Is libertarianism too rational?

[sandorski]

Problem is, your opening sentence is incorrect. Anarchism does not lead to feudalism. Perhaps you are thinking of chaos?

I sorta shifted gears during the post. Should have changed that. As for the Feudalism, I think something like it would be the result, especially combined with Laissez-faire Capitalism.

 

[Gardener]

When did I say anything about it being done outside of a state?

As you said, you are a little "L" libertarian.

 

[Gardener]

Libertarians aren't anarchists. We don't deny that government has a place; we just disagree that place is everywhere. Where an individual or a corporation is damaging someone else, we have no problem with a state entity policing them.

Government exercises its power for its own benefit most times though. This is why we have government prohibiting people from purchasing a Big Gulp yet we also have government not only not holding big corporations liable but actually taking money from others to bail them out. Even worse, "too big to fail" was allowed to become "too big to not get our contractually deserved bonuses" AND to become even bigger by snapping up those little companies beneath government's notice with their healthy bailed-out coffers.

Thanks for the well-reason response.

Where are libertarians on campaign finance reform? From my perspective, for the government to function in its policing powers justly, it can't be taking money from the corporations it is charged with regulating.

 

[BoberFett]

Thanks for the well-reason response.

Where are libertarians on campaign finance reform? From my perspective, for the government to function in its policing powers justly, it can't be taking money from the corporations it is charged with regulating.

Why not? It would seem you're OK with candidates taking money from individuals that the government regulates, why are corporations different? Merely because of the size of the entity?

What if there is a group of people with the same ideals that choose to donate to the same candidate? Will you ban 100,000 skinheads from donating $10 each to a racist politician? How is that any different than banning one organization from donating $1,000,000 to a racist? Are you against the process, or the outcome?

Everyone still has only one vote. Corporations have zero. If politicians get into office and then ignore their constituents in favor of corporate donors, that's a different problem.

Unless you're going to argue for fully public funded elections, then I don't feel you can limit donations regardless of the source.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks for the well-reason response.

Where are libertarians on campaign finance reform? From my perspective, for the government to function in its policing powers justly, it can't be taking money from the corporations it is charged with regulating.

Hard to do much here as it's a free speech issue. I do think there's some wiggle room here as free speech should not include giving money to politicians; one can exercise one's free speech by donating to like-minded political action committees. Unfortunately many of these are just thinly veiled slush funds with a pretense of independence. Not much you can do about that except to come down really hard on politicians like Tom Delay when they fail to even maintain the fiction.

When government gets this big, this powerful, this all-intrusive, when it routinely picks winners and losers among industries and even within industries, it's impossible to keep lobbying out. No CEO of a major company is going to overlook the fact that government can destroy you - or if you're in favor, your competition. At best you could hope to drive it underground.

 

[ElFenix]

so, are you one of the ones who thinks you're not being played by corporations?

LOL, you just described American politics. Good thing we don't have those damn libertarians screwing things up, otherwise there'd be people trying to gain power! Democrats and Republians are such gullible stooges, you fit in well.

libertopia isn't built to take advantage of the nature of humanity and control some of its excesses. historically, the modern liberal state has. that's the difference.

Why not? It would seem you're OK with candidates taking money from individuals that the government regulates, why are corporations different? Merely because of the size of the entity?

corporations are creations of the state, shouldn't that make a difference?

 

[BoberFett]

so, are you one of the ones who thinks you're not being played by corporations?

How could I be "getting played"? Are you trying to tell me that Microsoft is sleeping with my best friend while I'm at work?

Are you so naive that you believe you're not being played by politicians?

libertopia isn't built to take advantage of the nature of humanity and control some of its excesses. historically, the modern liberal state has. that's the difference.

Oh yes, the modern liberal state as established under FDR and his ilk is a proud example in the control of excess. This country has in no way lived beyond it's means in the glorious pursuit of consumerism.

corporations are creations of the state, shouldn't that make a difference?

Citizenship and the right to vote is a creation of the state too. What's your point?

