Libertarians

[pmv]

There is no truce & never has been as far as the purveyors of Libertopian claptrap are concerned. They've been winning at top down class warfare for nearly 40 years.

Well, it's all a matter of degree, though. One could say there's been a low-intensity (and rather one-sided) class war underway since the advent of neo-liberalism, but then I think, that's far too parochial a picture, it's been going on forever, from the enclosures to the Peterloo massacre to the extremely violent labor disputes of US history, and on to today. And that's not even considering the global picture and colonialism or slavery or the genocide of the American Indians.

Point is just that it could be far more open and violent than it currently is in the West. The current situation constitutes an uneasy period of relatively low-violence, but it could be much worse, and libertarian policies, if enacted in full, would likely do precisely that.

What political history has never been is a peaceful agreed 'consensus'. People tolerate things, if the costs of overthrowing them seem too high, is all.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The kind of "libertarians" the OP is describing are just the chaotic neutral sovereign citizens of the world. They want to enjoy the many benefits of living in a peaceful, well-ordered society without any responsibility to contribute to it or follow its laws. If they got a true taste of the lawlessness they claim to endorse they would quickly find themselves victimized by it. At which point they would cry about the injustice and scream for help.

Nobody wants to live in a survival of the fittest world, which is exactly what we would have without at least some societal protections.

Spot the fuck on. Majority of people here are confusing libertarians with nut-jobs that (in all honesty) are just equivalent to anarchists.

 

[Vic]

I still support the non-aggression principle, but won't call myself libertarian anymore. Unfortunately, too many 'libertarians' fail to understand (often intentionally) that the vacuum left by govt must be filled by ethical and responsible citizenship.

 

[fskimospy]

I still support the non-aggression principle, but won't call myself libertarian anymore. Unfortunately, too many 'libertarians' fail to understand (often intentionally) that the vacuum left by govt must be filled by ethical and responsible citizenship.

I think that’s my biggest problem with the hard core libertarians. The vacuum left by government WILL be filled by something and many of those things are considerably less benign than what we have now.

 

[hal2kilo]

I still support the non-aggression principle, but won't call myself libertarian anymore. Unfortunately, too many 'libertarians' fail to understand (often intentionally) that the vacuum left by govt must be filled by ethical and responsible citizenship.

Is their such a thing in the world of an objectionist.

 

[whm1974]

Is their such a thing in the world of an objectionist.

What do you mean? That is no such thing as ethical and responsible citizens in a Obectionist Society? I was sort of a Obectionist back in my 20's but looking back now that I'm older and wiser, I'm horrified about what I accepted as true on what Ayn Rand claimed.

 

[dawp]

It should not be the government's responsibility to protect me from being taken advantage of. Why don't I just leave aaaaaall my personal responsibilities on the government and keep no responsibilities or rights for myself?

you're ok with being a victim of fraud? after all that is you being taken avantage of by a conman, and they generally don't target just one person, just look at Bernie Madoff, he ran a ponzi scheme worth billions.

everyone who was a victim of Madoff was taken advantage of.

government protects society as a whole, it doesn't really protect the individual as such, one reason why we have class action lawsuits.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It should not be the government's responsibility to protect me from being taken advantage of. Why don't I just leave aaaaaall my personal responsibilities on the government and keep no responsibilities or rights for myself?

You are okay with the idea that whomever holds your retirement money could just disappear with it two years before you retire? They paid their own auditors to inspect everything.

 

[pmv]

It should not be the government's responsibility to protect me from being taken advantage of. Why don't I just leave aaaaaall my personal responsibilities on the government and keep no responsibilities or rights for myself?

But some people are more vulnerable to being 'taken advantage of' than are others, becuase there are huge imbalances of power in society. And indeed, much of what the state does, and which libertarians are happy for it to do, involves maintaining those imbalances of power. If you want the state out of it, then remove all the state's protections for private property and live with a system of warlords and rival violent gang leaders. If you want the state to maintain a system of private property, then the state also has to protect those who are made vulnerable by that system. You can't have it both ways.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You are okay with the idea that whomever holds your retirement money could just disappear with it two years before you retire? They paid their own auditors to inspect everything.

