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

[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.

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.

I don't see how you can say that without at least clarifying what you mean by "regulation". Do you think there should be laws requiring corporations to be honest? To fulfill contracts, implied or otherwise? To prevent fraud? To ensure transparent transactions?

I suspect you're in favor of these things and simply consider them to be something different than what others mean when they use the term "regulation". Otherwise, you're arguing for anarchism, which is another debate entirely. In any case, taking controversial positions hinged on equivocation isn't helpful.

 

[dblack]

... let me ask you a few questions:
1. How exactly are you going to know if lettuce at your local market is tainted? Or milk? Or beef?

You won't ever know for sure. This is the case whether government regulates your food, whether some third party inspects it, or whether you test it yourself. In all cases, it's up to you to use your judgment to decide how to proceed.

2. Let's suppose a company spent hundreds of millions on a drug. Then, after it went to market, they found out there was a little problem. How exactly would you find out if a drug your doctor prescribed, killed 0.5% of all users?

Again, you'll never know for sure. But there are many ways you can increase your awareness and safety. The point is, different people will have different levels of risk tolerance. You might be very suspicious of drug companies and want to go to greater, and more expensive, lengths to make sure the drugs you take are safe. Other people might not be so picky. Why should they pay for your extra prudence?

3. Or is it that you believe the corporate exec whose $1M / year job is on the line, would never hesistate to jeopardize profits and his positon, for the good of the public?

Nope... I'm under no such delusion. The long term welfare of the company might be enough incentive, it might not.

To reiterate, the question we're addressing is whether people have a right to decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to accept in life. The issue is whether I can voluntarily associate with other people on my own terms, or whether the government dictates them. If I want to try out untested drugs, drink raw milk, or see a doctor who isn't certified - why is it anyone else's business?

 

[Peach]

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.

I think 1400 would be best for many radicals, be they arbitrarily termed "left" OR "right". Stalin is a good example of an allegedly "left" wing monster. Mao & wife also come to mind..

 

[Texanmike]

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).

I don't think any of the above is specific to Libertarians. It is typical of most people out there. Liberals label just about everyone, so do conservatives.

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???

I am probably a Libertarian, if I am anything at all and I think that this is a perfect example of Libertarians failing to accurately express their position. Of course there are degrees of this but most of the Libertarians I know are not against the theory of the USDA. We are against the way that it came to be and we see it as very important for the correct protocol to be followed. The argument that the USDA, the FDA and most acronyms that we have come to live with in our daily lives are not Constitutional. That is not to say that some form of them shouldn't exist, that is to say that if they are going to be created, or continue to exist, that there needs to be an amendment to grant the federal government the authority to create them. The reason that is so important is that the states should retain their sovereignty. Once the precedent has been set (and it has) that the federal government has unlimited authority then there is nothing to protect the people from the federal government.

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...

I've lived all over the world too. I've lived in places that have some of the strongest central governments in the entire world (mainland china for example). Government does not inherently protect its citizens either. Your statement about companies not spending to protect the environment, if it is important to the consumer then they will.

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.

Don't you think that the population is more educated and well informed than in the past? All we have now is that companies have to go through the central government in order to "abuse the people". Now that you have an informed population you have powerful companies that have access to one central power. Isn't that more dangerous in today's world?

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.

This central government was designed to be weak. If not for Lincoln (the worst president in history IMHO) it would still have strong state governments with a weak federal government. The states created the federal government. Instead of having 1 all encompassing central government we could have 50 different options with some basic similarities. Instead we wind up with one large government. Every action should be governed at the lowest possible level and it isn't.

Maybe its time for a discussion.

Mike

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

In my opinion, your viewpoint of what our government should be, is a progressive one, not to mention dangerous. It is dangerous to the extent, that it is the antithesis of what our constitutional Republic is, and was setup to be, as delineated in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is not wholly federal. James Madison makes this point very clear Federalist Papers #39. If the Constitution was intended to be wholly federal as you wish it was, there would have been no reason for the founders of this Republic to limit the federal government to specific enumerated powers, thus creating a weak centralized government, as intended and subsequently written by the founders in the Constitution of the United States.

