's that in order to obtain that share of our GDP, it is first taken or withheld from everyone else. Workers and, hell, the 99% earn LESS money today than they did 40 years ago. Their share is less, they have less. Inequality For All covers this topic extensively comparing and contrasting the spread of wealth during a time when Americans were happier with the value of their labor.

Machine shop workers earned more (in value) than college degree career professionals do today. People have been fighting and clawing not to lose everything as they comparatively earn less and less every year for the past 40 years.

That trend has not stopped. The coping mechanisms of sending both spouses into work, of working longer hours, and of borrowing massive debt are tried and spent. There's nothing left to fight the decline of their labor anymore. Hence the devastating impact of the 2008 housing crash when so many had leveraged increasing home values. That economy was falsely propped up. Now our people have reached the end of the line. Working and enjoying a good life is slipping away from more people every year as cost of living rises faster than income.

$15 minimum wage doesn't even make up for the losses, it just tries to close some of the gap.
A fundamental shift and a new way of life awaits us at the end of this road.

I would also like to add that the purchasing power that should be measured here is not in one's ability to buy a home, car, etc, it's in one's power to buy influence. Influence is true power. The problem with massive wealth inequality is that certain individuals have undo influence in the nature and shape of society. It's the sort of anti-libertarianism we should be worried about.

I think it's folly to believe that few individuals can collect massive amounts of influence and believe the remaining 99.9% will live completely and utterly free, left to their own rugged individualism determining their future in some sort of Randian paradise. If human history has taught us anything, it's that the exact opposite is the most likely outcome (and the only natural one we've actually seen). A few people using their power and influence to dominate those who have relatively none.

 

[glenn1]

I consider myself to be a small "L" libertarian, by which I generally agree that markets are the best solution to resource distribution problems and personal freedom is the answer to many social problems. However, I recognize there are resources for which markets fail. This *can* be due to gov't intervention, but they can also be due to any of the other reasons markets are inefficient (although almost always more efficient than government force). Healthcare is an example I'm thinking of, and can be thought of in terms of completely inelastic demand on the tail end, but this is neither here nor there.

It's with this disclaimer that I say the same criticism can be levied against big "L" Libertarianism that can be used against Communism. If it's so fucking good, why can't I find it "in vivo" at any large scale? This is especially true if "most everybody is a libertarian at heart." I believe the reality of the situation is that it's simply not possible because the system (again, at any large scale) isn't stable. At some point, someone will expand the role of limited government to address exogenous events. Need to feed the hungry, need to protect the environment (address the tragedy of the commons), etc, etc. The final result of all these tiny expenditures is a much larger and more powerful entity than originally intended. And like any libertarian, I think this might be where we're currently at, but I also understand that even if these agencies were killed, we'd likely end back up here at some point in the future. I think the best we can hope to accomplish is maximize human happiness within the confines of human nature.

Somalia IMO, is not a good example of libertarianism or anarchism, although I think it can serve as an example. The elimination of their government didn't result in some sort of individualistic paradise, the powerful simply took up arms and hired private armies. Somalians now exist under the rule of localized warlords, men who sought power from the chaos. That's human nature, libertarians, communists, etc, all have one thing in common, the natural human tendency to expand their power and influence. Eliminate the government, certain of these people will form their own. Make a government small enough to drown in a bathtub, certain people will simply expand it.

It also helps to explain why these "libertarians" in the OP say what they say. They're just manipulating people for their own expansion of wealth. They're not necessarily libertarians, just manipulators, and this manipulation is really what defines them. The GOP has been far closer to fascism than libertarianism for quite awhile now.

Because like "free market" or "socialist" it's more of a descriptive adjective that's a matter of degree than something you can isolate as a unique element on the periodic table. Pure theoretical systems of government normally don't scale, it's the same reason why the U.S. doesn't have "pure" democracy and instead uses a representative system of government. Terms like "libertarian" or "democratic" or whatever indicate the character and motivations for what the government does and how it sets policy, it doesn't dictate the operations and logistics of how the government functions.

