I'm What Libertarians Call a "Statist". I Don't See Evidence I Should Be Otherwise

[IndependntLogic]

Many (not all!) Libertarians seem to love to label or project opinions / beliefs on anyone disagreeing with them. If you disagree with them on a law, suddenly you hate the Constitution because they are all Constitutional lawyers and actually used to drink beer with Sam Adams (as opposed to drinking Sam Adams beer). If you feel that some regulation is necessary to keep companies in check (think Yankee reactor or Three Mile Island or tainted food or whatever), then they claim you want to suck the teet of a nanny state because obviously, not wanting e. coli in your food means you're unemployed. If 100 USDA agents can catch 60% of bad food and 200 USDA agents can catch 69% of food, the solution is to eliminate the USDA altogether. WTF???

Now I am not referring to ALL Libertarians. But certainly a LOT of them. Thus the topic of this thread. I have lived in countries that did NOT have a strong centralized government or social programs. Guess what? Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...
What you get is a two class society, an environment which is downright hazardous (but only in poor areas), poor working conditions and the occasional product that kills people. The Ukraine was an example of this. Also Peru.
Mexico is a better one. In Mexico, the states have all the power. They can literally over-ride the Federal government in many ways. The result? The local government is purchased by PEMEX or whatever cartel offers the most money. Peachy.
Yeah. I'm a statist. but it's only because there is nothing to support the position that a weak central government ever results in a place I'd like to live.

So like I said, there are a lot of Libertarian ideals I think are great. This isn't one. If there are some Libertarians who can post on the topic (as opposed to the label-slingers and opinion-projectors), I'd be interested to hear of any example I may have missed where a weak contral government has actually worked well for the general population.

 

[konradv]

We're all libertarians at heart, but as an overarching political philosophy it fails, because it would take a basic shift in human nature to work. What's the incentive for the powerful to keep products safe, not damage the environment and provide a decent wage? It's never happened without democracy and a strong central government.

 

[IndependntLogic]

We're all libertarians at heart, but as an overarching political philosophy it fails, because it would take a basic shift in human nature to work. What's the incentive for the powerful to keep products safe, not damage the environment and provide a decent wage? It's never happened without democracy and a strong central government.

You know, that's a really valid point. I love the Libertarian ideals. I wish that all companies would do what the philosophy says they would. It's like Communism - it sounds SO good on paper but inevitibly, it doesn't work out that way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We're all libertarians at heart, but as an overarching political philosophy it fails, because it would take a basic shift in human nature to work. What's the incentive for the powerful to keep products safe, not damage the environment and provide a decent wage? It's never happened without democracy and a strong central government.

It’s more like it would take a time machine for it to work.

If only we could send the libertarians back to ca. 1800, they’d all finally be happy.

 

[EriktheRed]

We're all libertarians at heart, but as an overarching political philosophy it fails, because it would take a basic shift in human nature to work. What's the incentive for the powerful to keep products safe, not damage the environment and provide a decent wage? It's never happened without democracy and a strong central government.

It’s more like it would take a time machine for it to work.

If only we could send the libertarians back to ca. 1800, they’d all finally be happy.

Why go back that far? It was just a century ago that employers could treat their employees any way they felt like and caveat emptor was the general rule concerning consumer goods and food.

 

[dblack]

... If there are some Libertarians who can post on the topic (as opposed to the label-slingers and opinion-projectors), I'd be interested to hear of any example I may have missed where a weak contral government has actually worked well for the general population.

It think your mistake is in equating a limited central government with a weak one. To be fair, many libertarians make the same mistake. But it is a mistake. The libertarian ideal is that government should have ALL the power it needs to perform its legitimate functions. But those legitimate functions should be carefully proscribed and not a blank check that lets it violate our liberties instead of protecting them.

 

[dblack]

We're all libertarians at heart, but as an overarching political philosophy it fails, because it would take a basic shift in human nature to work. What's the incentive for the powerful to keep products safe, not damage the environment and provide a decent wage? It's never happened without democracy and a strong central government.

