Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Lack of infrastructure in such a Libertarian idealized system would weaken the country dramatically.
Well, like you said, there's different degrees of libertarianism. The (big l) Libertarian party is unlike the (little l) libertarianism you'd see on the Mises website, or taught in the Austrian school
I think there are some libertarians who won't get worked up over a government monopoly on infrastructure, while there are some others who think all roads and highways should be privatized to a toll system. There can be competent arguments for the latter, but i won't make them because I don't believe in that aspect of it.
Like modern liberalism and conservatism, there are different degrees of adherence to classical liberalism.
Lack of regulation would allow the greedy to eventually destroy the system to their own benefit.
Regulation can sometimes but not always be a code word for corporate favoritism.
Some libertarians will frame certain environmental regulations as justified since it is the governments responsibility to ensure each individual is not poisoned by the air and water. And if those environmental laws are applied to the courts, breaking them would be a criminal offense (manslaughter?) against individuals in the offending company. For good or bad, the board would be held criminally responsible for breaking environmental regulation laws.
I think most libertarians would be against the Articles of Incorporation. There really is more than one road to serfdom, and most libertarians are aware of this and will disapprove of corporate America and the mutual backsratching that happens on K Street with the politicians.
I guess that depends on what you think their opinion is on civil rights and trade and business policies. Care to elaborate?
The Libertarians believe that freedom to buy, sell and trade is total. That means everyone's freedom NOT to trade is equally inviolate. This makes economic discrimination a matter of right and law.
So (being very simplistic) if you happened to be a black man in a white town you would be forced to leave simply because no one would trade with you. Some freedom.
The Libertarians also believe there are no limits to the size of these economic units therefore a corporation, or a group of corporations could (voluntarily) band together to economically strangle entire regions.
Now the platform does not actually say what corporations can do, everything is tied to the simplistic application to the individual. Still the absolute right to associate and trade with who you will remains. This can be a very negative thing for a great many people. It can also be a godsend to the monopolist.
We are not small town individuals anymore. We couldn't be if we wanted to.
But don't take my word. Go read the platform. There is a whole lot more stuff that is of the Alice in Wonderland variety.
Check out national defense.
The basic concept of libertarianism is that people should be left to their own devices so long as their choices don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. Explain to me why that level of freedom must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.
your freedom to do anything that infringes on the freedoms (interesting you didn't say 'rights') of others- you answered your own question
This makes no sense and is certainly not what I said. Too many of you seem to be taking the easy road and are pretending libertarianism is one small step removed from anarchy.
Only about 3 million more people all requiring similar survival basics than the mere 2,527,460 that were the total population of the nation in 1776.
For one thing, the rest of the general population can't rely on the noble convictions that you describe. While YOU may not "infringe upon the freedoms of others," there are a vast number of people who share your philosophies that I'm sure drive 80 in 65 mph zones, pollute the environment of neighbors, and violate the same rights of other citizens who have an equal "right" to their own pursuit of happiness.
Clearly, basic logic is beyond your comprehension
your freedom to do anything that infringes on the freedoms (interesting you didn't say 'rights') of others- you answered your own question
This makes no sense and is certainly not what I said. Too many of you seem to be taking the easy road and are pretending libertarianism is one small step removed from anarchy.
Is that because the recent breed of "new" conservatives have hijacked the true Libertarian cause?
This is the conversation that people who believe in personal responsibility have:
Imagine that.
And later...
Wife: Well husband, I'm pregnant again no thanks to you. With twins. Now what?
Husband: How did you let that happen, wife?
[fight ensues and husband walks out]
Wife ends up returning to work and supporting three children.
Another scenario...imagine that.
yeah because birth control is unheard of.
Care to point out which policies you're talking about, or are you just going to stick with the sweeping generalizations?
The Libertarians believe that freedom to buy, sell and trade is total. That means everyone's freedom NOT to trade is equally inviolate. This makes economic discrimination a matter of right and law.
So (being very simplistic) if you happened to be a black man in a white town you would be forced to leave simply because no one would trade with you. Some freedom.
The Libertarians also believe there are no limits to the size of these economic units therefore a corporation, or a group of corporations could (voluntarily) band together to economically strangle entire regions.
Now the platform does not actually say what corporations can do, everything is tied to the simplistic application to the individual. Still the absolute right to associate and trade with who you will remains. This can be a very negative thing for a great many people. It can also be a godsend to the monopolist.
We are not small town individuals anymore. We couldn't be if we wanted to.
But don't take my word. Go read the platform. There is a whole lot more stuff that is of the Alice in Wonderland variety.
Check out national defense.
This makes no sense and is certainly not what I said. Too many of you seem to be taking the easy road and are pretending libertarianism is one small step removed from anarchy.
Is that because the recent breed of "new" conservatives have hijacked the true Libertarian cause?
You mean like tea parties? Just because they want government to show some level of restraint, let people keep more of what they earn, and give people more freedom they must really be anarachists? That's just plain intellectually dishonest.
The problem is not Libertarianism, per se.
Extremists of any philosophy tend to speak in broad, simple terms, that have little application in the real world.
Extreme Libertarians, which are the ones you hear the most from, are good examples of this.
