The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[dblack]

I can agree somewhat with this. There's a base in the GOP that could embrace absolute freedom if they had to. That can't be said for democrats though.

Partisan nonsense. Democrats are more liberty-minded than Republicans on many issues. But when push comes to shove, the established powers in both parties prefer authoritarian rule.

We should continue our efforts to steer the Republicans toward libertarian values via Ron Paul, et. al. But*we should be making the same kinds of inroads with Democrats. And we should refuse to give either our support until they make tangible progress toward greater liberty. Cheap campaign promises and empty rhetoric won't cut it.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Have you ever directly answered a question? You would make a fine politician. Lots of bs. No straight answers.

The topic is simple: While we are definitely over-regulated, the extreme concept that there is no need of ANY regulation because The Magical Market Fairies will take care of everything is just plain bull shit.
There is need of SOME regulation. Not to the extent we have now but certainly not zero.

You started a thread to slander Libertarians, you got your ass handed to you.
Nah. You think so but really, no one has made a case that is convincing to anyone but the members of your club.
So while you seem a tady hysterical and over-sensitive about me simply challenging a theory I'd heard from a Libertarian (on this board and in other places) there is no "slander" involved. Ya know, if you guys didn't go into hysterics every time someone disagreed with you, you might be taken seriously by more than 0.5% of the population.
You persisted by making spurious and false claims whilst demonstrating abject ignorance.
OMG I was spurious! Was I Spast & Spurious? Seriously dude, settle down. Have a nice cup of tea or something.

Lenin's USSR was indeed the most pure democracy in history. Do you even grasp what a "soviet" is? It's a congress or committee. The problem is that you lack a fundamental grasp of what a democracy is. Your neighbors voting on whether you should get dinner tonight might not be the great thing you imagine. You no doubt believe the USA is a democracy and have no grasp of what a constitutional republic is.

This is a challenge you are always going to have, if you want anyone to ever look at Libertarianism seriously. You guys all talk as if theory is or was reality. In THEORY, the Soviet Union would have had the greatest distribution of power but in REALITY, that was nowhere near the case. It is a perfect example of the flaw I spoke of. In theory companies would never intentionally decide NOT to recall a harmful product because it was dangerous - or even to allow it to go out in the first place. In reality, the examples of enitre industries harming consumers, endangering the lives of their workers etc... are too numerous to name.

You demonstrate no understanding at all of economic systems, thinking that "democracy" and "socialism" are mutually exclusive.

As for regulation, Have you ever heard of Underwriter's Laboratory? This is the U/L that you find on electrical and electronic equipment. Would you be surprised to learn that U/L is NOT a government body? In fact, it is purely voluntary - still you will find absolutely no products without U/L certification. Now you worship government as the highest manifestation of the human condition, so would you care to examine the effectiveness of U/L versus the FDA? Say appliance fires compared to Salmonella outbreaks?

Have you ever heard of Moody's? The fine folks who tolld us that CMBS' were worthy of a A+ rating. Funny, they're still around, aren't they.
You're logic is beyond flawed:
If there is one example of a company doing the right thing, this proves all companies will always do the right thing. Lovely theory.

In fact, the record of private certification agencies, ISO, IEEE, GAAP, etc. so vastly outperforms government regulators that there it is an absurdity.
But you don't grasp this.

Not true. But wait, let use the exact Libertarian logic when pointing the FDA missed a bad drug.
There are bad engineers who should not have been certified. OMG The IEEE is completely worthless and should be destroyed and replaced with a government agency! Obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that. Nor am I so blinded by ideology that I would believe that because it conforms the what I read in a pamphlet on Independentism.

This thread was based on the false premise that libertarians can be painted with a broad brush. There are different philosophies some more extreme than others. I rarely see libertarians calling for complete deregulation. I think Kevin is the only one in this thread that has called for that.

You are among the most reasonable and objective Libertarians I've encountered. So okay. I hereby officially retract that ALL libertarians would argue in favor of such a foolish belief. Thus far, you are the only one in this thread who has said otherwise though.
Just look at the example from Uncensored directly above you for proof. Or virtually every other Libertarian poster in this thread.
All argue that complete deregulation would not have seriously damaging consequences because "The Market" (I feel like the word God could be put in there with some of these zealots) will take care of everything and all of us. Cum By Ya baby.
So fine. There are Libertarians who realie the theory I describe isn't actually going to be the solution to all things. Some regulation is required.
My apologies for painting all Libertarians with the same brush.