Because... governments aren't known for corruption? Hell, aside from churches I would put government in a class of their own of most corruption - far more than even corporations.

Fact: Every government has done highly corruptible actions multiple times.

This is precisely why stuff like 401ks are infinitely better than pension plans. It is ALL your responsibility. You decide what to do with it, you decide how much you want, and at the end of the day when it comes to retirement it will still be there unlike your pension.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Because... governments aren't known for corruption? Hell, aside from churches I would put government in a class of their own of most corruption - fat more than even corporations.

Fact: Every government has done highly corruptible actions multiple times.

This is precisely why stuff like 401ks are infinitely better than pension plans. It is ALL your responsibility. You decide what to do with it, you decide how much you want, and at the end of the day when it comes to retirement it will still be there unlike your pension.

Please name a bank that has gone bankrupt and left all its customers without money.
Without means their money is gone, not on some kind of temporary hold. Gone means gone forever.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because... governments aren't known for corruption? Hell, aside from churches I would put government in a class of their own of most corruption - far more than even corporations.

Fact: Every government has done highly corruptible actions multiple times.

This is precisely why stuff like 401ks are infinitely better than pension plans. It is ALL your responsibility. You decide what to do with it, you decide how much you want, and at the end of the day when it comes to retirement it will still be there unlike your pension.

Yeh, having access to a finite amount of money is always better than access to an inexhaustible amount. But only in Libertopia.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Ignoring all the other problems with a political movement based on unfettered capitalism, one of my main issues with this philosophy is that its proponents can't reconcile the need for a government to ensure their freedom with the need to pay for the protection that requires.

 

[rommelrommel]

Ancaps are funny that way

Private police! Uh we tried that. Pinkertons. It was a mess

Private military! Uh again tried and doesn’t work great, especially if you’re relying on them for anything important.

Private Fire Departments! Again, tried and didn’t work for shit.

They’re as bad as communists for “oh that just wasn’t done right, we can do REAL libertarian stuff if you just listen to me.”

 

[fleshconsumed]

I had a discussion on FB recently with a self-professed libertarian and I'm just wondering if his views were about average for libertarians in peoples' experiences here or not.

1 - All taxes = theft
2 - The state should not be able to require the people they work for to abide by any code of conduct whatsoever.
3 - Contributions to public services should be entirely voluntary and an individual not paying for specific services simply has those services withdrawn.

I think that was about it. This discussion was a couple of weeks ago and the guy blocked me on FB so I can't refer back to it. Any attempt to point any of a multitude of glaring flaws in his views was met with even more absurdity such as "most crimes are victimless crimes anyway" (in response to concerns about how public order is supposed to be maintained with a virtually non-existent budget).

Stereotypes exist for a reason.

I have an evangelical christian libertarian coworker like that. He believes all of the above and more, for example he believes that monopolies exist only because of government and if only government got out of the way there would be plenty of free market competition to the likes of AT&T and Comcast, he also believes that we would get better healthcare if government got out of the way, he believes all problems can be solved at a community level, i.e. individual members of community helping one another and that such system expanded to national scale is the best way to solve all of societal problems. Another one of my coworkers believes we shouldn't help homeless because they actually want to be homeless, they do not want to be productive members of society, they just want our money and thus giving them any kind of help is just encouraging them to remain homeless deadbeats.

It's sad, but in all of my years of interacting with said coworkers I have not been able to make them budge one bit. As I said stereotypes exist for a reason, and I truly think that they will never reconsider their positions unless it affects them directly. The second coworker even personally knew someone who ignored serious medical condition because of lack of health insurance and he is still against socialized medicine. Sad is all I have to say.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Stereotypes exist for a reason.

I have an evangelical christian libertarian coworker like that. He believes all of the above and more, for example he believes that monopolies exist only because of government and if only government got out of the way there would be plenty of free market competition to the likes of AT&T and Comcast, he also believes that we would get better healthcare if government got out of the way, he believes all problems can be solved at a community level, i.e. individual members of community helping one another and that such system expanded to national scale is the best way to solve all of societal problems. Another one of my coworkers believes we shouldn't help homeless because they actually want to be homeless, they do not want to be productive members of society, they just want our money and thus giving them any kind of help is just encouraging them to remain homeless deadbeats.