The reason that so many people shirk at the very thought of the aforementioned, is two-fold in my opinion.

First: Many people, like yourself, believe (wrongly) that the Constitution is wholly federal, thereby giving full rights to the federal government at the behest of the respective states. Nothing could be further from the truth, if one reads the Constitution and founding supporting documents.

Second: Many people, like yourself, also believe that it is the role and duty of the federal government to usurp power in and to itself, in order to save people from all harm or "perceived" harm, depending on the day of the week and utopian mantra battle cry of the month, from the very entity that seeks to expand it's power at the expense of freedom and individualism. This errant belief leads to tyranny. And this belief is centered around the notion, that the Constitution is archaic and as such, should be ignored or bastardized, to give way to "the means justifies the end" mentality. And that is code for Democracy (read: mob rule).

The primary purpose and role of the government is to protect us from invasion, and to provide a Republican form of government. That's it. And in order to achieve the purpose and intent of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution delineates specific enumerated powers (not rights) of the federal government. When the Constitution is seen and applied as wholly federal, it becomes a bastardized form of government that cannot sustain itself.

 

[Texanmike]

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.

In my opinion, your viewpoint of what our government should be, is a progressive one, not to mention dangerous. It is dangerous to the extent, that it is the antithesis of what our constitutional Republic is, and was setup to be, as delineated in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is not wholly federal. James Madison makes this point very clear Federalist Papers #39. If the Constitution was intended to be wholly federal as you wish it was, there would have been no reason for the founders of this Republic to limit the federal government to specific enumerated powers, thus creating a weak centralized government, as intended and subsequently written by the founders in the Constitution of the United States.

The reason that so many people shirk at the very thought of the aforementioned, is two-fold in my opinion.

First: Many people, like yourself, believe (wrongly) that the Constitution is wholly federal, thereby giving full rights to the federal government at the behest of the respective states. Nothing could be further from the truth, if one reads the Constitution and founding supporting documents.

Second: Many people, like yourself, also believe that it is the role and duty of the federal government to usurp power in and to itself, in order to save people from all harm or "perceived" harm, depending on the day of the week and utopian mantra battle cry of the month, from the very entity that seeks to expand it's power at the expense of freedom and individualism. This errant belief leads to tyranny. And this belief is centered around the notion, that the Constitution is archaic and as such, should be ignored or bastardized, to give way to "the means justifies the end" mentality. And that is code for Democracy (read: mob rule).

The primary purpose and role of the government is to protect us from invasion, and to provide a Republican form of government. That's it. And in order to achieve the purpose and intent of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution delineates specific enumerated powers (not rights) of the federal government. When the Constitution is seen and applied as wholly federal, it becomes a bastardized form of government that cannot sustain itself.

Huh? The Constitution describes a Federal system. Several states formed a union but were to remain sovereign in their internal affairs.

What am I missing?

Mike

 

[francoHFW]

By the time an enlightened libertarian is done regulating and taxing, we'll back to where we started, HERE. LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

Bottom line is Libertarians don't have to justify the concepts of Liberty, economic choice, free markets, rational foreign policy and the Constitution. BOTH of your current parties should have signed onto those things YEARS ago.

We're waaaay too busy trying to be "allowed" into the debates, getting on ballots, and suing for political access to be debating Federalism. Join with us --- or not.. But PLEASE don't be insinuating that Libertarians require a NEW constitution or are anarchists. Anarchists don't form legitimate political parties that run 2 term governors as a candidate and attempt to jump insurmountable hurdles to be on the ballots in all 50 states.

 

[flacaltenn]

By the time an enlightened libertarian is done regulating and taxing, we'll back to where we started, HERE. LOL

Perfect example of the gross ignorance and bias I just cited..


Leftists have no sense of self-preservation when it comes to state power and Rightists have no sense of responsibility to their beliefs when they gain state power.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I don't see how you can say that without at least clarifying what you mean by "regulation". Do you think there should be laws requiring corporations to be honest? To fulfill contracts, implied or otherwise? To prevent fraud? To ensure transparent transactions?

