I think I get libertarian economics now

[dblack]

I suppose so, yep. But before you go there, I'll restate my position: The job of government is to protect our freedom, not ensure "the good" life.

Why should it not do both?

Because, as Agit8r points out:

The good life is subjective. ...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Weak answer, dblack, because basic things (warm,dry, good shelter, medical care, education, are all obviously part of the good life and government can help with them.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Loserterianism is nothing more then anarchy that wants to bomb other countries!!!!

Seriously, they don't give a damn if America has no roads, science institutions, police or regulations protecting the worker.

These people are every man for himself to the core.

A libertarian America would have roads, science institutions, and police. They would simply be privately owned.

So would the Grand Canyon and it would be a corporate dump.

Yellowstone would be privately owned too

All we have to do is look at the history of our country before government regulations or China. Case closed! Loserterianism is evil.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Libertarian economics in one simple lesson: All interactions must be voluntary.

The problem I see with libertarians is that they completely disregard all macroeconomy. They treat all interactions at microeconomic level. I've heard little in the way of how to treat :

...

I don't disregard macro economics. I just don't believe government should have the power to manipulate the economy.

Well, precisely. The simplest example I can think of as a libertarian failure : externalities.
If a factory pollutes a river, who would be in charge of regulating its activites ? What would stop them from polluting?
And how would they pay for degrading a public good ( since they don't actually own the river )?

 

[dblack]

Libertarian economics in one simple lesson: All interactions must be voluntary.

The problem I see with libertarians is that they completely disregard all macroeconomy. They treat all interactions at microeconomic level. I've heard little in the way of how to treat :

...

I don't disregard macro economics. I just don't believe government should have the power to manipulate the economy.

Well, precisely. The simplest example I can think of as a libertarian failure : externalities.
If a factory pollutes a river, who would be in charge of regulating its activites ? What would stop them from polluting?
And how would they pay for degrading a public good ( since they don't actually own the river )?

It sounds like you've been talking to radical anarchists. Libertarians, in the main, don't reject the role of government in protecting the commons.

 

[dblack]

Weak answer, dblack, because basic things (warm,dry, good shelter, medical care, education, are all obviously part of the good life and government can help with them.

You're right. It is a weak answer. At best, it's only part of the reason. That fact that the "good life is subjective" is why it's problematic to enforce with government, but that's not why it's wrong. It's wrong to even attempt because government is coercive, and we shouldn't aspire to force others to bend to our will unless it's truly justified.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I believe in civilization which has been around for a good 10 thousand years. All great civilizations need and had GOVERNMENT.

They invested in infrastructure
They invested in science...China has always been a great civilization of innovation and science!!!! Proving loserterinsim is kind of dumb!
I could name dozens of great civilizations that were built the same way we became a great power.

Loserterterism is the opposite of everything we should do. it is evil.

Yeah let's be just like China

 

[JakeStarkey]

Weak answer, dblack, because basic things (warm,dry, good shelter, medical care, education, are all obviously part of the good life and government can help with them.

You're right. It is a weak answer. At best, it's only part of the reason. That fact that the "good life is subjective" is why it's problematic to enforce with government, but that's not why it's wrong. It's wrong to even attempt because government is coercive, and we shouldn't aspire to force others to bend to our will unless it's truly justified.

Of course government is coercive, and if you don't think libertarians will not make others bend to their will in their society, you have not been pondering enough about it.

 

[sealybobo]

Loserterianism is nothing more then anarchy that wants to bomb other countries!!!!

Seriously, they don't give a damn if America has no roads, science institutions, police or regulations protecting the worker.

These people are every man for himself to the core.

A libertarian America would have roads, science institutions, and police. They would simply be privately owned.

So would the Grand Canyon and it would be a corporate dump.

Yellowstone would be privately owned too

All we have to do is look at the history of our country before government regulations or China. Case closed! Loserterianism is evil.

No no no, you and I are just too stupid to understand it.

Either that or they can't explain it

 

[dblack]

Weak answer, dblack, because basic things (warm,dry, good shelter, medical care, education, are all obviously part of the good life and government can help with them.

You're right. It is a weak answer. At best, it's only part of the reason. That fact that the "good life is subjective" is why it's problematic to enforce with government, but that's not why it's wrong. It's wrong to even attempt because government is coercive, and we shouldn't aspire to force others to bend to our will unless it's truly justified.