 

[ElFenix]

How could I be "getting played"? Are you trying to tell me that Microsoft is sleeping with my best friend while I'm at work?

so libertarianism hasn't been coopted by industrial interests that want to dump chemicals wherever?

Are you so naive that you believe you're not being played by politicians?

Oh yes, the modern liberal state as established under FDR and his ilk is a proud example in the control of excess. This country has in no way lived beyond it's means in the glorious pursuit of consumerism.

because it's not like we didn't clean up the environment quite a bit or provide a minimum social safety net to help address some of the pitfalls of the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one.

it's really astounding the number of people who think we should just rely on the market to do things which it didn't correct by itself when given a century to do so, and only government action within those people's lifetimes corrected it.

Citizenship and the right to vote is a creation of the state too. What's your point?

citizenship and right to vote are natural rights, not creations of the state.



i'll note that there's 2 main types of libertarianism, one which seems to think that people are in existence to serve the market and another which realizes that the market is here to serve people. the first usually takes the position that if the market isn't addressing it, it's not a problem and doesn't need a solution (or isn't worth solving). the second says here's a problem, let's see if we can think of a market based solution to it as we think market based solutions warp behavior less than others and reduce transaction costs. i'm often in agreement with the latter, not so much with the former.

 

[BoberFett]

so libertarianism hasn't been coopted by industrial interests that want to dump chemicals wherever?

How does one coopt an idea? Has liberalism been coopted by Big Insurance to fill their coffers? What does that make you, stooge?

citizenship and right to vote are natural rights, not creations of the state.

D:

i'll note that there's 2 main types of libertarianism, one which seems to think that people are in existence to serve the market and another which realizes that the market is here to serve people. the first usually takes the position that if the market isn't addressing it, it's not a problem and doesn't need a solution (or isn't worth solving). the second says here's a problem, let's see if we can think of a market based solution to it as we think market based solutions warp behavior less than others and reduce transaction costs. i'm often in agreement with the latter, not so much with the former.

Neither exists to serve the other. The free market is simply the natural state that exists when two people choose to interact. Thak trades a piece of his deer meat for some of the berries that Og collected. That's a free market.

But no, you say! How can they be sure that trade is fair? What if the value of one is greater than the other? What if Og lied about how delicious the berries were! Or what if Thak's meat was bad! You need someone to watch this trade, and ensure that everything is kosher. Oh, and by the way, for the service he provides, he's going to take half of the meat and berries that were traded. How fortunate for Og and Thak that the government was there.

Power hungry nutters, that's what you statists are.

 

[OverVolt]

Preventing companies from just dumping chemicals and regulating the power companies for starters. Lol...You wouldn't even have affordable electricity in libertopia.

 

[BoberFett]

Preventing companies from just dumping chemicals and regulating the power companies for starters. Lol...You wouldn't even have affordable electricity in libertopia.

/facepalm

Libertopia would be far more realistic without imbeciles like you mucking up the gene pool.

 

[ElFenix]

How does one coopt an idea? Has liberalism been coopted by Big Insurance to fill their coffers? What does that make you, stooge?

patsies have been coopted. intellectual honesty has been coopted.

don't make assumptions about me. i know what the game is and the score. that's more than i can say about most self-professed libertarians.

D:

so you don't know about natural rights? some libertarian you are.

Neither exists to serve the other. The free market is simply the natural state that exists when two people choose to interact. Thak trades a piece of his deer meat for some of the berries that Og collected. That's a free market.

and one that just served them well, rather than the other way around.

But no, you say! How can they be sure that trade is fair?

haven't said anything about making sure a trade was fair.

What if the value of one is greater than the other? What if Og lied about how delicious the berries were! Or what if Thak's meat was bad! You need someone to watch this trade, and ensure that everything is kosher. Oh, and by the way, for the service he provides, he's going to take half of the meat and berries that were traded. How fortunate for Og and Thak that the government was there.

lying about stuff != fairness

though, good luck having much more than thak and og trading meat and berries (one of whom was probably going to end up dead) without civil society around.

Power hungry nutters, that's what you statists are.

The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary.