Is libertarianism too rational?

[Moonbeam]

Well said.

Accountability is another of those tricky words that folk use assuming they know what it means. I would bet that what you and(or) Vic would say it is and what it means to nehalem would call it is the difference between a building and a brick.

 

[Anarchist420]

But, I do agree about revising it to account for human nature, like this: "Libertarianism is a wild dream from those who choose to ignore how impossible it is due to human nature." Or, if you think it's possible, point to one society where it has worked.

what do you mean by "worked"? how can you prove that having a ruler that everyone is potentially subject to has "worked"? and how would everyone know the difference? if i was born into private slavery, i likely would not have ever known the difference.

if i had been raised in a free society i would be long gone, i wouldnt know the difference, and all those who knew me would be better off or gotten over it.

but i was born somewhere in between, i am usually miserable, and have hurt and leeched off of other people. i will never be able to pay back what i have consumed.

and it has not been conclusively proven that all classified as "human" have origins in the same womb. nor has it even been conclusively proven that a minority of the world pop, has a 100% direct maternal line to a neanderthal eve... and i believe the sub saharan mt eve is only the direct matrilineal ancestor of a maximum of 90% of the world pop (probably closer to 3/4)... why do arabs fight each other all the time, yet jews are able to unify successfully against them? why was there a civil war in ireland in the 1920s between the Roman Irish, while there is little, if any record, of the Anglo-Irish fighting each other? how were the anglo-irish able to so successfully unite against the Roman Irish and basically take all of the land that the latter never used to contribute to the world?

 

[LegendKiller]

I disagree. The whole thing started with the Community Reinvestment Act, and subsequent jerking around with changes made to it that pressured banks into making risky loans. It's pretty well documented- the whole thing caused lending practices to slide. Banks figured out a way to make money off the whole rotten deal, and ultimately since they're in bed with government, they knew it'd be the taxpayer (as always) that takes it in the ass when the bottom dropped out.

No libertarian I know of wanted anything to do with any of it if, and saw most of it as more big government/crony capitalism bullshit from day one.


Once more, without the CRA meddling that took place, most banks would not have chosen to lend money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back, any more than you're going to walk into a Ferrari showroom and drive out with one without a credit check. Libertarians are not fans of crony capitalism, and know full well the results when government and big business get together and pat each other's back. There was a LOT of that going on with the financial crisis, from it's origins all the way to the bailouts.
e


You're using a flawed example for this, one that's born of big government meddling, not just something that millions of people decided to do out of thin air.

Also, you're letting big govt and its cronies off the hook at the opposite end of the scale as well: most people know better than to try and make wild financial transactions they can't actually afford: do you routinely show up in Bel Air and attempt to buy a house next to your favorite movie star? Are you down at the exotic car showroom every other day expecting 2-way hysteria to allow you to drive off in a $500,0000 car you have no way to pay for? Do you think these are common occurrences- common enough to merit worry over the economy? But if you've got big government telling you: "Sure, go ahead! You deserve those things! You're being discriminated against if someone won't sell you those things! Go get what should be yours! We'll do what we can to pressure the seller to make things fair for you" your tune might change, drastically.

You just really need to STFU unless you can answer the following questions:

What % of mortgages were CRA mortgages?

What % of CRA Mortgages defaulted?

What % of Alt-A, no-doc, option-arm mortgages were CRA mortgages?

Were Countrywide, Indymac, First Franlkin...etc, CRA regulated entities? Was Lehman and Bear Stearns?


Blaming CRA for the mortgage crisis is like blaming pets.com for the tech bust. Sure, pets.com might have been *part* of the tech bust but it wasn't the cause of it. Only a fucking ignorant fool blames CRA.


As far as libertopianism being too rational - it is too irrational and too theoretical. It doesn't reasonably incorporate human behavior and how to counter that, as others said, it only ignores those factors and moves on.

 

[Vic]

As are "isms". "Oh he's a Conservative. Oh I'm a libertarian. I'm a Liberal and better than you."

What utter nonsense that people would seek to pigeonhole themselves.

People pigeon hole themselves because they believe less in the "ism" and more in the protection afforded by being a member of a group.

