Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[occupied]

Artificial government constructs never work at all, and that's exactly what intellectual property laws are.

Again with an absolute statement? We are kind of arguing the same side here, plans are in the works to make bootleggers equal to terrorists to international law enforcement, wars may be fought in the future to stop unlicensed manufacturers in various third world countries, it may become against the law to possess the 3D printers envisioned for twenty years down the road, things have gone too far in that direction but we must not forget why those laws were passed in the first place, to protect private innovation. They just need to be dialed back to sensible levels and geared to make it possible for anyone with a good idea to confidently market it.

I would merely disagree that they're required to protect private innovation, and that they cause more harm than good.

Fine, they are a nuisance as much as a benefit in some cases but business is like that, you cannot count on anyone to just play fair, it's like the much maligned pollution regulations, most people would probably not dump lead or mercury in their local water supply but some would and the regulations supply a legal framework to nail their asses to the barn door. The assholes always spoil a good thing, it's the central flaw in libertarianism.

 

[daphillenium]

In response to the OP I have lots of libertarian beliefs and liberal beliefs. I feel the government shouldn't tell the people how to live their lives personally and the choices they make or intrude in our privacy. However, I believe that corporations and people in power whether be by money from being rich/owning a huge corporation or power by being in office end up being corrupt.

Therefore I'm not so libertarian when it comes to things like regulations. That's where I tend to disagree with the libertarians because they want less regulations and more "free market." Well history shows us that our free market is susceptible to greed and power therefore to me it needs to be regulated.

 

[occupied]

In response to the OP I have lots of libertarian beliefs and liberal beliefs. I feel the government shouldn't tell the people how to live their lives personally and the choices they make or intrude in our privacy. However, I believe that corporations and people in power whether be by money from being rich/owning a huge corporation or power by being in office end up being corrupt.

Therefore I'm not so libertarian when it comes to things like regulations. That's where I tend to disagree with the libertarians because they want less regulations and more "free market." Well history shows us that our free market is susceptible to greed and power therefore to me it needs to be regulated.

That's European libertarianism, the government exists to protect our freedoms from anyone who may overly exploit the people or wreck things out of sheer greed, they are not nearly as enamored of plutocrats as our American brand.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again with an absolute statement? We are kind of arguing the same side here, plans are in the works to make bootleggers equal to terrorists to international law enforcement, wars may be fought in the future to stop unlicensed manufacturers in various third world countries, it may become against the law to possess the 3D printers envisioned for twenty years down the road, things have gone too far in that direction but we must not forget why those laws were passed in the first place, to protect private innovation. They just need to be dialed back to sensible levels and geared to make it possible for anyone with a good idea to confidently market it.

I would merely disagree that they're required to protect private innovation, and that they cause more harm than good.

Fine, they are a nuisance as much as a benefit in some cases but business is like that, you cannot count on anyone to just play fair, it's like the much maligned pollution regulations, most people would probably not dump lead or mercury in their local water supply but some would and the regulations supply a legal framework to nail their asses to the barn door. The assholes always spoil a good thing, it's the central flaw in libertarianism.

Property rights provides an even better legal framework to prosecute polluters. None of this credit nonsense. You pollute somebody else's property and you're liable for the damage. That simple.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In response to the OP I have lots of libertarian beliefs and liberal beliefs. I feel the government shouldn't tell the people how to live their lives personally and the choices they make or intrude in our privacy. However, I believe that corporations and people in power whether be by money from being rich/owning a huge corporation or power by being in office end up being corrupt.

Therefore I'm not so libertarian when it comes to things like regulations. That's where I tend to disagree with the libertarians because they want less regulations and more "free market." Well history shows us that our free market is susceptible to greed and power therefore to me it needs to be regulated.

That's European libertarianism, the government exists to protect our freedoms from anyone who may overly exploit the people or wreck things out of sheer greed, they are not nearly as enamored of plutocrats as our American brand.

I'm curious who you see as a "European libertarian."

 

[occupied]

I would merely disagree that they're required to protect private innovation, and that they cause more harm than good.

Fine, they are a nuisance as much as a benefit in some cases but business is like that, you cannot count on anyone to just play fair, it's like the much maligned pollution regulations, most people would probably not dump lead or mercury in their local water supply but some would and the regulations supply a legal framework to nail their asses to the barn door. The assholes always spoil a good thing, it's the central flaw in libertarianism.