I suspect you're in favor of these things and simply consider them to be something different than what others mean when they use the term "regulation". Otherwise, you're arguing for anarchism, which is another debate entirely. In any case, taking controversial positions hinged on equivocation isn't helpful.

Contracts should be enforced, but that's not regulation as we commonly understand the term.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

I don't see how you can say that without at least clarifying what you mean by "regulation". Do you think there should be laws requiring corporations to be honest? To fulfill contracts, implied or otherwise? To prevent fraud? To ensure transparent transactions?

I suspect you're in favor of these things and simply consider them to be something different than what others mean when they use the term "regulation". Otherwise, you're arguing for anarchism, which is another debate entirely. In any case, taking controversial positions hinged on equivocation isn't helpful.

Contracts should be enforced, but that's not regulation as we commonly understand the term.

As Russia found out when they decentralized the govt.. What they lacked MOST was the ability to enforce contracts. It's pivotal because the natural constraints on business are ALL set in contracts and other concepts of common law. Fraud, physical damage, libel, ownership --- ALL those things depend on a healthy common law system which they didn't actually have when freedom sprang up..

All that EXISTS btw -- As Kevin_K pointed out -- in the absence of ANY regulation...

 

[IndependntLogic]

Not as a going concern, no. I'm fairly suspicious of tort reform. I especially don't want to see arbitrary limits put on damage awards.



Where products or actions represent a clear and present threat, I have no problem with laws regulating them. I don't want to preserve our "freedom" to drive through residential neighborhoods at high speeds, for example - even if no one is hurt.

I know you really want to push this to ridiculous extremes but that's not what it's about. We're not anarchists and we don't want chaos. We just don't want to see the government ordering people around, making decisions for them in the name of convenience, or to satisfy the insecurities of people who want the state to promise them a zero-risk existence.

People who want iron-clad promises of safety and security are free to seek them out. They can choose not to patronize businesses or service providers who don't meet their standards of safety, reliability, etc... But they shouldn't have the power to force their notions of what is, and is not, acceptable risk on others.

Okay this is another really solid post.

You could start by ceasing to pretend that anyone gives a flying fuck whether you believe their posts are "really solid" or not.




Pot, meet kettle.


As though we needed any more proof that you know absolutely zero about libertarians and the philosophy.

So we're left with the choices offered in the real world.
Do we tolerate an often inept, corrupt and over-reaching government / regulations, in order to enjoy the unique freedoms that Americans get to enjoy?
Do we tolerate the actions of often corrupt executives, criminals and others who fill the power vacuum left behind by an absence of a strong centralied government, regulatory agencies and the ability to enforce?
In every instance, everywhere that I've lived or heard of, when that power vaccum is left behind, the result is the complete elimination of the Middle Class, working conditions that are horrible, unchecked damage to the environment and so on.
I have yet to see a Libertarian come up with solid examples where this has not been the case. If you have some, I would genuinely appreciate hearing about them but usually, the claim is that "conditions aren't right" for Libertarianism to work properly. Guess what? They never will be.

One of the problems with understanding libertarian philosophy is the either/or false dichotomies proffered by people too thick headed to learn about it and just let their prejudices flow instead.

The other thing I often hear is about how "oppressed" Libertarians feel they are. yet when i ask them how they personally, are oppressed right now, they draw a blank. If you have comments on that as well, they are also welcome.

Less drawing a blank that trying to find a place to start.

I'll leave you the short and sweet reading list, as well...Presuming that you aren't so pig-headed as to leave your obvious prejudice at the door, and learn about something before you try to pass yourself off as someone who knows all about libertarianism.

[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

Court jester! You have come to provise me with entertainment! I love it! All that, and not one single word to contradict or address anything said.
And the finale? Could my puppy post a single thought of his own? No! Sorry folks, that would be setting the bar juuuuust a little too high for my puppy! So he has to cut & paste someone else's! LOL!

You're so cute! <<<<pat on head>>>>

Now I want you to work reeeal hard and someday you can be like your hero (me!) who can state my own opinions and (Gasp!) risk being wrong or even (Double Gasp!!!) admit it when I'm wrong. But at least I can forward an opinion and directly address any issue or topic.

In the meantime, thanks for the giggles.

 

[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.

