The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[dblack]

It's frustrating when these threads devolve into trolling because there's a really fundamental issue underneath all the equivocation and straw.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You got that right. Rick Perry was never really in the race either. That's partially why your opinion is about as useful as a K-Mart "mt. bike" on Whistler.

So you agree with me Paul is a loser.
You're making progress here.

Only by your definition of loser. Paul hasn't a whole lot to do with this discussion as he is by far more a classical liberal in stance than a libertarian. Even still, as the only one left to face the neoliberal about to get the GOP nod, I'd say he's far from losing when it comes to sending out a message.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's frustrating when these threads devolve into trolling because there's a really fundamental issue underneath all the equivocation and straw.

The fundamental issue is one of ignorance. People like the OP don't even know what "the free market" is, let alone why people who want to preserve liberty cling to it.

The entire discussion is built of a flaw. The flaw that markets are anything at all beyond people conducting human action.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Be happy to.
BP - Gulf Oil Spill
Pacific Gas & Electric Guilty multiple counts endangering public.
Skadden Arps Guilty multiple counts discrimination
General Electric Multpile counts neglect, public endangerment because of defective products.
Exxon Valdez and so on
Ford Pinto
GM Corvair
Chrysler Ugly cars
Pfizer Thousands of deaths /perm injuries
Eli Lilly as above
Kaiser Thousands of denial of benefits resulted in death / perm injury
Blue Cross As above
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those companies has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them

Anyone can list a bunch of companies.
Show how this list proves your assertion.

So all of those companies have been found guilty of the above (okay, maybe not Chrysler). Does anyone really believe that those companies would have spent the millions of dollars necessary to make their products or practices safer / fairer without government imposed consequences? The only people I know who do, are Libertarians.

So... you cannot show how these examples prove your assertion.
/thread

 

[The Rabbi]

You got that right. Rick Perry was never really in the race either. That's partially why your opinion is about as useful as a K-Mart "mt. bike" on Whistler.

So you agree with me Paul is a loser.
You're making progress here.

Only by your definition of loser. Paul hasn't a whole lot to do with this discussion as he is by far more a classical liberal in stance than a libertarian. Even still, as the only one left to face the neoliberal about to get the GOP nod, I'd say he's far from losing when it comes to sending out a message.

My definition of a loser is someone who loses consistently. Paul has consistently lost every election he's run in.
Do you have some new definition of loser? Are you definiing deviancy down?

 

[saveliberty]

Losertarians want the Wild Wild West brought back.

If you want to grow drugs on your land, get high then so be it. Of course, this is ignoring the FACT that others will invade that property to steal the drugs then you have gun battles in neighborhoods.

Want to marry 5 wives? Well they're for it. Hell, marry your daughter too.

Military....we don't need a military, nobody is going to attack us is their dumbass mentality. Well, maybe have a small defense force like in Canadian Bacon. Let Russia, Iran and China run other parts of the world, that won't affect us here....that's what they believe.

Pretty much a lawless society where people do what they like, totally ignoring that people in general are greedy and bad people when given the chance.....that is the same flaw the socialists miss, ironic.

Nobody is going to attack us if we leave them the fuck alone , switzerland has no standing army dont see them being attacked .

every action brings a reaction .

the nieybours wont invade your property to steal your drugs if they can grow there own .
do you see people stealing tomato plants ?

Yes, I know people steal just about anything. Its on the rise here. I consider illegal immigration an attack on America. Not sure where you live, but there is considerable fantasy going on there.

 

[The Rabbi]

Losertarians want the Wild Wild West brought back.

If you want to grow drugs on your land, get high then so be it. Of course, this is ignoring the FACT that others will invade that property to steal the drugs then you have gun battles in neighborhoods.

Want to marry 5 wives? Well they're for it. Hell, marry your daughter too.

Military....we don't need a military, nobody is going to attack us is their dumbass mentality. Well, maybe have a small defense force like in Canadian Bacon. Let Russia, Iran and China run other parts of the world, that won't affect us here....that's what they believe.

Pretty much a lawless society where people do what they like, totally ignoring that people in general are greedy and bad people when given the chance.....that is the same flaw the socialists miss, ironic.

Nobody is going to attack us if we leave them the fuck alone , switzerland has no standing army dont see them being attacked .

every action brings a reaction .

the nieybours wont invade your property to steal your drugs if they can grow there own .
do you see people stealing tomato plants ?

Yes, I know people steal just about anything. Its on the rise here. I consider illegal immigration an attack on America. Not sure where you live, but there is considerable fantasy going on there.

JohnA is obviously a narco-libertarian. I imagine illegal immigration isn't much of a problem in LaLaLand where he lives.

 

[Liberty]

This whole thread is based upon the trite old strawman that libertarianism = anarchy.