As I read this it struck me that you have a pretty low opinion of people in general. I have met very few truly evil people that would intentionally harm others for profit. I think most people would correct a wrong if they found it in their company. I also think the decision makers should be held accountable for decisions that cause damages. Instead the law protects them by shifting blame to an entity that is nebulous in the sense that it cannot truly be punished except monetarily.

 

[IndependntLogic]

An observation: I've been hangin' out with libertarians for more'n 30 years...

and, almost without exception, they all are truly fine people...

but I gotta say, many of 'em do tend to get kinda prickly whenever somebody questions libertarian ideals...

Prickly??? LOL! You sir, have the makings of a diplomat. Some of them are just plain religious about it! Only a few seem able to just rationally discuss their ideals, positions etc... The rest are well you know, emotional whackjobs who will post stuff with about as much substance as "Your butt..."

full disclosure: I consider myself a libertarian... prolly been that way practically since I was born...

there was a time when I was a huge pain in the butt, spouting off about libertarianism... I 'spect it prolly got to the point where people hid when they saw me comin'... some few years ago a good friend remarked that it seemed like I had lost my sense of humor whenever the subject of politics came up... and dang if he wasn't right...

since then I've tried to keep everything in perspective... and never take things too seriously... otherwise I'll just end up bitter... and what's the good of that...?

You show much wisdom Mr Zappa!

If my family was about to be put on the street I would take a job making less money in order to pay the bills. I might be lower paid than everyone else but I would gladly do it just to get money coming in. I can always look for better jobs later once my family's needs are met. Isn't this logical? This is the free market as it applies to the commodity of labor. They pay me what I am willing to accept. When the government steps in and decides they aren't paying me enough and demand that they increase my pay the company is faced with two choices, either pay me more or let me go. Many times they will pick the latter choice and now I am left without a means to care for my family because of government intervention. Who are you to decide how much people should work for? Who are you to force my family onto the streets in order to enforce your idea of equality?
If conditions are so bad at walmart the employees can get jobs elsewhere, it's not like it's a niche industry with a high degree of specialization. When walmart realizes they have a high turnover and it costs them more money to train people constantly vs paying higher salaries then they will change their business model of they will fail as a business.

So basically you're saying that a company that screws employees based on gender WON'T correct itself and the market WON'T correct it either but Fcuk me because I think that's unfair (which it is).
Yeah. I've lived in countries exactly like that. I'd prefer my favorite one (USA) not be one of them.

Gender? The DNC pays all its female employees less than its male employees. In some cases, $21,000 less than male employees.

Obama pays females 18% less than male staffers.

Not relevant. Public sector. Besides, what makes you think I am a Democrat? Dems suck!

You overlooked another possible explanation, WalMart is not correcting itself because they aren't actually discriminating against women.

capitalism makes discrimination very hard of course. If women get paid less the company makes more profit and beats the competition who then must hire women to stay competitive thus bidding up their wages to parity.

That one will be way way over a liberal's head

Wal-mart has already lost hundreds of such cases and settled more. About the only victory they had was that a judge wouldn't let all the suits be combined for a Class Action. That's not over your head, is it?

You started a thread to slander Libertarians, you got your ass handed to you.
Nah. You think so but really, no one has made a case that is convincing to anyone but the members of your club.
So while you seem a tady hysterical and over-sensitive about me simply challenging a theory I'd heard from a Libertarian (on this board and in other places) there is no "slander" involved. Ya know, if you guys didn't go into hysterics every time someone disagreed with you, you might be taken seriously by more than 0.5% of the population.
You persisted by making spurious and false claims whilst demonstrating abject ignorance.
OMG I was spurious! Was I Spast & Spurious? Seriously dude, settle down. Have a nice cup of tea or something.

Lenin's USSR was indeed the most pure democracy in history. Do you even grasp what a "soviet" is? It's a congress or committee. The problem is that you lack a fundamental grasp of what a democracy is. Your neighbors voting on whether you should get dinner tonight might not be the great thing you imagine. You no doubt believe the USA is a democracy and have no grasp of what a constitutional republic is.