It's sad, but in all of my years of interacting with said coworkers I have not been able to make them budge one bit. As I said stereotypes exist for a reason, and I truly think that they will never reconsider their positions unless it affects them directly. The second coworker even personally knew someone who ignored serious medical condition because of lack of health insurance and he is still against socialized medicine. Sad is all I have to say.

Uhh, he actually isn't incorrect there. Monopolies are 100% the fault of government.

Regulations, licenses, applications, approvals, etc... all narrow down to creating paper-pushing jobs that are costly and time consuming. Can big companies put up with it? Absolutely. Can new companies or mom and pop ones put up with it? Nope.

Riddle me this: Why are there no new banks? Why are there no new health insurance companies? Why are there no new cable companies? Why are there no new airlines? Why are there no new car companies? It's because of government regulations create a bottle-neck that makes it difficult, costly, and timely in order to enter the market. It's really that simple.

This is why the only markets that can be entered these days are things that people can do at home - such as creating a food or opening a restaurant. Even then with the likes of restaurants - a lot of red tape over the industry over the years have made it cumbersome for new ones to be successful.

On that same token, I also blame the government for APPROVING of buy-outs that clearly in already established markets. Cable companies, airlines, phone companies - etc... All of those went through approval in our government. Should those have happened? ABSOLUTELY not.


Why is it that things such as.... Plastic surgery (or rather, cosmetic surgery) - as well as even the likes of laser eye treatment (LASIK, PRK, etc.) for example can be had for reasonable prices, with lots of competition?

 

[Veliko]

Right, and crime is 100% the fault of the justice system.

Regulations, etc. exist because of the clusterfucks that occurred when they didn't exist.

 

[pmv]

I've never been clear how libertarians, or at least the extreme anarcho-capitalist type, actually _define_ "government". How do they define it such that it can't be reconceptualised as a private corporation that just happens to own everything, in particular owning the legal system and the cops and the land? Just rename 'taxes' as 'rent' for living on the state's land and breathing the state's air.

Of course, that's most clearly an issue with the full on anarcho-capitalist types (even Ayn Rand objected to that idea, making precisely the point that the most succesful private legal system would become indistinguishable from a state). But I think it apples to even milder forms of libertarianism. Any corporation that owned enough of the essential resources of life would be no different from a state, but just without any democratic control.

 

[pmv]

Uhh, he actually isn't incorrect there. Monopolies are 100% the fault of government.

Regulations, licenses, applications, approvals, etc... all narrow down to creating paper-pushing jobs that are costly and time consuming. Can big companies put up with it? Absolutely. Can new companies or mom and pop ones put up with it? Nope.

Riddle me this: Why are there no new banks? Why are there no new health insurance companies? Why are there no new cable companies? Why are there no new airlines? Why are there no new car companies? It's because of government regulations create a bottle-neck that makes it difficult, costly, and timely in order to enter the market. It's really that simple.

This is why the only markets that can be entered these days are things that people can do at home - such as creating a food or opening a restaurant. Even then with the likes of restaurants - a lot of red tape over the industry over the years have made it cumbersome for new ones to be successful.

On that same token, I also blame the government for APPROVING of buy-outs that clearly in already established markets. Cable companies, airlines, phone companies - etc... All of those went through approval in our government. Should those have happened? ABSOLUTELY not.


Why is it that things such as.... Plastic surgery (or rather, cosmetic surgery) - as well as even the likes of laser eye treatment (LASIK, PRK, etc.) for example can be had for reasonable prices, with lots of competition?

That claim is just non-falsifiable and hence meaningless. You can always claim that "monopolies are the fault of government" because we have no examples of a nation without a government, so any monopoly there is you can find some way of connecting it to a government. Besides, things aren't monopolies or not, in a binary way, there is a continuum of market-power, that can always be abused or lead to sub-optimal results.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Why is it that things such as.... Plastic surgery (or rather, cosmetic surgery) - as well as even the likes of laser eye treatment (LASIK, PRK, etc.) for example can be had for reasonable prices, with lots of competition?

