Libertarians. They're all over the internet, but seem to mysteriously vanish before election time. Their political ideals are based on the ideas that government intervention is a bad thing by default, social services are evil, and that humans and corporations can be trusted to regulate themselves.
But let's face it, they're never going to get widespread support. Even the stereotypical greedy Republican can probably cite some times when he benefited from tax money... be it something subtle like the government subsizing his state school education or something anyone but a Libertarian would take for granted like firefighters saving his house. Remember Hurricane Katrina? Were there cries of "where is the government? they aren't helping enough!" or was their widespread support to let the city and state take care of it because we wouldn't want them dependent on the federal government?
Abroad, we've seen economic miracles in South Korea and Japan in the mid-20th century. These were achieved by the government taking a guiding hand in business. Not only the US, but the world at large, has evolved beyond small governments. It simply would not work today.
In short, should time machines ever be invented, we need to send the Libertarians back in time to the 1890's to work as factory laborers. There, they'll see their paradise. They'll see first-hand how unnecessary minimum wage, social security, and the FDA are and how well corporate America regulates itself.
I am a Japanese.
so i would like to comment as a Japanese.
i cannot trust Japanese Left Wing and Libertarian people.
1994, Left Wing people could gain the regime.
they has insisted that they are against consumer's tax and Japanese self diffence force because of the Japanese constitution which claims Japan will not have the troops to solve international problems.
those ideals are pretty good but can you imagine what they did for us?
at the moment, when they got the regime, they throw away the message board saying `we are against the consumer's tax'
1995, Hansin dai sinsai(very big earthquake) attacked Kobe city and around there and that damage was so terrible.
but the prime minister didnt order the self deffence force to rescue victims soon and he rejected American offer to use their carriers and foreign volunteers.
more than 5000 people died by the earthquake.
they chose their ideals but people'lifes.
Japanese madeas are very good for Left Wing and Libertarians and they did't critisize the regime.
I believe if they didnt hesitate to use the force,
so many people could survive.
as the evidence, 2 years ago a very big earthquake attacked Niigata prefecture and at the moment, the regime was for the democratic conservertive party and the self diffence force worked very hard.
the victims was much less than Kobe's case.
Now the government tryes to creat the small goverment.
Japanse people used to be desasters and we are confident to re boult cities. in fact my city is aside a volcano which erupts almost everyday. so I dont worry for desasters but i cannot stand
to be betrayed by our medias and goverment.
Actually, "Libertarians" are different from "Liberals", and are a strange American invention. Nobody except Americans really understand what they are talking about.
Until I see a large-scale working libertarian society, I'm firmly of the belief it would be living hell. Privatization and non-intervention are not the answer to everything.
I think part of the problem is that the system is stacked against any third party. Dems and Reps control who gets on the debates, they have most of the money in the system. So Dems and Reps get most of the press, and are guarenteed to be on the ballot. They can buy more ads than libertarians (in fact, the only ad I ever heard for a libertarian was on late-night radio).
The result of all of this is that unless you're highly political AND someone points you to a Libertarian Party webpage -- chances are very high that you'll never have heard of the Libertarian. The same is, of course, true of all third parties. Unless you're too liberal for Democrats AND get pointed to the Green Party candidates and website, you probably won't have heard of any of them. It gets even worse if you get down to other parties, say the Socialist Party (actually, according to politics1.com there are several flavors) probably even those who are highly political and already agree have never heard of them.
Most people on the internet are young. But most people who actually vote are older. Most older people I know have never heard of thing I thought were common knowledge, but it is because I tend to talk to younger people like me.
the libertarian party will never ever benefit from the bleeding heart politics the united states has been trapped in since the nineties. ever.
Libertarianism: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.
Libertarians believe in trickle-down economics. If the rich benefit from a technology or discovery of some sort, the poor, eventually, will benefit as well. To an extent, this holds true, but not in the miraculous way that libertarians fortell.
I tend to think the trickle-down-ness depends on the industry, as well as how "fair" the markets are.