When you use empty rhetoric like "smaller government", and "individual freedoms" to describe the policies that you would put in place, you're not really saying anything.
Of course, Communists are the same way. They have broad ideas about "economic equality" and "working for the common good", but when it comes down to implementation on a large scale, they fail miserably.
That's strange. You say Libertarians cannot articulate their program. I find that true also but I find it particularly damning. If they wanted to make their points, they could.
The Libertarian platform is on the web. It doesn't look as if any of our posters on this thread have read it. It is the poster child for euphoric simplicity.
Just the sections on civil rights and domestic trade policies should scare off all but the most egocentric.l
Well, like you said, there's different degrees of libertarianism. The (big l) Libertarian party is unlike the (little l) libertarianism you'd see on the Mises website, or taught in the Austrian school
I think there are some libertarians who won't get worked up over a government monopoly on infrastructure, while there are some others who think all roads and highways should be privatized to a toll system. There can be competent arguments for the latter, but i won't make them because I don't believe in that aspect of it.
Like modern liberalism and conservatism, there are different degrees of adherence to classical liberalism.
Regulation can sometimes but not always be a code word for corporate favoritism.
Some libertarians will frame certain environmental regulations as justified since it is the governments responsibility to ensure each individual is not poisoned by the air and water. And if those environmental laws are applied to the courts, breaking them would be a criminal offense (manslaughter?) against individuals in the offending company. For good or bad, the board would be held criminally responsible for breaking environmental regulation laws.
I think most libertarians would be against the Articles of Incorporation. There really is more than one road to serfdom, and most libertarians are aware of this and will disapprove of corporate America and the mutual backsratching that happens on K Street with the politicians.
I don't see anyone here articulating an answer to the question I posed. I will personally describe exactly which federal programs to eliminate or cut if you can simply tell me when government is too big. The real problem is that Democrats and Republicans are so entrenched in their positions that they are completely unable to articulate anything other than their talking points. That is why they both believe in expanding government to deal with the problems they believe matter, and are opposed to programs the other party proposes, even if they know it is right.
The Libertarians believe that freedom to buy, sell and trade is total. That means everyone's freedom NOT to trade is equally inviolate. This makes economic discrimination a matter of right and law.
So (being very simplistic) if you happened to be a black man in a white town you would be forced to leave simply because no one would trade with you. Some freedom.
The solution to which is what? Force people into transactions they don't want to make? You've simply created a zero sum game. In your example or any transaction it's simply a matter of what one is willing to give up. If what the black person is selling is of some value at some price point people will trade with them.
You miss the point. The power is not in refusing to buy, the power is in refusing to sell.
The Libertarians also believe there are no limits to the size of these economic units therefore a corporation, or a group of corporations could (voluntarily) band together to economically strangle entire regions.
Now the platform does not actually say what corporations can do, everything is tied to the simplistic application to the individual. Still the absolute right to associate and trade with who you will remains. This can be a very negative thing for a great many people. It can also be a godsend to the monopolist.
All of which assumes monopolies are natural. They're not.
If history teaches us anything it is that several unregulated corporations do not foster competition, they form a cartel. That is simply a monopoly divided into smaller monopolies.
We are not small town individuals anymore. We couldn't be if we wanted to.
But don't take my word. Go read the platform. There is a whole lot more stuff that is of the Alice in Wonderland variety.
Check out national defense.
And I simply believe that making excuses like the above to curtail people's freedoms is a slippery slope I would just assume not be on.
Libertarians correctly sense that government is too big and too powerful.
What they typically cannot bring themselves to admit is that corporations are too big and too power and that they control the same growing government that Libertarians are so reasonably fearful of.
How they can miss this, I surely do not know.
And when they do miss it, I seriously question whether they're really Libertarians, or merely partisans spouting catchphrases (usually about liberty and freedom, I note) that have absolutely no value to the discussion other than giving them a really cool rhetorical flourish
Bite me...I'm though going 'round the May pole with you, tovarich.That already happenedCare to point out which policies you're talking about, or are you just going to stick with the sweeping generalizations?
I'm sure if he had, you would have made a sweeping generalization about it and call him a Commie.
Read the thread starting here
You're all wet here, buddy.Libertarians correctly sense that government is too big and too powerful.
What they typically cannot bring themselves to admit is that corporations are too big and too power and that they control the same growing government that Libertarians are so reasonably fearful of.
How they can miss this, I surely do not know.
And when they do miss it, I seriously question whether they're really Libertarians, or merely partisans spouting catchphrases (usually about liberty and freedom, I note) that have absolutely no value to the discussion other than giving them a really cool rhetorical flourish
Not true. First of all government and corporations are not the same type of institutions. Governments have far more power than corporatins which is why having larger government is viewed as far more problematic than large corporations. It isn't that libertarians can't admit there is problem with big corporations or some type of flaw of the free market. It's that there isn't enough 'free' market in the market. Libertarians are just as quick to agree that government and corporations are bit too close to each other when it comes to tax breaks, special favors, etc. Government intervention into the market place has kept many of the large corporations you complain about from having to compete. Government also makes it extremely difficult with it's endless regulations for entrpreneurism to flourish, also preventing competition.
Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.
