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

[konradv]

When you understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism, come talk to me.

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

Libertarians recognize a need for government to protect the rights of the individual. The tools they need to do that include some regulations, as outlined in the enumerated powers in the constitution.

I'm not really in the mood to go into detail right now on exactly what is and isn't a good regulation, nor do I really have the time.

In conclusion, libertarians recognize government as necessary...anarchists prefer no government whatsoever.

You do realize the enormous difference there, correct?

The devil is the details. That's where libertarianism fails. It's all so ephemeral and you can never get a straight answer. Are there no standards or are we supposed to just trust that it won't devolve into anarchy and then a new feudalism?

 

[Liability]

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

Libertarians recognize a need for government to protect the rights of the individual. The tools they need to do that include some regulations, as outlined in the enumerated powers in the constitution.

I'm not really in the mood to go into detail right now on exactly what is and isn't a good regulation, nor do I really have the time.

In conclusion, libertarians recognize government as necessary...anarchists prefer no government whatsoever.

You do realize the enormous difference there, correct?

The devil is the details. That's where libertarianism fails. It's all so ephemeral and you can never get a straight answer. Are there no standards or are we supposed to just trust that it won't devolve into anarchy and then a new feudalism?

You glossed over the prior sentence for some reason.

Contemplate the actual meaning, intent and purpose of "enumerated powers" for a few months. Then get back to us.

 

[konradv]

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

Libertarians recognize a need for government to protect the rights of the individual. The tools they need to do that include some regulations, as outlined in the enumerated powers in the constitution.

I'm not really in the mood to go into detail right now on exactly what is and isn't a good regulation, nor do I really have the time.

In conclusion, libertarians recognize government as necessary...anarchists prefer no government whatsoever.

You do realize the enormous difference there, correct?

The devil is the details. That's where libertarianism fails. It's all so ephemeral and you can never get a straight answer. Are there no standards or are we supposed to just trust that it won't devolve into anarchy and then a new feudalism?

You glossed over the prior sentence for some reason.

Contemplate the actual meaning, intent and purpose of "enumerated powers" for a few months. Then get back to us.

We're talking political philosophy here. What constitution are you talking about? Our Constitution would have to be severely amended to turn us into a libertarian state. Or are you talking about some new constitution? Either way, we're still lacking details or at least an outline of what those changes would be. So far, all I see are platitudes.

 

[The T]

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

Libertarians recognize a need for government to protect the rights of the individual. The tools they need to do that include some regulations, as outlined in the enumerated powers in the constitution.

I'm not really in the mood to go into detail right now on exactly what is and isn't a good regulation, nor do I really have the time.

In conclusion, libertarians recognize government as necessary...anarchists prefer no government whatsoever.

You do realize the enormous difference there, correct?

The devil is the details. That's where libertarianism fails. It's all so ephemeral and you can never get a straight answer. Are there no standards or are we supposed to just trust that it won't devolve into anarchy and then a new feudalism?

You glossed over the prior sentence for some reason.

Contemplate the actual meaning, intent and purpose of "enumerated powers" for a few months. Then get back to us.

You ask alot...I seriously doubt Mr. 'KOMRADE" could fathom it since he seems so Hell-Bent on being told what to do by others.

 

[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.

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?

odd. There are millions of people who live their religions without the force of government.

 

[Oddball]

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

Libertarians recognize a need for government to protect the rights of the individual. The tools they need to do that include some regulations, as outlined in the enumerated powers in the constitution.

I'm not really in the mood to go into detail right now on exactly what is and isn't a good regulation, nor do I really have the time.

In conclusion, libertarians recognize government as necessary...anarchists prefer no government whatsoever.

You do realize the enormous difference there, correct?

The devil is the details. That's where libertarianism fails. It's all so ephemeral and you can never get a straight answer. Are there no standards or are we supposed to just trust that it won't devolve into anarchy and then a new feudalism?

You don't want answers...It's much easier to take your prejudices, use them to conjure up all the false dichotomies you can with them, splashing in little buzz phrases like "race to the bottom" and "social Darwinism" for good measure, and just go with it.

Dismissed.

 

[The T]

The devil is the details. That's where libertarianism fails. It's all so ephemeral and you can never get a straight answer. Are there no standards or are we supposed to just trust that it won't devolve into anarchy and then a new feudalism?

You glossed over the prior sentence for some reason.

Contemplate the actual meaning, intent and purpose of "enumerated powers" for a few months. Then get back to us.

We're talking political philosophy here. What constitution are you talking about? Our Constitution would have to be severely amended to turn us into a libertarian state. Or are you talking about some new constitution? Either way, we're still lacking details or at least an outline of what those changes would be. So far, all I see are platitudes.

It already IS libertarian ASSWIPE. The past 100 years have turned it into Progressive STATISM you seem to relish.

What do you think the ROOT of the word 'LIBERTARIAN' Comes From? "LIBERAL" for that matter...

Try LIBERTY Komrade.

 

[konradv]

You glossed over the prior sentence for some reason.

Contemplate the actual meaning, intent and purpose of "enumerated powers" for a few months. Then get back to us.

We're talking political philosophy here. What constitution are you talking about? Our Constitution would have to be severely amended to turn us into a libertarian state. Or are you talking about some new constitution? Either way, we're still lacking details or at least an outline of what those changes would be. So far, all I see are platitudes.

It already IS libertarian ASSWIPE. The past 100 years have turned it into Progressive STATISM you seem to relish.

What do you think the ROOT of the word 'LIBERTARIAN' Comes From? "LIBERAL" for that matter...