 

[glenn1]

I would also like to add that the purchasing power that should be measured here is not in one's ability to buy a home, car, etc, it's in one's power to buy influence. Influence is true power. The problem with massive wealth inequality is that certain individuals have undo influence in the nature and shape of society. It's the sort of anti-libertarianism we should be worried about.

I think it's folly to believe that few individuals can collect massive amounts of influence and believe the remaining 99.9% will live completely and utterly free, left to their own rugged individualism determining their future in some sort of Randian paradise. If human history has taught us anything, it's that the exact opposite is the most likely outcome (and the only natural one we've actually seen). A few people using their power and influence to dominate those who have relatively none.

You have the cause and effect reversed. They don't need to "use their power and influence to dominate," they have power and influence because others have willingly and enthusiastically sought to provide it to them. Bill Gates is rich because lots of people want to buy and use Windows and Office products. Steve Jobs was rich because people loved their iPhones and iPads and wanted to buy them. You could enact a 99% tax rate on the Jobs and Gates of the world and they'd still have just as much influence because people want what they produce. You could if you wished limit their influence by putting limits on how many people could buy and use their products but that is both stupid and self defeating.

I swear that if progressives were around back then they'd be complaining because homo sapiens was exerting "too much influence" over Neanderthals. Hell, maybe protesting against evolution is the next great cause of progressives.

 

[BigDH01]

You have the cause and effect reversed. They don't need to "use their power and influence to dominate," they have power and influence because others have willingly and enthusiastically sought to provide it to them. Bill Gates is rich because lots of people want to buy and use Windows and Office products. Steve Jobs was rich because people loved their iPhones and iPads and wanted to buy them.

There's massive amounts of information asymmetry you'd need to address if you believed that people were buying iPhones *and* whatever social policy Steve Jobs or Bill Gates are/were peddling with their profits. The reality is that people don't make buying decisions in that way, even if it is true their decisions often finance agendas they may or may not agree with. The reality is that I have no way of knowing what my money supports in aggregate, although I do realize that Bill Gates has more influence on government policy than I do.

You could enact a 99% tax rate on the Jobs and Gates of the world and they'd still have just as much influence because people want what they produce. You could if you wished limit their influence by putting limits on how many people could buy and use their products but that is both stupid and self defeating.

I did not suggest a 99% tax rate, nor limits on their products. Merely pointing out that it's probably unhealthy in a free society that some members have hundreds or thousands of times more influence than others. For instance, immediately removing the central authority in that society (ie, government) would probably immediately result in local fiefdoms. See Somalia.

I swear that if progressives were around back then they'd be complaining because homo sapiens was exerting "too much influence" over Neanderthals. Hell, maybe protesting against evolution is the next great cause of progressives.

Are Neanderthals the average (not wealthy) consumer in your analogy?

 

[glenn1]

There's massive amounts of information asymmetry you'd need to address if you believed that people were buying iPhones *and* whatever social policy Steve Jobs or Bill Gates are/were peddling with their profits. The reality is that people don't make buying decisions in that way, even if it is true their decisions often finance agendas they may or may not agree with. The reality is that I have no way of knowing what my money supports in aggregate, although I do realize that Bill Gates has more influence on government policy than I do.

As well he should in some areas. What Bill Gates thinks about something like IP patent laws or net neutrality is way more important and relevant for policy makers than what some random voter who works at McDonald's in Topeka thinks. He's a Subject Matter Expert and the meritocracy depends on input from key stakeholders like him to make good policy. Hell, if anything you'd probably want to increase his influence rather than reduce it since when you allow total control over decision making to Joe Q. Public they tend to do stupid shit like support Brexit.

I did not suggest a 99% tax rate, nor limits on their products. Merely pointing out that it's probably unhealthy in a free society that some members have hundreds or thousands of times more influence than others. For instance, immediately removing the central authority in that society (ie, government) would probably immediately result in local fiefdoms. See Somalia.

The President and members of Congress already have hundreds or thousands times more influence than others, so what's your point? Unlike you just because someone's job field is politician rather than CEO that doesn't mean I give them more trust.