This is a challenge you are always going to have, if you want anyone to ever look at Libertarianism seriously. You guys all talk as if theory is or was reality. In THEORY, the Soviet Union would have had the greatest distribution of power but in REALITY, that was nowhere near the case. It is a perfect example of the flaw I spoke of. In theory companies would never intentionally decide NOT to recall a harmful product because it was dangerous - or even to allow it to go out in the first place. In reality, the examples of enitre industries harming consumers, endangering the lives of their workers etc... are too numerous to name.

You demonstrate no understanding at all of economic systems, thinking that "democracy" and "socialism" are mutually exclusive.

As for regulation, Have you ever heard of Underwriter's Laboratory? This is the U/L that you find on electrical and electronic equipment. Would you be surprised to learn that U/L is NOT a government body? In fact, it is purely voluntary - still you will find absolutely no products without U/L certification. Now you worship government as the highest manifestation of the human condition, so would you care to examine the effectiveness of U/L versus the FDA? Say appliance fires compared to Salmonella outbreaks?

Have you ever heard of Moody's? The fine folks who tolld us that CMBS' were worthy of a A+ rating. Funny, they're still around, aren't they.
You're logic is beyond flawed:
If there is one example of a company doing the right thing, this proves all companies will always do the right thing. Lovely theory.

In fact, the record of private certification agencies, ISO, IEEE, GAAP, etc. so vastly outperforms government regulators that there it is an absurdity.
But you don't grasp this.

Not true. But wait, let use the exact Libertarian logic when pointing the FDA missed a bad drug.
There are bad engineers who should not have been certified. OMG The IEEE is completely worthless and should be destroyed and replaced with a government agency! Obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that. Nor am I so blinded by ideology that I would believe that because it conforms the what I read in a pamphlet on Independentism.

This thread was based on the false premise that libertarians can be painted with a broad brush. There are different philosophies some more extreme than others. I rarely see libertarians calling for complete deregulation. I think Kevin is the only one in this thread that has called for that.

You are among the most reasonable and objective Libertarians I've encountered. So okay. I hereby officially retract that ALL libertarians would argue in favor of such a foolish belief. Thus far, you are the only one in this thread who has said otherwise though.
Just look at the example from Uncensored directly above you for proof. Or virtually every other Libertarian poster in this thread.
All argue that complete deregulation would not have seriously damaging consequences because "The Market" (I feel like the word God could be put in there with some of these zealots) will take care of everything and all of us. Cum By Ya baby.
So fine. There are Libertarians who realie the theory I describe isn't actually going to be the solution to all things. Some regulation is required.
My apologies for painting all Libertarians with the same brush.

As I read this it struck me that you have a pretty low opinion of people in general. I have met very few truly evil people that would intentionally harm others for profit. I think most people would correct a wrong if they found it in their company. I also think the decision makers should be held accountable for decisions that cause damages. Instead the law protects them by shifting blame to an entity that is nebulous in the sense that it cannot truly be punished except monetarily.

Hmmm. You seemed more intelligent and objective than to throw out negative projections because you don't like someone's opinion.
So because I believe that were are over-regulated BUT the idea of ZERO regulation is naive, I must hate people. Yeah I guess that's the kind of logic I've seen pretty often from Libertarians.
Actually, I hold people in very high regard but I'm not so naive as to think that say, BofA wouldn't illegally foreclose on our troops while they were overseas. THOUSANDS of times. I volunteer with our troops and veterans. Among other things, I help them fight this kind of thing.
I prefer to have SOME regulation in place because I think not having people die is better than suing afterward.
I do agree with you that the decision makers should be held accountable. So much for the idea that "Corporations are people." I'll believe that the day they throw BofA in jail.
I guess next you'll tell me I hate dogs?

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

Nobody is forced to work at a company with unsafe working conditions. Pollution is a failure of government and a lack of private property. The most polluted areas of the environment are the water and the air, both of which lack property rights and are essentially considered owned by government. Discrimination will occur with or without government if that is the morality of the people. You cannnot regulate morality.

The irony is that if there are so many people in the market willing to do all these terrible things, what type of government officials do you think will gain power? The absurdity is making the general argument that humans act immorally in a marketplace and we thus need to put those same humans in a government where there is even less accountability and actions are coercive and not voluntary.

Furthermore, the market is not magical, nor is it perfect. No creation of humanity can ever be perfect because human beings are imperfect in nature. And the belief that companies will regulate themselves is simply not a libertarian belief. Companies are regulated by the free market. By profit and loss and consumer action.