Because plastic surgery and laser eye treatment are not life threatening conditions. Those are elective procedures which means that capitalism is well suited to provide those services. Conditions such as diabetes, heart problems, cancer are life threatening which puts them in entirely different category.

Right, and crime is 100% the fault of the justice system.

Regulations, etc. exist because of the clusterfucks that occurred when they didn't exist.

I've interacted plenty with my coworker, and retort is always free market will take care of it, i.e. consumers will punish unethical companies by not using their services problem solved. I tried bringing the most obvious examples of pollution happening across state lines but that was not enough to convince him that at least some government regulation is necessary.

 

[rommelrommel]

Uhh, he actually isn't incorrect there. Monopolies are 100% the fault of government.

Regulations, licenses, applications, approvals, etc... all narrow down to creating paper-pushing jobs that are costly and time consuming. Can big companies put up with it? Absolutely. Can new companies or mom and pop ones put up with it? Nope.

Riddle me this: Why are there no new banks? Why are there no new health insurance companies? Why are there no new cable companies? Why are there no new airlines? Why are there no new car companies? It's because of government regulations create a bottle-neck that makes it difficult, costly, and timely in order to enter the market. It's really that simple.

New banks? Happens on a regular basis.

New banks of 2019

Ribbon-cuttings for de novos have become more common as regulators have warmed up to the idea of granting new charters. These are the banks that have opened this year, along with more that are on track to do so.

www.americanbanker.com

New insurance companies? Go thru the list, many were founded in the 80’s and 90’s, some newer.

List of United States insurance companies - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

New car companies? I guess you forgot about Tesla, others have started and had mixed success.

New airlines?

New Airlines To Watch 2019 - Simple Flying

Every year airlines are launched, and airlines cease operations. Here are Simple Flying’s top 5 airlines to watch…

simpleflying.com

Cable companies is because spectrum and hardware is cripplingly expensive.

 

[dank69]

...


Why is it that things such as.... Plastic surgery (or rather, cosmetic surgery) - as well as even the likes of laser eye treatment (LASIK, PRK, etc.) for example can be had for reasonable prices, with lots of competition?

Jesus, and you think you're qualified to call other people stupid. People aren't going to die if they don't get cosmetic surgery or LASIK, so providers can't gouge.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

New banks? Happens on a regular basis.

New banks of 2019

Ribbon-cuttings for de novos have become more common as regulators have warmed up to the idea of granting new charters. These are the banks that have opened this year, along with more that are on track to do so.

www.americanbanker.com

New insurance companies? Go thru the list, many were founded in the 80’s and 90’s, some newer.

List of United States insurance companies - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

New car companies? I guess you forgot about Tesla, others have started and had mixed success.

New airlines?

New Airlines To Watch 2019 - Simple Flying

Every year airlines are launched, and airlines cease operations. Here are Simple Flying’s top 5 airlines to watch…

simpleflying.com

Cable companies is because spectrum and hardware is cripplingly expensive.

Jesus, and you think you're qualified to call other people stupid. People aren't going to die if they don't get cosmetic surgery or LASIK, so providers can't gouge.

If you narrowed down my post to "healthcare" then you severely misunderstood my post.

 

[dank69]

If you narrowed down my post to "healthcare" then you severely misunderstood my post.

Yes if we ignore the stupid things people say, everyone seems a lot smarter.

 

[ivwshane]

I can’t think of a single time in US history when regulation was so scarce that monopolies existed or things like company towns and child labor existed. Can anyone with a basic high school education please refresh my memory if I am wrong?

I’m pretty sure I remember the basic theory that regulations and laws are created in a vacuum and not because of some act(s) that happened that caused such an uproar that the public demanded action.

I mean come on, how dumb would I have to be to miss something as basic as monopolies being formed because regulation of such things was lacking? I’d say I’d have to be pretty fucking dumb!