In my opinion, your viewpoint of what our government should be, is a progressive one, not to mention dangerous. It is dangerous to the extent, that it is the antithesis of what our constitutional Republic is, and was setup to be, as delineated in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is not wholly federal. James Madison makes this point very clear Federalist Papers #39. If the Constitution was intended to be wholly federal as you wish it was, there would have been no reason for the founders of this Republic to limit the federal government to specific enumerated powers, thus creating a weak centralized government, as intended and subsequently written by the founders in the Constitution of the United States.

The reason that so many people shirk at the very thought of the aforementioned, is two-fold in my opinion.

First: Many people, like yourself, believe (wrongly) that the Constitution is wholly federal, thereby giving full rights to the federal government at the behest of the respective states. Nothing could be further from the truth, if one reads the Constitution and founding supporting documents.

Second: Many people, like yourself, also believe that it is the role and duty of the federal government to usurp power in and to itself, in order to save people from all harm or "perceived" harm, depending on the day of the week and utopian mantra battle cry of the month, from the very entity that seeks to expand it's power at the expense of freedom and individualism. This errant belief leads to tyranny. And this belief is centered around the notion, that the Constitution is archaic and as such, should be ignored or bastardized, to give way to "the means justifies the end" mentality. And that is code for Democracy (read: mob rule).

The primary purpose and role of the government is to protect us from invasion, and to provide a Republican form of government. That's it. And in order to achieve the purpose and intent of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution delineates specific enumerated powers (not rights) of the federal government. When the Constitution is seen and applied as wholly federal, it becomes a bastardized form of government that cannot sustain itself.

That's fine. So when and where has a country with a weak central government worked out to the benefit of the general populace?

The only time period I've heard Libertarians describe as a good example, has been America from the late 1700's to the mid or late 1800's. Very flawed example.

 

[Oddball]

Okay this is another really solid post.

You could start by ceasing to pretend that anyone gives a flying fuck whether you believe their posts are "really solid" or not.




Pot, meet kettle.


As though we needed any more proof that you know absolutely zero about libertarians and the philosophy.

One of the problems with understanding libertarian philosophy is the either/or false dichotomies proffered by people too thick headed to learn about it and just let their prejudices flow instead.

The other thing I often hear is about how "oppressed" Libertarians feel they are. yet when i ask them how they personally, are oppressed right now, they draw a blank. If you have comments on that as well, they are also welcome.

Less drawing a blank that trying to find a place to start.

I'll leave you the short and sweet reading list, as well...Presuming that you aren't so pig-headed as to leave your obvious prejudice at the door, and learn about something before you try to pass yourself off as someone who knows all about libertarianism.

[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

Court jester! You have come to provise me with entertainment! I love it! All that, and not one single word to contradict or address anything said.
And the finale? Could my puppy post a single thought of his own? No! Sorry folks, that would be setting the bar juuuuust a little too high for my puppy! So he has to cut & paste someone else's! LOL!

You're so cute! <<<<pat on head>>>>

Now I want you to work reeeal hard and someday you can be like your hero (me!) who can state my own opinions and (Gasp!) risk being wrong or even (Double Gasp!!!) admit it when I'm wrong. But at least I can forward an opinion and directly address any issue or topic.

In the meantime, thanks for the giggles.

So, you're too condescending, insolent and egomaniacal to go over some foundational reading material, that a middle schooler could easily digest and is completely germane to the topic at hand, that would shatter you flimsy bigoted view of what libertarian philosophy is all about.

Shocking!

 

[flacaltenn]

That's fine. So when and where has a country with a weak central government worked out to the benefit of the general populace?

Is that all you really want to know Bunky??? Then I get a generous pat on the head too?

Reality Based Libertarianism and Other Stuff.: Governor of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuno: The Left Is Afraid of Him and The Right May Not Know What To Do With Him

Fortuno lowered the corporate tax rate from 41% to 30% as well as cutting individual tax rates and since his actions, Puerto Rico&#8217;s deficit has shrunk from $3.3 billion to around $600 million. Granted, there are still some pressing issues in Puerto Rico that his detractors are quick to point out, but he is the first conservative governor of Puerto Rico since 1969 -- repairing the damage left by the wanton spending of the modern liberal will take longer than three years.