You simply can't have, for example 20 power plants competing for the money of the same town. It would be cost-prohibative to have that many redundant power lines and plants, to have tons of linemen and so on. Besides which, the costumer would have to have his house reconnected every time he wanted to switch companies. Fair market value just wouldn't work here.
Or health care. Health Care doesn't really trickle down, as almost everyone providing the HC is a white collar type professional. Improve a drug for heart disease, and it makes the job of the doctor easier, not the hospital cook. Besides that the cost doesn't go down because really, most people don't know enough medicine to know when they're being fleeced. They probably aren't going to bargin shop for a cut-rate surgeon either.
From this point, there are two options; implement socialistic policies, which will result in tax hikes. This only serves to further impoverish everyone involved. Or, we can just accept the fact that not everyone can benefit from a medical discovery or treatment. Life is inherently unfair, and therefore no one should make it even more so by penalizing the rest of society economically.
I don't see it as a penalty, really. There are circunstances where everyone might benefit from having a service available. Having a light rail system (almost always taxpayer funded), can help reduce congestion and bring new businesses to the city. Or Schools -- if a city has good schools, then businesses benifit from having educated employees. A good health care system can help everyone, because diseases don't stick around as long when peple can afford to see a doctor and get treated. A good proffessional police force keeps everyone's window from breaking.
It's just a question of which services give society as a whole a benefit. It doesn't always work that just because a service is provided by the government, that it's necessarily going to make the society a better place to live. If the government gives everyone free ice cream on friday, then that isn't something that greatly improves society.
Light Rail is a rather contentious issue in Phoenix right now. My problem with taxpayer funded projects stems from the fact that our particular light rail project is already six months behind schedule (in sunny Phoenix, no less!), while our highway system is badly overburdened by an influx of people from California.A professional police force is always a must. In fact, I would give it a higher priority than health care.
"Libertarians. They're all over the internet, but seem to mysteriously vanish before election time. Their political ideals are based on the ideas that government intervention is a bad thing by default, social services are evil, and that humans and corporations can be trusted to regulate themselves."
Dead Wrong. Libertarians believe in regulation of humans and corporations, just in vastly different ways than we do so right now.
In a Libertarian Society Humans would regulate corporations through strict, well defined property laws (or property rights. For example--they would overturn the supreme court decision Gibbons V. Ogden, which (some would argue, accidentally) made it illegal to "own" rivers or piece of a river. That's why factories began using rivers to dump waste nobody "owned" the river so it was essentially a free dumping ground. Environmental regulations have helped A LITTLE to clean up rivers but many remain dirty and hazardous because large corporations use lawyers and lobbyists to get around environmental legislation--at the same time their competitors, who may not have even been causing any harm are hit with regulations that hurt their business.
In a Libertarian society--a piece of a river could be owned just like people own the land under their houses--a corporation polluting would be treated just like a criminal who vandalizes your house--they'd be legally forced restore your property to its original state.
So please don't spread the misinformation that libertarians are against regulation--they are in favor of SMART regulation where the power to regulate is placed in the hands of the people, as opposed to an easily-corruptible and inefficiently government.
Here, here! I wish some of these guys would read a history book. The Great Depression could have been partially averted if governments had been keeping more of an eye on things.
But what happens when the monster corporation head-quartered in Malaysia buys out the entire river? What then? Who's gonna tell them they can't use it as a dumping ground? What happens when Conglomerate-energy companies buy out 2/3's of the the Troposphere? Who's going to regulate their emissions?
There are pharmaceutical corporations that currently own the recently deciphered genomes of certain bacteria strains. What happens when Corporations start buying out the genomes of other species? Who gets to own the Chimpanzee species? The Human Genome?
What happens when a significant portion of national defense is privatized? (whoops, that's already the case). What happens when they start abusing PoW's? (whoops..) What happens when they and their suppliers and arms manufacturers start to have a real financial interest in spreading dangerous weapons? (whoops, again...).
Liberatarianism is just inverse Communism - sheer idealism.
Strawman argument. Libertarians wouldn't get rid of fire fighters.
OP, admit you are a retard immediately.