Dude, you ain't 1/10th as clever as you'd like to believe.

I have not said that Libertarianism equals anarchy.
I said I disagree with one economic theory that has been shared with me by more than just a few Libertarians. The Market Will Correct Itself. Thusfar, you have offered absolutely nothing on the topic which, based on seeing your other posts, is not surprising.
So hmmm. I invite you to have a civil discussion and even to correct me if my thinking is wrong - and you post nothing of substance and just sling petty insults.

What, is your campaign slogan? Something like:
"Vote Libertarian! We won't explain or claify any of our views but um, errr... you're a butthole!"

Do you see why Libertarians might not be taken very seriously?

It worked in the 20s. It wasn't until Keynes was adopted by the economically illiterate FDR administration that the economy went to shit. This is fact...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you agree with me Paul is a loser.
You're making progress here.

Only by your definition of loser. Paul hasn't a whole lot to do with this discussion as he is by far more a classical liberal in stance than a libertarian. Even still, as the only one left to face the neoliberal about to get the GOP nod, I'd say he's far from losing when it comes to sending out a message.

My definition of a loser is someone who loses consistently. Paul has consistently lost every election he's run in.
Do you have some new definition of loser? Are you definiing deviancy down?

Every election except the twelve terms he spent in congress. I guess those elections weren't the ones you were referring to in this case. because it makes your argument ridiculous.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only by your definition of loser. Paul hasn't a whole lot to do with this discussion as he is by far more a classical liberal in stance than a libertarian. Even still, as the only one left to face the neoliberal about to get the GOP nod, I'd say he's far from losing when it comes to sending out a message.

My definition of a loser is someone who loses consistently. Paul has consistently lost every election he's run in.
Do you have some new definition of loser? Are you definiing deviancy down?

Every election except the twelve terms he spent in congress. I guess those elections weren't the ones you were referring to in this case. because it makes your argument ridiculous.

Yeah, outside of his little Texas congressional district he has lost every election he's ever run in. That makes him a loser. He is the Harold Stassen of the Narco-libtards.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yawn.

 

[dblack]

The fundamental issue is one of ignorance. People like the OP don't even know what "the free market" is, let alone why people who want to preserve liberty cling to it.

The entire discussion is built of a flaw. The flaw that markets are anything at all beyond people conducting human action.

There's also a lot of deliberate equivocation. They want to float the idea that libertarians are anarchists or that opposition to the regulatory state is a rejection of all state authority.
The "self correcting market" doesn't address fraud or theft. We absolutely need laws to protect our rights and facilitate transparent dealings. The "self-regulation" of the free market addresses consumer preferences.

This is simply a recognition that if the dominant suppliers of a good or service aren't satisfying consumer demands, there will be a powerful incentive for competitors to "correct" the oversight. This means that if, for example, there is a genuine demand for healthier snacks, the market provides a strong incentive for vendors to offer healthier snacks - there's no need for government regulation requiring them to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

The fundamental issue is one of ignorance. People like the OP don't even know what "the free market" is, let alone why people who want to preserve liberty cling to it.

The entire discussion is built of a flaw. The flaw that markets are anything at all beyond people conducting human action.

There's also a lot of deliberate equivocation. They want to float the idea that libertarians are anarchists or that opposition to the regulatory state is a rejection of all state authority.
The "self correcting market" doesn't address fraud or theft. We absolutely need laws to protect our rights and facilitate transparent dealings. The "self-regulation" of the free market addresses consumer preferences.

This is simply a recognition that if the dominant suppliers of a good or service aren't satisfying consumer demands, there will be a powerful incentive for competitors to "correct" the oversight. This means that if, for example, there is a genuine demand for healthier snacks, the market provides a strong incentive for vendors to offer healthier snacks - there's no need for government regulation requiring them to do so.

Best and most simple summary of the issue so far. Congrats.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Right. Fraudulent business actions are to be dealt with the same as any fraud that may occur anywhere else in our society under our laws. The problem is the government does not do this. It's the most prominent in sectors where state sponsored oligopolies have been built up by govt. regulatory measures. Where a simple "fine" for bad conduct is issued and paid back to the same govt. agencies that caused the mess in the first place instead of prosecuting a guilty business properly and allowing for competition to step in and correct the errors. No one ever suggests that the free market is a perfect system. Nothing is perfect in this world. But govt. created problems, to free market proponents, do not turn to govt. for the answers to the problems they created in the first place. Thats the definition of insanity.

 

[PredFan]

I'll bet all of the OP's libertarian friends laugh at him as well.

 

[LibertyForAll]

There really only needs to be one fundamental idea that all laws derive from. The protection of individual liberty. If a company pollutes land or rivers with poison they are comitting a violence against everyone who has been subjected to it. If a company produces a drug that kills people or causes adverse side effects then they are guilty of violence against those individuals. Companies have the right to engage in commerce but they do not have the right to engage in violence and should be held liable for their actions but they are not because of government regulations.

