We Haven’t Had a True Free Enterprise System for Decades

[bripat9643]

but government is merely a function of the electorate. If the electorate were inclined in a libertarian direction politicians would line up in the 1000's to be elected, famous, and to collect the $200k salary.

Thinking of govt as an independent being is done only because we don't want to blame the electorate for being responsible and stupid. Certainly one person becoming an anarcho capitalist does not change the govt one tiny bit and the likelihood of millions doing it seems unlikely and absurd. So, only if and when the electorate as a whole starts to move slowly to the right will the govt instantly follow.

The electorate have been moving to the left since the Constitution was ratified and the government has followed.

That's the nature of government. It continues to grow and it brainwashes people to believe it's as natural and necessary as the air you breath. Cancer also continues to grow from the day it first appears.

Another analogy might be, government is like our kids, they grow from useless except as objects of love to valuable needed assets and given more and more chores by the family.

That's an analogy someone with brain damage might find persuasive. The rest of us have seen how government operates, so we only laugh at it.

So even as we breathe and laugh, the government is probably helping many people that indeed have brain damage, and others also see that government help, and maybe that is why government continues to grow?

For every person the government helps, it harms 5 others. It taxes them, regulates them out of business, licenses them out of business and expropriates their property. Furthermore, government is a vast Hoover for wealth. government has sucked up a big chunk of the capital in this country for decades and thereby vastly reduced the wealth of the country. If it wasn't for government, Americans would all be at least 3 times wealthier than they are. Charity for hard luck cases would be small change for most people. Government has harmed every person in America to the tune of millions of dollars.

 

[TC_Triple3]

some libertarians are anarchists. They're called "anarcho-capitalists." More and more libertarians are succumbing to anarchism as they come to accept the fact that the term "limited government" is an oxymoron. Government will never allow itself to remain limited. All the incentives run in the other direction.

That's exactly what I am. An anarcho-capitalist![/QUOTE]

Welcome to the board. Prepare to be infuriated and disgusted.[/QUOTE]

What else is new. I'm used to it from the Yahoo boards before they disappeared.

 

[bripat9643]

some libertarians are anarchists. They're called "anarcho-capitalists." More and more libertarians are succumbing to anarchism as they come to accept the fact that the term "limited government" is an oxymoron. Government will never allow itself to remain limited. All the incentives run in the other direction.

That's exactly what I am. An anarcho-capitalist!

Welcome to the board. Prepare to be infuriated and disgusted.[/QUOTE]

What else is new. I'm used to it from the Yahoo boards before they disappeared.[/QUOTE]

At least they don't censor you hear simply because your views aren't PC. When I was on the CompuServe Political Debate Forum the mods were always finding some excuse to censor me. The had a couple of token sysops that were pseudo right-wing, but the rest were hardcore leftists.

 

[TC_Triple3]

It is true that libertarians should abandon the idea of 'limited government' because it's a fools errand. No matter how limited the government may be upon it's creation it will slowly metastasize like cancer until it ultimately descends into tyranny.

I, however, also believe that anarchy is just as far out of reach.

"I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader but I would stake ten to one that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to Government for the realization of them.

And should the reader happen to be a lady: I have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of seeing all the evils of suffering humanity remedied, and that she thinks this might easily be done, if Government would only undertake it."

Frederic Bastiat, 1848

In the absence of government it is simply a matter of time before this utopian mindset would seek to create a new government to replace the one that failed. How long would a population need to live in a free society before they realized that the sky wasn't falling and that every service formerly provided by the failed government can be provided by the market? A generation? Two?

It's a tall order.

 

[ralfy]

It's likely because such a system eventually leads to the opposite.

 

[bripat9643]

It is true that libertarians should abandon the idea of 'limited government' because it's a fools errand. No matter how limited the government may be upon it's creation it will slowly metastasize like cancer until it ultimately descends into tyranny.

I, however, also believe that anarchy is just as far out of reach.

"I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader but I would stake ten to one that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to Government for the realization of them.

And should the reader happen to be a lady: I have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of seeing all the evils of suffering humanity remedied, and that she thinks this might easily be done, if Government would only undertake it."

Frederic Bastiat, 1848

In the absence of government it is simply a matter of time before this utopian mindset would seek to create a new government to replace the one that failed. How long would a population need to live in a free society before they realized that the sky wasn't falling and that every service formerly provided by the failed government can be provided by the market? A generation? Two?

It's a tall order.

How would those desiring government go about creating it in an anarchist society? They can't have a vote because there is no government to enforce the result. Are they going to form an army and take over? The problem with that is that private insurance companies that provide security for their clients would slap down any attempt to use force against them.

Please explain how you see things playing out.

 

[bripat9643]

It's likely because such a system eventually leads to the opposite.

That isn't likely at all.

 

[TC_Triple3]

It is true that libertarians should abandon the idea of 'limited government' because it's a fools errand. No matter how limited the government may be upon it's creation it will slowly metastasize like cancer until it ultimately descends into tyranny.