Of course government is coercive, and if you don't think libertarians will not make others bend to their will in their society, you have not been pondering enough about it.

How so?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You want a libertarian society? Consider deadwood or San Francisco in the hands of the citizens and the picked LEO.

You can't explain how or why your society would work well.

 

[dblack]

You want a libertarian society? Consider deadwood or San Francisco in the hands of the citizens and the picked LEO.

Your forgot Somalia!

You can't explain how or why your society would work well.

That's because I don't have any particular society in mind. That's the point of libertarianism, really, that 'We the People' should be free to form the kind of society we want voluntarily. It shouldn't be forced on the unwilling.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Libertarian economics in one simple lesson: All interactions must be voluntary.

The problem I see with libertarians is that they completely disregard all macroeconomy. They treat all interactions at microeconomic level. I've heard little in the way of how to treat :

...

I don't disregard macro economics. I just don't believe government should have the power to manipulate the economy.

Well, precisely. The simplest example I can think of as a libertarian failure : externalities.
If a factory pollutes a river, who would be in charge of regulating its activites ? What would stop them from polluting?
And how would they pay for degrading a public good ( since they don't actually own the river )?

It sounds like you've been talking to radical anarchists. Libertarians, in the main, don't reject the role of government in protecting the commons.

More like radical libertarians... they reject any government intervention whatsoever.
And that is just for starters, that still leaves monopolies, oligopolies and systemic failures to deal with:
How would a libertarian society deal with partial coverage and skyrocketing prices fueled by the combination of insurance companies and healthcare companies? Health care is quite innelastic, and insurance companies just dampen competition .

 

[JakeStarkey]

You want a libertarian society? Consider deadwood or San Francisco in the hands of the citizens and the picked LEO.

Your forgot Somalia!

You can't explain how or why your society would work well.

That's because I don't have any particular society in mind. That's the point of libertarianism, really, that 'We the People' should be free to form the kind of society we want voluntarily. It shouldn't be forced on the unwilling.

We the People did that 229 years ago. We are not going to have 100% happiness with the government.

 

[dblack]

You want a libertarian society? Consider deadwood or San Francisco in the hands of the citizens and the picked LEO.

Your forgot Somalia!

You can't explain how or why your society would work well.

That's because I don't have any particular society in mind. That's the point of libertarianism, really, that 'We the People' should be free to form the kind of society we want voluntarily. It shouldn't be forced on the unwilling.

We the People did that 229 years ago. We are not going to have 100% happiness with the government.

That's the presumption libertarians reject. Government wasn't establish to decide the form of society we create. It was established to protect our liberty to do that for ourselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great majority reject the libertarian presumption. End of story.

 

[dblack]

Libertarian economics in one simple lesson: All interactions must be voluntary.

The problem I see with libertarians is that they completely disregard all macroeconomy. They treat all interactions at microeconomic level. I've heard little in the way of how to treat :

...

I don't disregard macro economics. I just don't believe government should have the power to manipulate the economy.

Well, precisely. The simplest example I can think of as a libertarian failure : externalities.
If a factory pollutes a river, who would be in charge of regulating its activites ? What would stop them from polluting?
And how would they pay for degrading a public good ( since they don't actually own the river )?

It sounds like you've been talking to radical anarchists. Libertarians, in the main, don't reject the role of government in protecting the commons.

More like radical libertarians... they reject any government intervention whatsoever.
And that is just for starters, that still leaves monopolies, oligopolies and systemic failures to deal with:
How would a libertarian society deal with partial coverage and skyrocketing prices fueled by the combination of insurance companies and healthcare companies? Health care is quite innelastic, and insurance companies just dampen competition .

A libertarian society would solve the problems without resorting to coercion.

 

[dblack]

The great majority reject the libertarian presumption. End of story.

For a majoritarian, sure, that's the end of the story. Feel free to ignore the rest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great majority reject the libertarian presumption. End of story.

For a majoritarian, sure, that's the end of the story. Feel free to ignore the rest.

For a believer in republican democracy, sure, I believe it.

 

[dblack]

The great majority reject the libertarian presumption. End of story.

For a majoritarian, sure, that's the end of the story. Feel free to ignore the rest.

For a believer in republican democracy, sure, I believe it.

If your conception of a republican democracy rests on majority rule as the final word, we don't have enough common ground to have much of a discussion. It's more a question of aim at that point.