Most of the issues presented with the free market system are not the result of the free market at all. Companies exist because of government regulations allowing Incorporation. Incorporation is the removal of individual responsibility for a businesses policies and procedures. Do you think drug companies would produce harmful drugs if the company leadership could be held personally responsible for the effects? As it is they take a paycheck and bonuses from proifits but if a problem arises that results in the company going under they are completely free from liability.

Regulations are also the cause of corruption and greed. Large companies are often in favor of regulations because they limit the ability of smaller companies to compete with them due to lack of funds. This is how they corner a market and grow. These rules also require oversight which is subject to the inegrity of the overseer. All lobbying and all payola can be directly traced to government regulations as the cause.

 

[LibertyForAll]

My definition of a loser is someone who loses consistently. Paul has consistently lost every election he's run in.
Do you have some new definition of loser? Are you definiing deviancy down?

Every election except the twelve terms he spent in congress. I guess those elections weren't the ones you were referring to in this case. because it makes your argument ridiculous.

Yeah, outside of his little Texas congressional district he has lost every election he's ever run in. That makes him a loser. He is the Harold Stassen of the Narco-libtards.

I think nearly every politician has lost an election at one time or another. Rick Perry got his ass handed to him so he must be a loser. Mitt Romney lost at least twice that I know of. Every single person that I know you've supported is a loser by your standards.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Be happy to.
BP - Gulf Oil Spill
Pacific Gas & Electric Guilty multiple counts endangering public.
Skadden Arps Guilty multiple counts discrimination
General Electric Multpile counts neglect, public endangerment because of defective products.
Exxon Valdez and so on
Ford Pinto
GM Corvair
Chrysler Ugly cars
Pfizer Thousands of deaths /perm injuries
Eli Lilly as above
Kaiser Thousands of denial of benefits resulted in death / perm injury
Blue Cross As above
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those companies has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them

Anyone can list a bunch of companies.
Show how this list proves your assertion.

So all of those companies have been found guilty of the above (okay, maybe not Chrysler). Does anyone really believe that those companies would have spent the millions of dollars necessary to make their products or practices safer / fairer without government imposed consequences? The only people I know who do, are Libertarians.

Let me make this clear: I THINK WE OVER-REGULATE IN MANY CASES. Is that clear? Good.

But the idea that "The Market" will for example, prevent drug companies from literally killing people, is beyond naive. yet that is exactly what many libertarians claim.

Now, rather than constantly dodging, deflecting etc... perhaps you or other Libertarians would like to provide all those examples to the contrary?

I do give you credit btw. No petty insults or projecting inaccurate extremes. That certainly sets you far above the bottom-feeders who often have nothing but such prattle as responses.

So if a company made unsafe products, provided unsafe services, or worked people to death would you continue to give them your money or would you seek a better alternative?

If the answer seems like common sense, it is, and that's why we're libertarians.

 

[freedombecki]

There is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians and which many posters dodge like hell. So if there are any Libertarians who would like to take a crack at responding directly to a point, I'd like to hear their views. Of course, if they all use the same dodges and analogies I got from another Libertarian, then quit asking why no one takes you guys seriously.
Here it the central economic theory I've heard from Libertarians and why I dispute it:

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't.
Without government regulation, companies hurt people (e.g. unsafe working conditions, denial of health benefits, toxic dumping, unsafe oil rigs etc...).
They make harmful products (e.g. dangrous drugs, cars that blow up etc...).
They treat employees horribly (e.g. discrimination, wrongful term, etc...).
And no - those companies don't disappear if they are bad because "the Magical Market Corrects All".
The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.
So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

This is why a strong centralized government and reasonable level of regulation is necessary to the well-being of citizenry.

I would welcome any commentary from Libertarians on this and will not stoop to the petty insults, labeling etc... that the weak use as their only means of debate. However, I will challenge you if your reasoning is flawed! Cheers, FS

I read the first page of this thread and have no interest in reading the rest, so if I repeat a point that has already been brought up you'll have to forgive me.

You bring up things that employers might do, such as discriminate or "wrongfully terminate." Both of these come down to property rights. If I'm hiring someone to work with my property, building, supplies, etc..., then why shouldn't I have the right to hire whoever I want for whatever reason I want, and to fire them for whatever reason I want? It's my property. Let's turn this idea around for a minute. Let's say I own a plant, and I hire an African-American to be manager at this plant. Let's say one of the employees under that manager is a racist and quits, should he be forced by the government to stay in that job? Prosecuted for "wrongful quitting?" If we're going to regulate the prejudices of employers shouldn't we regulate the prejudices of employees as well?