Property rights provides an even better legal framework to prosecute polluters. None of this credit nonsense. You pollute somebody else's property and you're liable for the damage. That simple.

After-the-fact pollution enforcement is what we had before the EPA. I am old enough to remember the environmental nightmare we had that prompted a republican president to bring it into existence. Rivers used to actually catch fire, smokestacks belched heavy metal soot all over the place and we are still cleaning up incredibly toxic pollution from the 1960s. Didn't work then and it will never work as long as it is cheaper to just dump shit out in the country in the middle of the night.

 

[occupied]

In response to the OP I have lots of libertarian beliefs and liberal beliefs. I feel the government shouldn't tell the people how to live their lives personally and the choices they make or intrude in our privacy. However, I believe that corporations and people in power whether be by money from being rich/owning a huge corporation or power by being in office end up being corrupt.

Therefore I'm not so libertarian when it comes to things like regulations. That's where I tend to disagree with the libertarians because they want less regulations and more "free market." Well history shows us that our free market is susceptible to greed and power therefore to me it needs to be regulated.

That's European libertarianism, the government exists to protect our freedoms from anyone who may overly exploit the people or wreck things out of sheer greed, they are not nearly as enamored of plutocrats as our American brand.

I'm curious who you see as a "European libertarian."

I was being pretty simplistic there but generally American libertarians are referred to as market liberals, right-libertarians or classical liberals by social scientists and they do exist in Europe where they are simply called liberals. There are many flavors and schools of thought to libertarianism and it is difficult to lump large numbers them together under any generic term but the European libertarian tradition has strong roots in anarchism and generally disdains any kind of undue concentration of power by government or big business and can be referred to as Left-Libertarianism.

 

[beagle9]

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

If you have effectively shut down the competition thus becoming a monopoly, then how could someone (the average American dream chaser) just start up a business and compete with you ? Have you checked lately to see what franchises cost, and what you have to be worth according to them in order to own one (start up) ? Besides the government loves these days to deal more with large corporations for it's revenues/taxes collected and such, instead of having to manage millions of small businesses as it has had to do over the years. They like things to be nice and neatly packaged these days, and not all over the place. This however has become a huge problem for the concept of a strong and independent America, in which is becoming a more controlled and corporatized America instead.

How do people start up a business any other time?

Oh they are starting businesses up alright, but they are failing at an astonomical rate now these days.

Ha, people can put their lifes savings in these small ventures today if they want to, but the odds and the cards are nicely stacked agains them, so if they want to throw their money away like this anymore, then be my guest, because all one has to do is look around to what has happened in their own small towns, and to their own friends and families, where as they will find that their will be no excuses for them in the end when their moneys all gone.

 

[beagle9]

Fine, they are a nuisance as much as a benefit in some cases but business is like that, you cannot count on anyone to just play fair, it's like the much maligned pollution regulations, most people would probably not dump lead or mercury in their local water supply but some would and the regulations supply a legal framework to nail their asses to the barn door. The assholes always spoil a good thing, it's the central flaw in libertarianism.

Property rights provides an even better legal framework to prosecute polluters. None of this credit nonsense. You pollute somebody else's property and you're liable for the damage. That simple.

After-the-fact pollution enforcement is what we had before the EPA. I am old enough to remember the environmental nightmare we had that prompted a republican president to bring it into existence. Rivers used to actually catch fire, smokestacks belched heavy metal soot all over the place and we are still cleaning up incredibly toxic pollution from the 1960s. Didn't work then and it will never work as long as it is cheaper to just dump shit out in the country in the middle of the night.

So get China to destroy itself was the American corporate businessman's thinking next wasn't it ??

Hmmmm, I wonder if those Chineese are actually humans or maybe just robots that aren't effected by polution on such a large scale ? What do you think ?

I think it would have been better for our manufacturers to have stayed here, and to have pefected finally the process of making products safer and cleaner in this enviroment, where as just look how much further we would have been in all of this by now (technology wise), instead of taking the easy way out for profits and greed thinking, in which was to go to a communist country, where it would allow the slave labor practices of it's people, and the poultion of its enviroment, and all for silver and gold paid to them for doing so. wow...Have we no shame really ?