That isn't the best article for this "libertarian" governor who rescued Puerto Rico. There's better tales of his fantastic achievements cleaning up after DECADES of leftist policy.. Better article at Reason.com
Look it up..

If you're not satisfied seeing libertarian principles at work at the state level.. Try looking at the recent history of Costa Rica.. Evidently those folks are smarter than American party animal who keep voting dee and dum...

And WHY are you so damn cloudy on Libertarianism when you posted a thread a year ago throwing your valuable support behind Ron Paul? Are you just toying with us -- or do you have principles?

 

[IndependntLogic]

You could start by ceasing to pretend that anyone gives a flying fuck whether you believe their posts are "really solid" or not.




Pot, meet kettle.


As though we needed any more proof that you know absolutely zero about libertarians and the philosophy.

One of the problems with understanding libertarian philosophy is the either/or false dichotomies proffered by people too thick headed to learn about it and just let their prejudices flow instead.


Less drawing a blank that trying to find a place to start.

I'll leave you the short and sweet reading list, as well...Presuming that you aren't so pig-headed as to leave your obvious prejudice at the door, and learn about something before you try to pass yourself off as someone who knows all about libertarianism.

Amazon.com: Libertarianism in One Lesson: Why Libertarianism Is the Best Hope for America's Future (9780975432648): David Bergland: Books

Amazon.com: Healing Our World: In an Age of Aggression (9780963233660): Mary J. Ruwart, Frances Kendall, Leon Louw: Books


Here's one that's for free:

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Court jester! You have come to provise me with entertainment! I love it! All that, and not one single word to contradict or address anything said.
And the finale? Could my puppy post a single thought of his own? No! Sorry folks, that would be setting the bar juuuuust a little too high for my puppy! So he has to cut & paste someone else's! LOL!

You're so cute! <<<<pat on head>>>>

Now I want you to work reeeal hard and someday you can be like your hero (me!) who can state my own opinions and (Gasp!) risk being wrong or even (Double Gasp!!!) admit it when I'm wrong. But at least I can forward an opinion and directly address any issue or topic.

In the meantime, thanks for the giggles.

So, you're too condescending, insolent and egomaniacal to go over some foundational reading material, that a middle schooler could easily digest and is completely germane to the topic at hand, that would shatter you flimsy bigoted view of what libertarian philosophy is all about.

Shocking!

LOL! My puppy is still obssessing on me. Awwww. You're so cute. If you ever actually have an original thought or opinion, I will be just so really proud of you! <<<Pat on head>>>

 

[IndependntLogic]

That's fine. So when and where has a country with a weak central government worked out to the benefit of the general populace?

Is that all you really want to know Bunky??? Then I get a generous pat on the head too?

Reality Based Libertarianism and Other Stuff.: Governor of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuno: The Left Is Afraid of Him and The Right May Not Know What To Do With Him

Fortuno lowered the corporate tax rate from 41% to 30% as well as cutting individual tax rates and since his actions, Puerto Rico’s deficit has shrunk from $3.3 billion to around $600 million. Granted, there are still some pressing issues in Puerto Rico that his detractors are quick to point out, but he is the first conservative governor of Puerto Rico since 1969 -- repairing the damage left by the wanton spending of the modern liberal will take longer than three years.

That isn't the best article for this "libertarian" governor who rescued Puerto Rico. There's better tales of his fantastic achievements cleaning up after DECADES of leftist policy.. Better article at Reason.com
Look it up..

If you're not satisfied seeing libertarian principles at work at the state level.. Try looking at the recent history of Costa Rica.. Evidently those folks are smarter than American party animal who keep voting dee and dum...

And WHY are you so damn cloudy on Libertarianism when you posted a thread a year ago throwing your valuable support behind Ron Paul? Are you just toying with us -- or do you have principles?

Okay so a country with a population less than half the size of NY. That's a little different. But I have to give you real cred! This is the first time I've seen a Libertarian come up with something real and tangible. Certainly a far cry superior to the blather of the oddballs and whackjobs (same thing) who can never even make a feeble attempt to justify their position.