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

Essentially you are saying that an institution with a monopoly on violence that obtains funds through coercion and prevents voluntary action between willing individuals is necessary to the well-being of citizenry. You only need to understand what government is, how it is supported, and how it accomplishes goals (the means it uses to achieve its ends) to see how it disrupts well-being.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Not true. But wait, let use the exact Libertarian logic when pointing the FDA missed a bad drug.
There are bad engineers who should not have been certified. OMG The IEEE is completely worthless and should be destroyed and replaced with a government agency! Obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that. Nor am I so blinded by ideology that I would believe that because it conforms the what I read in a pamphlet on Independentism.



You are among the most reasonable and objective Libertarians I've encountered. So okay. I hereby officially retract that ALL libertarians would argue in favor of such a foolish belief. Thus far, you are the only one in this thread who has said otherwise though.
Just look at the example from Uncensored directly above you for proof. Or virtually every other Libertarian poster in this thread.
All argue that complete deregulation would not have seriously damaging consequences because "The Market" (I feel like the word God could be put in there with some of these zealots) will take care of everything and all of us. Cum By Ya baby.
So fine. There are Libertarians who realie the theory I describe isn't actually going to be the solution to all things. Some regulation is required.
My apologies for painting all Libertarians with the same brush.

An observation: I've been hangin' out with libertarians for more'n 30 years...

and, almost without exception, they all are truly fine people...

but I gotta say, many of 'em do tend to get kinda prickly whenever somebody questions libertarian ideals...

Prickly??? LOL! You sir, have the makings of a diplomat. Some of them are just plain religious about it! Only a few seem able to just rationally discuss their ideals, positions etc... The rest are well you know, emotional whackjobs who will post stuff with about as much substance as "Your butt..."

Your butt hurt is noted IL.

LOL! As I was saying....
Ah yes. How could anyone not take your little tinfoil hat seriously, eh? I am sure you are captain of the club!

Libertarians prickly?

Criticize Obama to an Obamabot or Bush to a Bushbot, then you'll realize there's no group less prickly than libertarians.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libertarians prickly?

Criticize Obama to an Obamabot or Bush to a Bushbot, then you'll realize there's no group less prickly than libertarians.

Except there is no group nearly as prickly as the narco-libertarians, nor any group as living in LaLaLand. The Obamabots come close. But that's because they are ideological kinsmen.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Libertarians prickly?

Criticize Obama to an Obamabot or Bush to a Bushbot, then you'll realize there's no group less prickly than libertarians.

Except there is no group nearly as prickly as the narco-libertarians, nor any group as living in LaLaLand. The Obamabots come close. But that's because they are ideological kinsmen.

Interesting coming from you, someone who's skin gets prickly at the mere mention of Paul's name and you sprint at full speed to any thread he's involved in solely to insult real conservatives.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems to me the real issue comes down to Libertarians trusting their own abilities to provide a better life, while liberals trust a government to provide those functions.

 

[Liberty]

Seems to me the real issue comes down to Libertarians trusting their own abilities to provide a better life, while liberals trust a government to provide those functions.

That is pretty much what it boils down to. The further question is...what sort of upbringing did those on the left have that killed their confidence to govern their own lives?

 

[The Rabbi]

Libertarians prickly?

Criticize Obama to an Obamabot or Bush to a Bushbot, then you'll realize there's no group less prickly than libertarians.

Except there is no group nearly as prickly as the narco-libertarians, nor any group as living in LaLaLand. The Obamabots come close. But that's because they are ideological kinsmen.

Interesting coming from you, someone who's skin gets prickly at the mere mention of Paul's name and you sprint at full speed to any thread he's involved in solely to insult real conservatives.

Yeah, that's accurate. Not.
Yeah, that's responsive to what I wrote. Not.

Who else is still pretending their candidate has a chance at the nomination, despite losing every primary?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Except there is no group nearly as prickly as the narco-libertarians, nor any group as living in LaLaLand. The Obamabots come close. But that's because they are ideological kinsmen.

Interesting coming from you, someone who's skin gets prickly at the mere mention of Paul's name and you sprint at full speed to any thread he's involved in solely to insult real conservatives.

Yeah, that's accurate. Not.
Yeah, that's responsive to what I wrote. Not.