 

[occupied]

Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China | ChinaHush

 

[jillian]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

randians aren't libertarians. that's why.

barry goldwater is rolling over in his grave

 

[Old Rocks]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

No, it is because we do know what you stand for.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fine, they are a nuisance as much as a benefit in some cases but business is like that, you cannot count on anyone to just play fair, it's like the much maligned pollution regulations, most people would probably not dump lead or mercury in their local water supply but some would and the regulations supply a legal framework to nail their asses to the barn door. The assholes always spoil a good thing, it's the central flaw in libertarianism.

Property rights provides an even better legal framework to prosecute polluters. None of this credit nonsense. You pollute somebody else's property and you're liable for the damage. That simple.

After-the-fact pollution enforcement is what we had before the EPA. I am old enough to remember the environmental nightmare we had that prompted a republican president to bring it into existence. Rivers used to actually catch fire, smokestacks belched heavy metal soot all over the place and we are still cleaning up incredibly toxic pollution from the 1960s. Didn't work then and it will never work as long as it is cheaper to just dump shit out in the country in the middle of the night.

Yeah, we didn't have property rights then either. Nobody owned the rivers that caught fire did they?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's European libertarianism, the government exists to protect our freedoms from anyone who may overly exploit the people or wreck things out of sheer greed, they are not nearly as enamored of plutocrats as our American brand.

I'm curious who you see as a "European libertarian."

I was being pretty simplistic there but generally American libertarians are referred to as market liberals, right-libertarians or classical liberals by social scientists and they do exist in Europe where they are simply called liberals. There are many flavors and schools of thought to libertarianism and it is difficult to lump large numbers them together under any generic term but the European libertarian tradition has strong roots in anarchism and generally disdains any kind of undue concentration of power by government or big business and can be referred to as Left-Libertarianism.

Any names?

 

[Paulie]

It's because libertarians tend to be the worst kind of advertisement for their ideology, they swing wildly from incredibly permissive on big business to downright fascist on things like labor unions. American libertarians even seem to hate the ideology of the European libertarians on which they are based. In short they seem to be mainly engaged in disavowing all social responsibility and have zero regard for anyone's freedom other than their own.

Um, how about NO?

We don't have a problem with unions. Workers are free to unite however they want. What we have a problem with is government colluding with them.

There would be no labor unions without the government providing them with the legal protection where they can exist without being beaten in the streets. Take a look at the early history of the labor movement, before the government protected them strikes were violent, bloody affairs, now they are much more peaceful and hardly anyone gets killed by management goon squads.

Huge difference between government protecting the legality, and downright collusion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

randians aren't libertarians. that's why.

barry goldwater is rolling over in his grave

Correct. Randians are objectivists.

Barry Goldwater, the great warmonger, wasn't a libertarian either.

 

[Paulie]

Not to mention, we adhere strictly to the idea of "our freedom ends where yours begins". So to claim we only care about our own freedom pretty much confirms the OP's suggestion you don't know what libertarians stand for.

Compartmentalizing a society into a collection of tiny little separate kingdoms is pretty silly.

Are you serious right now?

NO ONE compartmentalizes society into different kingdoms like the left.

 

[Contumacious]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

The majority of voters have been "educated" in government schools and really believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch.

.

 

[Paulie]

It's because libertarians tend to be the worst kind of advertisement for their ideology, they swing wildly from incredibly permissive on big business to downright fascist on things like labor unions. American libertarians even seem to hate the ideology of the European libertarians on which they are based. In short they seem to be mainly engaged in disavowing all social responsibility and have zero regard for anyone's freedom other than their own.

Um, how about NO?

We don't have a problem with unions. Workers are free to unite however they want. What we have a problem with is government colluding with them.

Well, you left out the other side of the coin:

Libertarians believe in an unfettered free market.

I'm not certain the USA would be better off with Standard Oil owning every refinery, rail road, and steel mill in the nation.

No the fuck we DON'T.

I don't know how many times I have to say this...MOST of us accept regulations as not only constitutional, but necessary. The constitution clearly specifies regulatory authorization.

The disagreement is, and always will be, in where and how the regulations should be utilized.

 

[PredFan]

Why is it that no country on earth is libertarian?

Because they know it is nutz

You're approaching a staggering 44,000 posts. Will you ever make a worthwhile one?

WOW that is what I call PWNED!