 

[Vic]

You just really need to STFU unless you can answer the following questions:

What % of mortgages were CRA mortgages?

What % of CRA Mortgages defaulted?

What % of Alt-A, no-doc, option-arm mortgages were CRA mortgages?

Were Countrywide, Indymac, First Franlkin...etc, CRA regulated entities? Was Lehman and Bear Stearns?


Blaming CRA for the mortgage crisis is like blaming pets.com for the tech bust. Sure, pets.com might have been *part* of the tech bust but it wasn't the cause of it. Only a fucking ignorant fool blames CRA.

I laugh now at those who still blame the CRA.
There's a pleasant story out there, spread largely by the media, that says that only people who couldn't afford their houses lost them in the housing bust.
The truth is considerably different. Most people who lost their houses in the housing bust could afford their homes, they just didn't want to pay what they paid for them anymore.

 

[Anarchist420]

You just really need to STFU unless you can answer the following questions: What % of mortgages were CRA mortgages? What % of CRA Mortgages defaulted? What % of Alt-A, no-doc, option-arm mortgages were CRA mortgages? Were Countrywide, Indymac, First Franlkin...etc, CRA regulated entities? Was Lehman and Bear Stearns? Blaming CRA for the mortgage crisis is like blaming pets.com for the tech bust. Sure, pets.com might have been *part* of the tech bust but it wasn't the cause of it. Only a fucking ignorant fool blames CRA. As far as libertopianism being too rational - it is too irrational and too theoretical. It doesn't reasonably incorporate human behavior and how to counter that, as others said, it only ignores those factors and moves on.

well, when prices keep going up (as the Fed intended and as Bush wanted) then it is kind of hard to not borrow to get anything acceptable. under the current system savings become worthless unless you know how to invest and even then nothing is guaranteed like apologists for legal tender would like all to believe.

the Fed chair gets to borrow money at interest rates he set, then props up institutions he has stock in via loans he sets zero interest at, then buys more stock in them, and then controls more than one-half of the world's money supply. and that only corrupts society even more.

but a question is... when is enough ever enough for men like faux jew ben bernanke, alexander hamilton, and all of the other harvard educated elitist leeches? the faux jew ben bernanke doesnt care about anyone but his own power and he uses his own knowledge to control other people. i guess you dont remember when dr. paul had m bachmann get in front of the faux jew ben bernanke and then the faux jew (he is faux because he is not jewish, independent, or civil) lost his temper. the faux jew paul krugman is rude and inconsiderate, he doesnt trust the "99%". while ayn rand may or may not have been a faux jew, ayn was rude (and more intelligently so than i could), praised few people, wouldnt let her husband die if he had wanted, and attacked almost everyone in her works. but i try not to be rude. rothbard was not rude (and when he was he was entertaining) in general like the economists and the not very pro-liberty Ayn Rand... rothbard truthfully called out those like me who deserved it criticism, but praised the vast majority of people he wrote about. milton friedman was not rude. and it is obvious that ron paul is more polite to the central banksters than they are to him... he has never called for them to be killed despite the fact that he realizes what greedy, rich, and rude liars they are.

final questions for now:
why do you think hillary clinton wants to be president so much? do you think she really, really cares about anyone but gaining power over as many people as she possibly can? why do you think that?
if you think or anyone else thinks ben bernanke is independent (didnt need to control people to get what he wants), then why does he care about controlling everyone's property? do you think most americans need a master?

thank you LK.

 

[Jhhnn]

I laugh now at those who still blame the CRA.
There's a pleasant story out there, spread largely by the media, that says that only people who couldn't afford their houses lost them in the housing bust.
The truth is considerably different. Most people who lost their houses in the housing bust could afford their homes, they just didn't want to pay what they paid for them anymore.

I suspect that's an extreme minority.

With young buyers, there are always more than a few on the edge of affordability, easily led there by agents & brokers. That goes to Hell quickly with unemployment in a depressed job market. It didn't help that lenders had, uhh, "relaxed" their standards, either.

IIRC, there was also a lot of loss for more senior investors/flippers in some markets, like Florida.