I, however, also believe that anarchy is just as far out of reach.

"I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader but I would stake ten to one that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to Government for the realization of them.

And should the reader happen to be a lady: I have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of seeing all the evils of suffering humanity remedied, and that she thinks this might easily be done, if Government would only undertake it."

Frederic Bastiat, 1848

In the absence of government it is simply a matter of time before this utopian mindset would seek to create a new government to replace the one that failed. How long would a population need to live in a free society before they realized that the sky wasn't falling and that every service formerly provided by the failed government can be provided by the market? A generation? Two?

It's a tall order.

How would those desiring government go about creating it in an anarchist society? They can't have a vote because there is no government to enforce the result. Are they going to form an army and take over? The problem with that is that private insurance companies that provide security for their clients would slap down any attempt to use force against them.

Please explain how you see things playing out.

If you reach that point where there is a functional anarchist society then the odds are heavily in our favor. If the Federal Government collapses under it's own weight, we would most likely experience a Soviet style break-up. We would still have regional and local government functioning at some level, not anarchy. To reach a point where there is no functional government at all would most likely be the result of an extraordinary catastrophe.

In this scenario not only would government not exist, neither would a functional market. Things would start off very basic. How long would it take before there were functioning insurance companies offering these services? How long would it take for a free law system to form? The risk of the populace creating a new government would occur during this time, before entrepreneurs successfully created and offered services formerly provided by government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

no matter what platform politicians run on, once they get elected their priorities change.

That is not true at all. Its cowardly libertarianism . It's so much easier to blame the govt rather than the people who elect the government. When is the last time you heard anyone say our govt is divided and non functional because the American people are divided and non functional? Congress get an 8% approval from the electorate who elected them. But the people never get an 8% approval rating from the govt.

there are plenty of very conservative and libertarian folks in Congress who stay that way. If Ted Cruz had 90% support against Jeb Bush for his positions those would be the positions that everyone would instantly adopt. Those would be the priorities that everyone would instantly adopt.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you reach that point where there is a functional anarchist society

now thats totally idiotic to even think about. The chances of it happening are less than 0 so what psychological problem would cause you to think about it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. anyone in the government is more likely to become corrupted than to see the light.

it depends perfectly and 100% on how the electorate responds to the corruption.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the term "limited government" is an oxymoron.

not at all. Humans have supported all manner of government in the last 10,000 years. The US Constitution is a good example and so is Nazi Germany. This demonstrates that a wide range is possible. Since anarcho capitalism is way way out of range it is insane to support it except perhaps as a tactic to make conservative Republicans look moderate, safe, and reasonable.

 

[TC_Triple3]

If you reach that point where there is a functional anarchist society

now thats totally idiotic to even think about. The chances of it happening are less than 0 so what psychological problem would cause you to think about it.

Nice! Straight to the insults! There is no such thing as a possibility of less than zero, and the possibility for an anarchist DOES exist, but it would be difficult to achieve, which I admitted in my previous post. Did you skip that part, or did you just pick the phrase that you could attack?

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it would be difficult to achieve, .

difficult?? difficult was going to the moon. There is no possibility that anarcho capitalists will prevail. Again, what is the psychological issue that drives you toward this science fiction? Perhaps though you feel making the reasonable case for pure capitalism makes the Republican position seem safe and reasonable?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

all you have to do is persuade 3-4 million people and you'd have enough to tip the elections strongly to the right. I highly doubt preaching anarcho capitalism will get you there.

 

[regent]

One of the problems the framers saw with a democracy was people voting themselves a bundle of goodies. So far that hasn't happened. One reason might be that some conservatives have used their money to keep up a constant barrage of poverty-is-good-for-people theme and to some extent that theme has worked. When people see what the government can do with old age, medical care, children, the disabled, unemployment and on and on the people will expect even more. The real question becomes: can we draw a line of fairness for most Americans, business and workers, rich and poor and so forth? Wonder where that line is, and can we recognize the line when we hit it and can we stop the class warfare? Has any nation hit that line?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One of the problems the framers saw with a democracy was people voting themselves a bundle of goodies. So far that hasn't happened.

you mean except for the $trillions of dollars each year of welfare entitlement bailouts that never get paid back?

See why we must be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wonder where that line is

dear, when you have a liberal IQ you are doomed to wonder about everything. The line is obviously arbitrary. A good solution is to get the Feds out of personal bailout welfare entitlements and let the states handle it. That way we are all free to move to where the govt we like best is rather than be subject to liberal Federal violence.

Do you understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only far right reactionary economists such as EB believe in their silly philosophies. If we employed Baiamonte's theories, we would increase world poverty by 10 in the first years. Only the far right thinks that could not happen. But they are far right conservatives, so there you are.

 

[bripat9643]

Only far right reactionary economists such as EB believe in their silly philosophies. If we employed Baiamonte's theories, we would increase world poverty by 10 in the first years. Only the far right thinks that could not happen. But they are far right conservatives, so there you are.

You better be careful, Fakey, your signature is wandering dangerously close to slander.