Who else is still pretending their candidate has a chance at the nomination, despite losing every primary?

A small minority of Paul supporters, and I agree they're wrong.

They're just as wrong as someone who was stupid enough to ever think Perry had a chance.

 

[The Rabbi]

Interesting coming from you, someone who's skin gets prickly at the mere mention of Paul's name and you sprint at full speed to any thread he's involved in solely to insult real conservatives.

Yeah, that's accurate. Not.
Yeah, that's responsive to what I wrote. Not.

Who else is still pretending their candidate has a chance at the nomination, despite losing every primary?

A small minority of Paul supporters, and I agree they're wrong.

They're just as wrong as someone who was stupid enough to ever think Perry had a chance.

Rick Perry polled way above anyone else running when he announced.
Ron Paul has consistently polled about 5%. 95% if you only look at internet polls.

 

[Ramen]

Seems to me the real issue comes down to Libertarians trusting their own abilities to provide a better life, while liberals trust a government to provide those functions.

Not to mention that when the government provides for someone, they get to dictate the nature and method of the providing. It's insidious, the gradual eroding away of a person's control of their own life while they are unaware of how providing for their own rewards them with the most satisfying feeling they could ever achieve.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yeah, that's accurate. Not.
Yeah, that's responsive to what I wrote. Not.

Who else is still pretending their candidate has a chance at the nomination, despite losing every primary?

A small minority of Paul supporters, and I agree they're wrong.

They're just as wrong as someone who was stupid enough to ever think Perry had a chance.

Rick Perry polled way above anyone else running when he announced.
Ron Paul has consistently polled about 5%. 95% if you only look at internet polls.

I bet Rick Perry was a flavor of the week at some point, not that that means anything. All it means is there may not have been any politician in U.S. history who's polling numbers plummeted so quickly. Would seem that only the dumbest of the dumb would support a man who can't remember what the voting age is.

 

[saveliberty]

If you want to see a good example of market correction, look at Netflix. Totally driven by stockholders and consumers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You overlooked another possible explanation, WalMart is not correcting itself because they aren't actually discriminating against women.

Exactly.

Walmart has about 80% of their staff as women. Most of these positions are as "associates," i.e. menial store clerks. Most of the men who work at WalMart are in management. Does a man with an MBA managing a SuperWalMart make more than the register clerk? Yep. If only women in management were compared to men in management, the story would be vastly different.

 

[saveliberty]

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

Big-ass thread I've just started, so I apologize if this ground has already been covered, but why do you say the market doesn't correct itself?

For GM has been making shitty cars using bad practices. So has Chrysler. But for government interference both would've went bankrupt. Countless airlines have proved themselves inept and gone bankrupt. And banks? Banks...

What do you think it was when all those banks got into trouble over subprime loans blowing up in their faces? That was the market, correcting itself. Or at least trying to. Our government bailed them out with our dollars, thus interfering with the market.

GM has been rated for quality in the top twenty across many market sectors since the mid 90s. The problem there was mostly excess capacity and union costs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That illustrates how dysfunctional the two-dimensional political axis, and the two party system, really are. Freedom isn't "farther to the right", and the establishment powers in both major parties are equal in their net opposition to real liberty.

I generally see the scale like this;

Totalitarianism---------social democracies--democrats-republicans-------libertarians--------anarchists


So the further to the right, the more freedom is promoted.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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

Big-ass thread I've just started, so I apologize if this ground has already been covered, but why do you say the market doesn't correct itself?

For GM has been making shitty cars using bad practices. So has Chrysler. But for government interference both would've went bankrupt. Countless airlines have proved themselves inept and gone bankrupt. And banks? Banks...

What do you think it was when all those banks got into trouble over subprime loans blowing up in their faces? That was the market, correcting itself. Or at least trying to. Our government bailed them out with our dollars, thus interfering with the market.

You're absolutely correct....

When a business or company is no longer solvent that said business fails - and it should fail.... That's the way capitalism works. It's a self-regulating economic model. Government economic intervention just stunts capitalism, hence economic growth.

However, I don't think Obamafuck was concerned with GM failing as a corporation - he was concerned with his UAW buddies (voting base) being out of work if GM failed.. That was his primary concern.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure, pile on libertarians if that turns you on. I'm responding to the absurd notion that the Republicans stand for freedom.

Republicans support more liberty than do democrats, but less than Libertarians.