 

[hal2kilo]

You just really need to STFU unless you can answer the following questions:

What % of mortgages were CRA mortgages?

What % of CRA Mortgages defaulted?

What % of Alt-A, no-doc, option-arm mortgages were CRA mortgages?

Were Countrywide, Indymac, First Franlkin...etc, CRA regulated entities? Was Lehman and Bear Stearns?


Blaming CRA for the mortgage crisis is like blaming pets.com for the tech bust. Sure, pets.com might have been *part* of the tech bust but it wasn't the cause of it. Only a fucking ignorant fool blames CRA.


As far as libertopianism being too rational - it is too irrational and too theoretical. It doesn't reasonably incorporate human behavior and how to counter that, as others said, it only ignores those factors and moves on.

Thanks for your usual injection of facts against the talking points BS!

 

[Moonbeam]

I suspect that's an extreme minority.

With young buyers, there are always more than a few on the edge of affordability, easily led there by agents & brokers. That goes to Hell quickly with unemployment in a depressed job market. It didn't help that lenders had, uhh, "relaxed" their standards, either.

IIRC, there was also a lot of loss for more senior investors/flippers in some markets, like Florida.

I don't know how it could represent an extreme minority when it was such a rational decision to make.

 

[BoberFett]

People pigeon hole themselves because they believe less in the "ism" and more in the protection afforded by being a member of a group.

That's why some of us always qualify ourselves as small "L" libertarians.

I reserve the right to disagree or change my mind at any time.

 

[werepossum]

Banks wrote millions of mortgages to people who couldn't afford them without being forced by the government.

2 parties entered into a contract by their own choice. The result of which was negative for both parties. This is perfectly fine by libertarianism. People are free to suffer by their own choices.

The problem is that when this happens millions of times it also impacts society.

For libertarianism to be practical it requires a small enough number of people to make bad choices so as not to impact society as a whole. Reality seems to say that doesn't happen.

I agree with Vic and (WTF?) Jhhnn, this is spot-on. I think though that this failing is common to any system; pure liberalism or conservatism would be just as bad if not worse. People need to understand that no one ideology can be best in all situations for even one single society at one particular point of time. It isn't that libertarianism is too rational, it's simply that it cannot fit every situation. The optimum solution for Bernie Madoff or the Tennessee Copper Company may well be disastrous for the rest of us, and the damage can be wide-spread with little recompense.

The other big problem with libertarianism is how it treats those who fail at life, sometimes through no fault of their own. Allowing those who cannot earn enough to starve or sicken and die might make for the most prosperous society on average, but it would not make a good society, nor a stable one. Absent some overriding religious or cultural stricture, such a system would tend to be self-defeating. Those who succeed would have enormous advantages and those who fall behind would tend to fall further behind and would be very tempted to revolt.

 

[ElFenix]

Banks wrote millions of mortgages to people who couldn't afford them without being forced by the government.

2 parties entered into a contract by their own choice. The result of which was negative for both parties. This is perfectly fine by libertarianism. People are free to suffer by their own choices.

The problem is that when this happens millions of times it also impacts society.

For libertarianism to be practical it requires a small enough number of people to make bad choices so as not to impact society as a whole. Reality seems to say that doesn't happen.

i think this is a very basic question of government. how willing are you to not let other people make bad decisions which might impact society at large? there's a sort of risk-reward type tradeoff involved.

 

[Incorruptible]

Libertarianism is rational and works. The US was built on libertarian principles and they helped to ensure prosperity. A big problem is too many people don't believe in personal responsibility and prefer to just blame others for their problems. They feel that other people owe them a living.

 

[fskimospy]

You just really need to STFU unless you can answer the following questions:

What % of mortgages were CRA mortgages?

What % of CRA Mortgages defaulted?

What % of Alt-A, no-doc, option-arm mortgages were CRA mortgages?

Were Countrywide, Indymac, First Franlkin...etc, CRA regulated entities? Was Lehman and Bear Stearns?


Blaming CRA for the mortgage crisis is like blaming pets.com for the tech bust. Sure, pets.com might have been *part* of the tech bust but it wasn't the cause of it. Only a fucking ignorant fool blames CRA.