You're equating libertarianism with anarchy. Anarchy does require broad agreement opposed to the initiation of force. But libertarianism acknowledges that there will be ambitious, unscrupulous actors among us, and they must be dealt with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now I am not referring to ALL Libertarians. But certainly a LOT of them. Thus the topic of this thread. I have lived in countries that did NOT have a strong centralized government or social programs. Guess what? Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...

Correct.

Libertarians need not theorize as to what America would be like subject to ‘pure libertarianism,’ they need only visit any number of foreign countries.

Yeah. I'm a statist. but it's only because there is nothing to support the position that a weak central government ever results in a place I'd like to live.

Actually, you’re not – as there is no such thing. It’s a contrived label used by libertarians and others on the far-right to disparage those who disagree with their dogma, and wish only to pursue a pragmatic course, which is always best.

 

[konradv]

... If there are some Libertarians who can post on the topic (as opposed to the label-slingers and opinion-projectors), I'd be interested to hear of any example I may have missed where a weak contral government has actually worked well for the general population.

It think your mistake is in equating a limited central government with a weak one. To be fair, many libertarians make the same mistake. But it is a mistake. The libertarian ideal is that government should have ALL the power it needs to perform its legitimate functions. But those legitimate functions should be carefully proscribed and not a blank check that lets it violate our liberties instead of protecting them.

Mere platitudes. What would a libertarian government do about food processing, environmental problems, workers' safety and wages, etc.? If wouldn't address them and provide basic protections, I don't care how strong it is. Please define 'legitimate' without referencing the Constitution. I'm interested in this as political theory unattached to any particular piece of paper.

 

[Avatar4321]

Personally, I've always found it ill advised to try to force people to do what I think they should do.

I could persuade, exhort, encourage people to do things, but the use of force has lasting negative consequences.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We're all libertarians at heart, but as an overarching political philosophy it fails, because it would take a basic shift in human nature to work. What's the incentive for the powerful to keep products safe, not damage the environment and provide a decent wage? It's never happened without democracy and a strong central government.

It’s more like it would take a time machine for it to work.

If only we could send the libertarians back to ca. 1800, they’d all finally be happy.

Why go back that far? It was just a century ago that employers could treat their employees any way they felt like and caveat emptor was the general rule concerning consumer goods and food.

True. But we want to make sure they’re back far enough to be clear of that bad ol’ Marbury v. Madison thing.

 

[konradv]

Personally, I've always found it ill advised to try to force people to do what I think they should do.

I could persuade, exhort, encourage people to do things, but the use of force has lasting negative consequences.

Also mere platitudes. Let's just exhort people to do the right thing. That hasn't worked despite thousands of years of religion. What would be different about a libertarian government?

 

[konradv]

We're all libertarians at heart, but as an overarching political philosophy it fails, because it would take a basic shift in human nature to work. What's the incentive for the powerful to keep products safe, not damage the environment and provide a decent wage? It's never happened without democracy and a strong central government.

You're equating libertarianism with anarchy. Anarchy does require broad agreement opposed to the initiation of force. But libertarianism acknowledges that there will be ambitious, unscrupulous actors among us, and they must be dealt with.

Dealt with after a bad act, correct. How do you make that up to those injured irreparably? That's like playing a game without rules and then defining cheating, after the fact.

 

[dblack]

What would a libertarian government do about ...

food processing,

Nothing. We wouldn't presume to tell people what they can eat.

... environmental problems,

The commons are the responsibility of government. Sensible rules to prevent people from damaging the environment are required.

workers' safety and wages,

Nothing. We aren't interested in telling people how to work, or how much they must earn.

If wouldn't address them and provide basic protections, I don't care how strong it is.

I understand. You see the purpose of government differently than we do.

Please define 'legitimate' without referencing the Constitution. I'm interested in this as political theory unattached to any particular piece of paper.

