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

[Paulie]

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

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.

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.

I'd also add that it's ironic a good many who have advocated for deregulation have also advocated for so-called "tort reform", which would make suing more difficult.

 

[Peach]

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.

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.

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

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.

I'd also add that it's ironic a good many who have advocated for deregulation have also advocated for so-called "tort reform", which would make suing more difficult.

CONtradiction after contradiction yes.

 

[dblack]

1. You wouldn't tell people what to eat is a dodge.

It's not a dodge at all. It's a recognition of what you, and most statists, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. Regulations on businesses telling them what they can and can't sell - equally regulate consumers, telling them what the can and can't buy.

 

[Paulie]

You're what libertarians call a steaming pile of derp.

 

[dblack]

I'd also add that it's ironic a good many who have advocated for deregulation have also advocated for so-called "tort reform", which would make suing more difficult.

That's an excellent point. I've never seen much justice in the various tort-reform initiatives.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Give us an Example of where Overly Powerful Government ever worked well for the General Population?

with all things Balance is the Key. To Little Government bad, to much government bad.

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

Give us an Example of where Overly Powerful Government ever worked well for the General Population?

with all things Balance is the Key. To Little Government bad, to much government bad.

Why don't you point out where he is advocating for "Overly Powerful Government". Nobody here is.

 

[dblack]

Why don't you point out where he is advocating for "Overly Powerful Government". Nobody here is.

I think the point is that libertarians aren't advocating 'weak' government either. The question concerns defining the legitimate concerns of government. We view it is a means of maintaining a society where we can all pursue our differing interests in a spirit of cooperation and tolerance. We don't want a government that tells us the one "right" way to live and tries to force us into compliance.

 

[Oddball]

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

Never stopped him before.

 

[konradv]

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

Never stopped him before.

Why should we stop? It's an untried philosophy that's on a par with Marxism for sounding good as long as you don't go into the details. Maybe we don't know about libertarianism because, like the Land of Oz, it only only exists in your dreams.

 

[konradv]

Dealt with after a bad act, correct.

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

We're not talking guilt, it's called prior restraint. No wonder libertarianism can't get any traction in the real world, you don't even talk the same language and assume everything will be hunkt-dory just because you say so.

 

[konradv]

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.

If there are regulations, how can it be libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Every time some new regulation is promulgated, libertarians complain. What's the magic secret behind libertarian regulations?

 

[Oddball]

If there are regulations, how can it be libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Every time some new regulation is promulgated, libertarians complain. What's the magic secret behind libertarian regulations?

Because libertarian is not synonymous with anarchist....How many times does this have to be pointed out before it permeates your thick head?

You draw the line at direct, quantifiable and verifiable harm to others....No harm, no foul.

There is no "magic secret"...You mind your business (extremely difficult in the case of do-gooder lolberals and other assorted collectivist authoritarian types) and I mind mine.

 

[konradv]

Why don't you point out where he is advocating for "Overly Powerful Government". Nobody here is.

I think the point is that libertarians aren't advocating 'weak' government either. The question concerns defining the legitimate concerns of government. We view it is a means of maintaining a society where we can all pursue our differing interests in a spirit of cooperation and tolerance. We don't want a government that tells us the one "right" way to live and tries to force us into compliance.

Define away. All I see are platitudes. I want hard, concrete positions. So far all I see is, yes there will be regulations, but nothing that sets a standard. You seem to be conflating the personal and the public. What you say seems fine for the personal, but falls way short in explaining how it would work in the public/business arena.

 

[konradv]

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

Then explain it. Complaining that we don't know about libertarianism would seem to be the libertarians' fault. Everybody wants to be free, it's the details that are wanting.

 

[Oddball]

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

Then explain it. Complaining that we don't know about libertarianism would seem to be the libertarians' fault. Everybody wants to be free, it's the details that are wanting.

Try *gasp* reading a few books and get back to us.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-One-Lesson-Americas-Future/dp/0975432648]Amazon.com: Libertarianism in One Lesson: Why Libertarianism Is the Best Hope for America's Future (9780975432648): David Bergland: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-World-Age-Aggression/dp/0963233661]Amazon.com: Healing Our World: In an Age of Aggression (9780963233660): Mary J. Ruwart, Frances Kendall, Leon Louw: Books[/ame]


Here's one that's for free:

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course you don't, seeing evidence that you are wrong would require you to open your eyes and mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

All those political scientist have been taken in by a libertarian/far right conspiracy. Good thing you are around to let them know they were all duped.

The truth is that statism is the opposite of anarchism, and most people are a mix of both.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Isn't that the decision that Obama said would prevent the court from overturning Obamacare?