As far as libertopianism being too rational - it is too irrational and too theoretical. It doesn't reasonably incorporate human behavior and how to counter that, as others said, it only ignores those factors and moves on.

You will not get an answer to this.

 

[zephyrprime]

I am a libertarian and believe in freedom without hurting others.

What libertarians don't get is that many don't care about freedom and they don't care about not hurting others. Give people total freedom and they will use it to deprive others of freedom and to hurt others.

 

[BoberFett]

i think this is a very basic question of government. how willing are you to not let other people make bad decisions which might impact society at large? there's a sort of risk-reward type tradeoff involved.

One of the reasons libertarians believe what they do that the ability of an individual to cause harm is far less than either a corporation or government, and they don't trust either one, because they both have a history of causing disaster, whether economic or the death of millions.

Many have the misconception that libertarians are corporate pawns, but powerful corporations don't exist without powerful government protecting them. Government gives massive contracts to connected friends in the private sector, pass favorable legislation to keep those same friends entrenched in their industries. We see big corporations rise and fall all the time, but many of the worst are those that have special status with the government.

So as for the bad decisions of others affecting society, we handle those poorly in this country. We bail out banks (those people causing systemic risk) who then use the bailout money to buy competitors, consolidate the market further, and get even richer doing so. Politicians could have bailed out homeowners and let it trickle down to the banks, but they chose to do it the other way instead.

 

[BoberFett]

What libertarians don't get is that many don't care about freedom and they don't care about not hurting others. Give people total freedom and they will use it to deprive others of freedom and to hurt others.

At least libertarians prefer to limit the harm those people can cause.

The rest of you elect them to high office...

:whiste:

 

[Moonbeam]

That's why some of us always qualify ourselves as small "L" libertarians.

I reserve the right to disagree or change my mind at any time.

I approve of this kind of thinking.

 

[Vic]

I don't know how it could represent an extreme minority when it was such a rational decision to make.

Roughly half of the mortgage defaults during the housing bust were "strategic."

 

[BoberFett]

I approve of this kind of thinking.

Now maybe if more people would consider themselves small "D" democrats and small "R" republicans we might be able to get somewhere...

 

[werepossum]

One of the reasons libertarians believe what they do that the ability of an individual to cause harm is far less than either a corporation or government, and they don't trust either one, because they both have a history of causing disaster, whether economic or the death of millions.

Many have the misconception that libertarians are corporate pawns, but powerful corporations don't exist without powerful government protecting them. Government gives massive contracts to connected friends in the private sector, pass favorable legislation to keep those same friends entrenched in their industries. We see big corporations rise and fall all the time, but many of the worst are those that have special status with the government.

So as for the bad decisions of others affecting society, we handle those poorly in this country. We bail out banks (those people causing systemic risk) who then use the bailout money to buy competitors, consolidate the market further, and get even richer doing so. Politicians could have bailed out homeowners and let it trickle down to the banks, but they chose to do it the other way instead.

True, but it seems like so often individuals like Ron Paul sing the merits of libertarianism, but are actually pushing for more corporate freedom and less individual freedom. To some degree that's no doubt because most of these individuals in power are in power as Republicans who are as pro-big government (or very nearly so) as Democrats, but I'm not generally hearing what I want to hear from the Libertarian Party either. I tend to vote for them as the Lesser Evil, but if they had any real chance of gaining power I'd have real problems with the Libertarian Party candidates as well.

 

[shadow9d9]

It isn't rational. It is idealist nonsense that has no basis in reality.

 

[LegendKiller]

You will not get an answer to this.

Ohh, I know I won't. An answer would require the type of research and knowledge that is beyond that dude's ability. If it weren't beyond it he'd not be parroting such bullshit.

 

[Incorruptible]

It isn't rational. It is idealist nonsense that has no basis in reality.

And socialism is rational? The US was built on Libertarian values.

 

[LegendKiller]

And socialism is rational? The US was built on Libertarian values.

The US was built on slavery too, doesn't mean it was the right way to do things.