So look, I'm not saying that certaibn Libertarian principles aren't great. They are. But for example, would I want to live in a USA with no EPA? trust Rick Perry to make sure regs on the Big Oil companies who bought him his office are safe? I don't think so.

 

[Texanmike]

That's fine. So when and where has a country with a weak central government worked out to the benefit of the general populace?

Is that all you really want to know Bunky??? Then I get a generous pat on the head too?

Reality Based Libertarianism and Other Stuff.: Governor of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuno: The Left Is Afraid of Him and The Right May Not Know What To Do With Him

Fortuno lowered the corporate tax rate from 41% to 30% as well as cutting individual tax rates and since his actions, Puerto Rico’s deficit has shrunk from $3.3 billion to around $600 million. Granted, there are still some pressing issues in Puerto Rico that his detractors are quick to point out, but he is the first conservative governor of Puerto Rico since 1969 -- repairing the damage left by the wanton spending of the modern liberal will take longer than three years.

That isn't the best article for this "libertarian" governor who rescued Puerto Rico. There's better tales of his fantastic achievements cleaning up after DECADES of leftist policy.. Better article at Reason.com
Look it up..

If you're not satisfied seeing libertarian principles at work at the state level.. Try looking at the recent history of Costa Rica.. Evidently those folks are smarter than American party animal who keep voting dee and dum...

And WHY are you so damn cloudy on Libertarianism when you posted a thread a year ago throwing your valuable support behind Ron Paul? Are you just toying with us -- or do you have principles?

Okay so a country with a population less than half the size of NY. That's a little different. But I have to give you real cred! This is the first time I've seen a Libertarian come up with something real and tangible. Certainly a far cry superior to the blather of the oddballs and whackjobs (same thing) who can never even make a feeble attempt to justify their position.

So look, I'm not saying that certaibn Libertarian principles aren't great. They are. But for example, would I want to live in a USA with no EPA? trust Rick Perry to make sure regs on the Big Oil companies who bought him his office are safe? I don't think so.

That was the idea behind the union and that is what most Libertarians I know are against the EPA for exactly the reason I stated (on the previous page) because it is not an authority which is granted to the federal government in the Constitution. If we required strict adherence to the Constitution then you would find that things that are absolutely necessary would exist. Am I against the EPA? In practice? Yes. In theory? No.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

If you want an example of federalism (and largely Libertarian policies) look no further than Switzerland. I'd say they are doing ok.

As for your comment about the size of the US vs the size of Libertarian states... list for me the number of countries in the history of the world that have exceeded 100 million. I would bet the list is about 11. What level of freedom do the other 10 countries have? Not much. I am of the opinion that it is a mistake to try to govern 300 million people from one central location. I have no problem with the federation or union of states with the understanding that we won't levy taxes against one another, that we will operate under one common currency and even that we establish things like the EPA but I don't believe that 300 million people can peacefully coexist. We can see this in the division on the issues across the country. I don't think we need uniform drug laws, marriage laws or even some kind of "universal" healthcare system. That last one is not a specific slight against the ACA but against the idea that any one system serves 300 million people across 50 different geographic areas.

In a true Libertarian system California and Texas would be free to have completely separate lifestyles. Legalize or criminalize any substances you desire, marry or decline marriage to anyone you like. I'm sure that those two, as well as the other 48 states, would come up with some other common desires... and EPA for example and probably some sort of aviation regulation among other things. I see no reason that some sort of FDA wouldn't be created but I doubt it would have the ability to bust in with guns because somebody was selling raw milk.

One of the things that gets lost (mostly due to misrepresentation) is that Libertarians do recognize the right of societies to set standards. They do not deny that. The problem most Libertarians I know have with the current system is that somebody in Florida is trying to influence the day to day lifestyle of somebody in Maine or Montana. What sense does that make?

Why not have 50 states that are competing for both business and residents on their own terms?

Mike

 

[Charles_Main]

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

Then you clearly have not watched Government in Action for the Last century or so. Government is Horribly Inefficient and Corrupt in nearly Everything it does. What More evidence do you need that relying Heavily on the State to Deal with our Problems is not wise.