The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[Dr.Drock]

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.

Maybe in speeches and in front of cameras, but not really legislatively. In that area they're the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Partisan nonsense. Democrats are more liberty-minded than Republicans on many issues.

Utter bullshit.

The democrats are on a fast march to authoritarianism. They are a a clear and present danger to basic civil liberties.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

More like this:

Fascism - Anarchism - Totalitarianism - Authoritarianism - Classical Liberalism (Democrat-Republican/Libertarian) - Independent - Republican - Democrat - Authoritarianism - Totalitarianism - Anarchism - Fascism.

I see/view the political spectrum as a circle. The far left can be the far right. Obama is a perfect example of this. He's a fascist, yet is a socialist - two ideas that in theory would be an oxymoron or would contradict one another - yet Obama pulls both off at the same time.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

Agreed...

I would say republicans are more left than democrats.

It's funny, the right is left and the left is right when it comes to ideology and liberty in this country as we define the ideas.

Progressives are progressing themselves into fascism. Right now progressives are "authoritarians."

Of course there are a few "blue dog democrats" that refuse to go down the progressive path and remain conservative to some extent...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Maybe in speeches and in front of cameras, but not really legislatively. In that area they're the same.

No.

Republicans offer far more economic freedom than the dims. Republicans are just as fucked up on social issues, but come on, in the realm of economics there is no comparison. The Republicans are FAR more market oriented.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

Maybe in speeches and in front of cameras, but not really legislatively. In that area they're the same.

I agree there....

I think republicans create more of a police state and democrats create more of a nanny state.

Both can be quite authoritarian.... And I think both parties contribute to both the nanny state and the police state.

I suppose we use the acronym RINO for a reason tho.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

More like this:

Fascism - Anarchism - Totalitarianism - Authoritarianism - Classical Liberalism (Democrat-Republican/Libertarian) - Independent - Republican - Democrat - Authoritarianism - Totalitarianism - Anarchism - Fascism.

I see/view the political spectrum as a circle. The far left can be the far right. Obama is a perfect example of this. He's a fascist, yet is a socialist - two ideas that in theory would be an oxymoron or would contradict one another - yet Obama pulls both off at the same time.

Nah, that's big lie bullshit.

Anarchism is an absence of government, in no rational analysis can it be lumped with totalitarian systems such as communism and fascism.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Maybe in speeches and in front of cameras, but not really legislatively. In that area they're the same.

No.

Republicans offer far more economic freedom than the dims. Republicans are just as fucked up on social issues, but come on, in the realm of economics there is no comparison. The Republicans are FAR more market oriented.

I think a lot of republicans are true capitalists that want true capitalism (which I totally support) and democrats want a dictated or planned economy (socialism) via our federal government.

Of course republicans love authority - especially when it comes to the cops, or shit like the Patriot Act.

 

[Mr.Nick]

More like this:

Fascism - Anarchism - Totalitarianism - Authoritarianism - Classical Liberalism (Democrat-Republican/Libertarian) - Independent - Republican - Democrat - Authoritarianism - Totalitarianism - Anarchism - Fascism.

I see/view the political spectrum as a circle. The far left can be the far right. Obama is a perfect example of this. He's a fascist, yet is a socialist - two ideas that in theory would be an oxymoron or would contradict one another - yet Obama pulls both off at the same time.

Nah, that's big lie bullshit.

Anarchism is an absence of government, in no rational analysis can it be lumped with totalitarian systems such as communism and fascism.

First off anarchy is impossible, Secondly I told you I view the political spectrum as a circle.

Anarchy is just a starting point.....

View what I wrote as a clock with anarchy being 12..

 

[Dr.Drock]

Maybe in speeches and in front of cameras, but not really legislatively. In that area they're the same.

No.

Republicans offer far more economic freedom than the dims. Republicans are just as fucked up on social issues, but come on, in the realm of economics there is no comparison. The Republicans are FAR more market oriented.

Bush hired 100,000 more regulators than Clinton did.