Of course not, it's just not practical, just like Communist states just can't seem to get rid of free-trade.
I wish Statist actually formed the 4th party at some point.
>>18
I don't think you understand.
Communism is about getting rid of money and free trade.
Libertarianism is about having fire fighters if you want as long as you are not forcing others to pay for your incompetence.
And what happens to the incompetent poor people with no money who start fires?
These people exists and none of your crap theories will work.
Centerism rules the world right now, and it will forever.
We need personal freedom, free markets, social security, government checks, and military. NOthing less will work. The World is not black and white, but all gray.
>>21
Wrong.
The firefighters put the fire out to prevent it spreading and damaging those who have purchased their insurance deal. When they find out that the person responsible has no money he is sent to jail for arson or criminal negligence and is freed when he has worked off his debt. People will have bought fire proofing and sprinklers to lower their insurance costs meaning fire safety would be greater than a society that depends on obligation and bare minimums to ensure fire safety.
Pretty much the same thing would happen except no one has to pay except those responsible and insurance companies.
The world is black and white, the grey area is merely the region we cannot see in focus.
It IS the responsibility of the whole community to pay for that fire to be put out. They're entire community is at risk in the case of fire and it's in everyone's interests to pay for it. Perhaps the wealthier should pay more of it; that's why we have scaled tax brackets.
>>22 oh keyh.
Man, I hope you stay in same mindset after you pass your 18th birthday.
>>23
If we are talking about a fire in a close knit medieval village maybe this would work, for modern towns and cities with at least 20000 people you cannot rely on community spirit.. Many people won't pitch in or just make it seem like they are doing something in the belief that they alone can't make much difference so there is no point contributing resources.
Under a libertarian system everyone contributes aligned to the fire hazard they are responsible for, this fair system is not only more economical but in fact deletes the need for finncial assistance in this matter. Poor people can only afford housing with the least risk because they or their landlords/ladies cannot afford high insurance and attract customers from their income bracket. If a sprinkler system costs less than insurance without, then the poor get sprinklers. Richer people have to pay for the risks their carpets, smoking, excessive furniture and BBQs cause.
>>24
That is not a compelling argument. I hope when you reach 21 you realise welfare is not like having parens take care of everything for you.
The thing is, the Libertarian base support comes from the wealthy. They don't like people digging into their pockets, and don't like people telling them what to do. They will never get major support primarily because the wealthy only make up a tiny percentage of the population. However, they do control the media rather often. So they do have a bit of control.
In a perfect world. The grimmer reality, as was visible in the 19th Century, is that tennants find it more profitable to build dangerous, poorly ventilated, fire-prone structures in which they amass all the poor who can't afford better. Meanwhile, the un-taxed rich have unstoppable profits with which they can purchase private fire stations.
I mean, take a hint from the US healthcare system. It's dependence on private insurance costs companies billions a year on one end, and the benefits are poorly distributed on the other. So many people can't afford basic healthcare, it's scandalous, really. When you consider the number of millionaires in this country, our tax policy with regard to health-care is absurd. 38% of this country's wealth assets are in the hands of 1% of the richest people. How's your free-for-all system gonna deal with that eh? Trickle-down? What if trickle-down isn't profitable? It sure doesn't seem profitable does it? What then?
>>27
>>28
The idea that there is "the rich" and "the poor" is unrealistic. Have you ever wonderred why the most highly educated and intelligent people only ever earn 6 figure incomes? There are people who earn 10 times more than a cleaner because of the importance of their job, heart surgeons, entrepeneurs etc.. Then there are people who have abnormally high economic power due to loopholes they exploited which allow monopolies to exist. When faced with the gimmick of "equality", political parties tend to increase taxation of the working rich rather than their benefactors. These loopholes have become readily accepted parts of our lives, for example the federal reserve which is a corrupt monopoly over our currency which is currently inflating rapidly.
Libertarians believe welfare is only necessary because of our corrupted economy, they do not believe all social justice or all regulation is unnecessary just that it is in large part corrupt. Libertarians would not enact a revolution if voted in, they would methodically evolve the current system focussing on obvious problems first and starting small scale initiatives later such as introducing a second currency.