You say history proves that markets will not regulate themselves if left alone, but you're wrong. History proves that governments use regulations to benefit their favored businesses and to restrict competition, if they even allow competition in the first place. Are markets perfect? No. The market is comprised of the individual actions of humans, and humans aren't perfect so the market is not going to be perfect. The point that libertarians make is that markets are the most efficient means to rationally allocate scarce resources, which is the point of an economy in the first place, and that any intervention by governments will simply cause a bigger problem than the one they're allegedly trying to fix.

Now, libertarians are not all of the same mind on this issue. We all certainly want less regulation, but, as you can see from some of the responses, some do still believe in some minimal regulation while others, such as myself, favor absolutely none at all.

How would you feel about American chemists, hired by the DOD to develop vaccines for our soldiers to resist a disease an enemy was spreading in the area of our troops, then the chemist turning around and selling the technological process for developing a cure so the enemy could counter with a singularly worse strain that resisted soldier immunizations?

We have actors and panther leaders schmoozing with enemies who built stronger IEDs to maim or kill American troops whose humvees were reinforced to resist the regular IEDs, which were putting our troops in hospitals all over Europe and the Eastern board of the US. Would you allow this foreign encouragement to go unabated?

Not everyone understands the critical roles the above two examples have, even after they read the two paragraphs I wrote. You're not one of them, so if you favor absolutely no trade laws at all, wouldn't you do something to help the troops if you occupied a high government office and wanted to cut troop casualties?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians and which many posters dodge like hell. So if there are any Libertarians who would like to take a crack at responding directly to a point, I'd like to hear their views. Of course, if they all use the same dodges and analogies I got from another Libertarian, then quit asking why no one takes you guys seriously.
Here it the central economic theory I've heard from Libertarians and why I dispute it:

"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't.
Without government regulation, companies hurt people (e.g. unsafe working conditions, denial of health benefits, toxic dumping, unsafe oil rigs etc...).
They make harmful products (e.g. dangrous drugs, cars that blow up etc...).
They treat employees horribly (e.g. discrimination, wrongful term, etc...).
And no - those companies don't disappear if they are bad because "the Magical Market Corrects All".
The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.
So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

This is why a strong centralized government and reasonable level of regulation is necessary to the well-being of citizenry.

I would welcome any commentary from Libertarians on this and will not stoop to the petty insults, labeling etc... that the weak use as their only means of debate. However, I will challenge you if your reasoning is flawed! Cheers, FS

I read the first page of this thread and have no interest in reading the rest, so if I repeat a point that has already been brought up you'll have to forgive me.

You bring up things that employers might do, such as discriminate or "wrongfully terminate." Both of these come down to property rights. If I'm hiring someone to work with my property, building, supplies, etc..., then why shouldn't I have the right to hire whoever I want for whatever reason I want, and to fire them for whatever reason I want? It's my property. Let's turn this idea around for a minute. Let's say I own a plant, and I hire an African-American to be manager at this plant. Let's say one of the employees under that manager is a racist and quits, should he be forced by the government to stay in that job? Prosecuted for "wrongful quitting?" If we're going to regulate the prejudices of employers shouldn't we regulate the prejudices of employees as well?

You say history proves that markets will not regulate themselves if left alone, but you're wrong. History proves that governments use regulations to benefit their favored businesses and to restrict competition, if they even allow competition in the first place. Are markets perfect? No. The market is comprised of the individual actions of humans, and humans aren't perfect so the market is not going to be perfect. The point that libertarians make is that markets are the most efficient means to rationally allocate scarce resources, which is the point of an economy in the first place, and that any intervention by governments will simply cause a bigger problem than the one they're allegedly trying to fix.

Now, libertarians are not all of the same mind on this issue. We all certainly want less regulation, but, as you can see from some of the responses, some do still believe in some minimal regulation while others, such as myself, favor absolutely none at all.

How would you feel about American chemists, hired by the DOD to develop vaccines for our soldiers to resist a disease an enemy was spreading in the area of our troops, then the chemist turning around and selling the technological process for developing a cure so the enemy could counter with a singularly worse strain that resisted soldier immunizations?

We have actors and panther leaders schmoozing with enemies who built stronger IEDs to maim or kill American troops whose humvees were reinforced to resist the regular IEDs, which were putting our troops in hospitals all over Europe and the Eastern board of the US. Would you allow this foreign encouragement to go unabated?

Not everyone understands the critical roles the above two examples have, even after they read the two paragraphs I wrote. You're not one of them, so if you favor absolutely no trade laws at all, wouldn't you do something to help the troops if you occupied a high government office and wanted to cut troop casualties?

Cutting troop casualties would be a very high priority for me. I'd do so by bringing them home where they belong instead of sending them to die overseas.

However, none of your examples have anything to do with the free market, so I'm not sure I understand your point.