Sure. The core of it is that the purpose of government is to protect our freedom. To protect us from violent jerks who want to force their will on others.

 

[Darkwind]

Because people won't do what is right, they must be FORCED into compliance.

So many dictators would be proud.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, we’d need to send libertarians back to pre-Colonial America, as the doctrine of judicial review was well established at least 100 years before the Constitution.

 

[Peach]

It is amusing to see some who use the new buzz word 'statist' also loudly proclaim their love of our nation. 'Life by slogan' requires new "ANTIs" every decade or so.*


*Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? Drunken Joe M.

 

[dblack]

Dealt with after a bad act, correct.

Absolutely, yes. "Guilty until proven innocent" is no way to run a government.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Personally, I've always found it ill advised to try to force people to do what I think they should do.

I could persuade, exhort, encourage people to do things, but the use of force has lasting negative consequences.

I disagree. I think laws are a good thing but without the ability to enFORCE them, we have anarchy.

What would a libertarian government do about ...

food processing,

Nothing. We wouldn't presume to tell people what they can eat.

The commons are the responsibility of government. Sensible rules to prevent people from damaging the environment are required.

Nothing. We aren't interesting in telling people how to work, or how much they must earn.

If wouldn't address them and provide basic protections, I don't care how strong it is.

I understand. You see the purpose of government differently than we do.

Please define 'legitimate' without referencing the Constitution. I'm interested in this as political theory unattached to any particular piece of paper.

Sure. The core of it is that the purpose of government is to protect our freedom. To protect us from violent jerks who want to force their will on others.

1. You wouldn't tell people what to eat is a dodge. He (we) are talking about the fact that it is good to have agencies that enFORCE certain standards (such as refridgeration temperatures) and also monitor and prevent tainted foods from getting to market. So if I choose to eat lettuce, it's fine but I prefer it not be infected with e.coli. And if I die from tainted food, the remedy of being able to sue afterward is not very gratifying.
2. Work. If the only jobs around are in coal mines, it would be nice to have safety standards that are enFORCEable. If I'm black and do a great job, it's nice to know I can't get fired just because my new boss is a member of the KKK.

The examples go on. Where you won't FORCE companies to do anything, that philosophy has always ended in the results cited in the OP.

 

[Paulie]

Many (not all!) Libertarians seem to love to label or project opinions / beliefs on anyone disagreeing with them. If you disagree with them on a law, suddenly you hate the Constitution because they are all Constitutional lawyers and actually used to drink beer with Sam Adams (as opposed to drinking Sam Adams beer). If you feel that some regulation is necessary to keep companies in check (think Yankee reactor or Three Mile Island or tainted food or whatever), then they claim you want to suck the teet of a nanny state because obviously, not wanting e. coli in your food means you're unemployed. If 100 USDA agents can catch 60% of bad food and 200 USDA agents can catch 69% of food, the solution is to eliminate the USDA altogether. WTF???

Now I am not referring to ALL Libertarians. But certainly a LOT of them. Thus the topic of this thread. I have lived in countries that did NOT have a strong centralized government or social programs. Guess what? Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...
What you get is a two class society, an environment which is downright hazardous (but only in poor areas), poor working conditions and the occasional product that kills people. The Ukraine was an example of this. Also Peru.
Mexico is a better one. In Mexico, the states have all the power. They can literally over-ride the Federal government in many ways. The result? The local government is purchased by PEMEX or whatever cartel offers the most money. Peachy.
Yeah. I'm a statist. but it's only because there is nothing to support the position that a weak central government ever results in a place I'd like to live.

So like I said, there are a lot of Libertarian ideals I think are great. This isn't one. If there are some Libertarians who can post on the topic (as opposed to the label-slingers and opinion-projectors), I'd be interested to hear of any example I may have missed where a weak contral government has actually worked well for the general population.

Here we go AGAIN with some idiot claiming libertarians want no regulations at all.