I see a fuckload of ron paul signs everywhere in my city, st petersburg, fl
It's not impossible. I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my T-16 back home, and they're not much bigger than two meters!
In American Politics, every candidate is a 'libertarian-at-heart'
ITT people who mix Centrism, nazism, anarcho-capitalism, anarchy and chocolate syrup with Libertarianism
I used to be a libertarian, when I was a teenager. I took that test where it shows you a diamond in the end (you know the one- it's the one that tells you a libertarian unless you're a sociopath). Then I grew up and realized that it's utter shit. Once you point out the flaws in their ideology, libertarians just change it so that it can't be argued against.
Taxes won't go down, because we need military, roads, and many other services. The only thing you can really get rid of is social security, which means people will just starve to death and die of easily treated diseases and conditions. Libertarians are okay with that, because they lack basic human empathy. Such a wonderful utopia to imagine, isn't it?
Imagine hurricane Katrina without government services (that is, the way it actually happened), but with lower taxes. Does that extra money magically help rescue and recovery efforts? Of course not.
Social-Liberalism, in my opinion, rocks.
Of course to the average American it's a far, far step to the left. It'd never happen. Americans are the one people who are so busy condemning communism they forget that they themselves are merely the other extreme, the greedy freedom bastards. And at such a level they feel they should liberate everyone else...
It's the best balance, right in between socialism and liberalism. It's called SENSIBILITY.
He was using "freedom" in a sarcastic tone, because the neocons like to spam "freedom" and the protection thereof as a response to any complex issue.
As anyone with even a thin understanding of history would know, people with no, or few government protections are very far from free indeed. It would seem the liberatarian neocon's view of "freedom" is freedom for the highest, tiniest tiers of society, and damnation for the rest. "Trickle-down theorey" my ass.
>>45
Last time anyone supported the trickle down theory with any seriousness was in the 19th century.
>>45
Also libertarianism is not anarcho-capitalism. The state would be allowed to interfere to preserve justice so for instance the EPA would be reformed and placed under a law enforcement agency not disbanded.
>It's the best balance, right in between socialism and liberalism. It's called SENSIBILITY.
but theres more lulz in going libertarian and having the divide between rich and poor grow until its a plutocracy with a virtual nobility ruling a serf class until a peoples revolution and going communist, then having that fail and spiral downward until government breaks apart and finally moving towards sensibility
>>48
Libertarianism is not capitalism, it has no place in marxist thought. Libertarianism is based on reality, under capitalism workers are brutalised, under libertarianism workers are allowed to obtain arms and instructed to shoot politicians they feel are infringing on their liberties. Rednecks are poor but when have they ever been oppressed? They are hardcore like the Spartans, they never submit. THIS IS TEXAS!
Libertarians never get elected because they only pick candidates who refuse to carry mainstream ideas; they always have to nominate only the most hardcore execute-the-IRS-legalize-automatic-weapons-legalize-all-drugs demagogues.
spoilers: police, firefighters, military etc. are NOT socialist services
they're not about redistribution of property thus absolutely no reason for libertarians to remove them
>>52
Though on the military, libertarians are not interventionist and would rather not send the military all around to states that don't threaten us and be all "LOLOL SPREAD DEMOCRACY".
um, privatizing rivers would definitely NOT solve pollution. most pollution is caused by market externalites. MARKET externalities. look em up.
The Core Tenants of libertarianism:
That is all.
Who really cares anyway?
s.svonson@wtsonline.info
You must care very much, or else you wouldn't spam EVERY GODDAMN THREAD. I can't decide whether you're a spammer or a troll. I guess it depends on what happens if anyone tries to email that address, which I am certainly not touching with an eleven-foot pole.
>>57
Spammer awkwardly getting revenge on an ex-girlfriend. Report or ignore.
Everything could be privatised but the state won't allow it because they don't like competition. There was once a time when mercenaries and private armies were the norm.
Right now, this very instant, mercenaries and private armies are the norm.