Try LIBERTY Komrade.

If it were truly libertarian, how could that have happened? I do want liberty. It's just that I don't see libertarianism as the way to that goal. Nothing I've seen makes me confident that some of the powerful won't take advantage of the weak because they are "free" to do as they like without government interference.

 

[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?

odd. There are millions of people who live their religions without the force of government.

...and millions who don't. That's the point!

 

[PredFan]

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.

Strawman much?

 

[The T]

We're talking political philosophy here. What constitution are you talking about? Our Constitution would have to be severely amended to turn us into a libertarian state. Or are you talking about some new constitution? Either way, we're still lacking details or at least an outline of what those changes would be. So far, all I see are platitudes.

It already IS libertarian ASSWIPE. The past 100 years have turned it into Progressive STATISM you seem to relish.

What do you think the ROOT of the word 'LIBERTARIAN' Comes From? "LIBERAL" for that matter...

Try LIBERTY Komrade.

If it were truly libertarian, how could that have happened? I do want liberty. It's just that I don't see libertarianism as the way to that goal. Nothing I've seen makes me confident that some of the powerful won't take advantage of the weak because they are "free" to do as they like without government interference.

I suggest YOU consult the Federalist/Anti-Federalists...and WHY the Articles of Confederation didn't make the cut.

 

[Avatar4321]

No the point is people do whats right without being forced to all the time.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Show me one Libertarian, just one, who believes that there should be zero regulations on corporations.

I'll wait.

 

[konradv]

You don't want answers...It's much easier to take your prejudices, use them to conjure up all the false dichotomies you can with them, splashing in little buzz phrases like "race to the bottom" and "social Darwinism" for good measure, and just go with it.

You're the one without answers. If you did, you wouldn't have to put words into my mouth that I've never said.

 

[The T]

No the point is people do whats right without being forced to all the time.

And the Founders expected...even hoped WE in the succeeding generations would understand thier purpose, and the legacy...

Seems WE let too many greedy progressives have the mantle of power.

 

[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.

Show me one Libertarian, just one, who believes that there should be zero regulations on corporations.

I'll wait.

Then what's the standard? I don't really care who said what. I need to know the parameters. So far, all I've seen is wishful thinking.

 

[flacaltenn]

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

Libertarians recognize a need for government to protect the rights of the individual. The tools they need to do that include some regulations, as outlined in the enumerated powers in the constitution.

I'm not really in the mood to go into detail right now on exactly what is and isn't a good regulation, nor do I really have the time.

In conclusion, libertarians recognize government as necessary...anarchists prefer no government whatsoever.

You do realize the enormous difference there, correct?

The devil is the details. That's where libertarianism fails. It's all so ephemeral and you can never get a straight answer. Are there no standards or are we supposed to just trust that it won't devolve into anarchy and then a new feudalism?

Anarchy and feudalism? spare me the drama Jack..

Let's start with a FULL and dedicated defense of the Constitution.. We don't pick and choose the parts we like.. We defend ALL of it..

Then hows about a fully functioning Civil Litigation and Tort system? We LOVE the ability to resolve diffs and get reimbursed for grievances in the Courts..

Then you have a TON of private orgs who do a SMASHING Job compared to their govt counterparts in regulating and preserving. Places like Underwriters' Lab, Insurance Companies who's sole purpose is to calculate risk. I already mentioned Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Consumer Reports et al..

If we're talking about the Fed Govt, I'd expect HUGE changes in Foreign Interventions, Nation Building, bombing 6 different countries every year...

You folks who are constantly claiming you don't know us -- don't seem to have much creative imagination.. Because you're stuck in tweedle-dee tweedle-dum political B.S.

Read my footer.. I keep it around to explain how out of control REGULATION has gotten.. Laws that threaten the existence of the entire HandMade Crafts business in the USA --- while MATTEL gets a fucking EXEMPTION.. MATTEL -- the company who's Chinese manufacturer STARTED the panic in the 1st place... Tweedle-Dee...

 

[flacaltenn]

The devil is the details. That's where libertarianism fails. It's all so ephemeral and you can never get a straight answer. Are there no standards or are we supposed to just trust that it won't devolve into anarchy and then a new feudalism?

You glossed over the prior sentence for some reason.

Contemplate the actual meaning, intent and purpose of "enumerated powers" for a few months. Then get back to us.

We're talking political philosophy here. What constitution are you talking about? Our Constitution would have to be severely amended to turn us into a libertarian state. Or are you talking about some new constitution? Either way, we're still lacking details or at least an outline of what those changes would be. So far, all I see are platitudes.

OK KonradV -- now I know you're serious.. I'm glad you're actually interested. But I wouldn't want you (as politically active as you are) to go another day in life thinking that Libertarians need a NEW Constitution.. Trust me -- we are all signed up for THIS US version of the Constitution. Apparently -- it WOULD be a good idea to get some background.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Show me one Libertarian, just one, who believes that there should be zero regulations on corporations.

I'll wait.

I'm one such libertarian, but of course I'm not referring to actual criminal actions such as fraud.

 

[Oddball]

You don't want answers...It's much easier to take your prejudices, use them to conjure up all the false dichotomies you can with them, splashing in little buzz phrases like "race to the bottom" and "social Darwinism" for good measure, and just go with it.

You're the one without answers. If you did, you wouldn't have to put words into my mouth that I've never said.

I linked to some very brief and quite concise books on the subject...One of them was even online for free.

So, since being too cheap is pretty much out, you're just too intellectually incurious and lazy to bother with any further.

Dismissed, again.