OpEdNews - Bush's Regulatory Kiss-Off: Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon

Some people still seem to think Republicans take a hands-off approach to regulation, probably because the party is always quick to criticize the burdens regulations place on businesses. But Republican rhetoric doesn't always match Republican policy. In 2007, according to Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, roughly 50 regulatory agencies issued 3,595 final rules, ranging from boosting fuel economy standards for light trucks to continuing a ban on bringing torch lighters into airplane cabins. Five departments (Commerce, Agriculture, Homeland Security, Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency) accounted for 45 percent of the new regulations.

Since Bush took office in 2001, there has been a 13 percent decrease in the annual number of new rules. But the new regulations' cost to the economy will be much higher than it was before 2001. Of the new rules, 159 are "economically significant," meaning they will cost at least $100 million a year. That's a 10 percent increase in the number of high-cost rules since 2006, and a 70 percent increase since 2001. And at the end of 2007, another 3,882 rules were already at different stages of implementation, 757 of them targeting small businesses.

Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.

The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First off anarchy is impossible, Secondly I told you I view the political spectrum as a circle.

I know, I was taught the same. The only thing is that it's bullshit. Freedom and Slavery are not the same thing.

Anarchy is just a starting point.....

View what I wrote as a clock with anarchy being 12..

Except that it simply isn't the case.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bush hired 100,000 more regulators than Clinton did.

OpEdNews - Bush's Regulatory Kiss-Off: Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon

Some people still seem to think Republicans take a hands-off approach to regulation, probably because the party is always quick to criticize the burdens regulations place on businesses. But Republican rhetoric doesn't always match Republican policy. In 2007, according to Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, roughly 50 regulatory agencies issued 3,595 final rules, ranging from boosting fuel economy standards for light trucks to continuing a ban on bringing torch lighters into airplane cabins. Five departments (Commerce, Agriculture, Homeland Security, Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency) accounted for 45 percent of the new regulations.

Since Bush took office in 2001, there has been a 13 percent decrease in the annual number of new rules. But the new regulations' cost to the economy will be much higher than it was before 2001. Of the new rules, 159 are "economically significant," meaning they will cost at least $100 million a year. That's a 10 percent increase in the number of high-cost rules since 2006, and a 70 percent increase since 2001. And at the end of 2007, another 3,882 rules were already at different stages of implementation, 757 of them targeting small businesses.

Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.

The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.

Bush was no prize, not by any stretch of the imagination.

That said, he did offer relief on Capital Gains and on corporate income taxes. For this reason, he was substantially more inclined to economic liberty than either Clinton or Obama.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Bush hired 100,000 more regulators than Clinton did.

OpEdNews - Bush's Regulatory Kiss-Off: Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon

Some people still seem to think Republicans take a hands-off approach to regulation, probably because the party is always quick to criticize the burdens regulations place on businesses. But Republican rhetoric doesn't always match Republican policy. In 2007, according to Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, roughly 50 regulatory agencies issued 3,595 final rules, ranging from boosting fuel economy standards for light trucks to continuing a ban on bringing torch lighters into airplane cabins. Five departments (Commerce, Agriculture, Homeland Security, Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency) accounted for 45 percent of the new regulations.

Since Bush took office in 2001, there has been a 13 percent decrease in the annual number of new rules. But the new regulations' cost to the economy will be much higher than it was before 2001. Of the new rules, 159 are "economically significant," meaning they will cost at least $100 million a year. That's a 10 percent increase in the number of high-cost rules since 2006, and a 70 percent increase since 2001. And at the end of 2007, another 3,882 rules were already at different stages of implementation, 757 of them targeting small businesses.

Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.

The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.

Bush was no prize, not by any stretch of the imagination.

That said, he did offer relief on Capital Gains and on corporate income taxes. For this reason, he was substantially more inclined to economic liberty than either Clinton or Obama.

Figure 1 shows the real increase in regulatory spending by full presidential term between 1960 and 2009. During both his terms, President Bush outspent every one of his recent predecessors. In his first term, he increased spending on regulatory agencies by $8.3 billion, almost doubling what President Clinton—the second biggest spender—spent during his second term.

The data also show that, adjusted for inflation, expenditures for the category of finance and banking were cut by 3 percent during the Clinton years and rose 29 percent from 2001 to 2009, making it hard to argue that Bush deregulated the financial sector.

Maybe you can find one area he was less of a regulator, but overall Bush with his republican Congress may have been the more pro-regulation gov't in U.S. history. Don't hear me wrong my argument isn't Obama/Clinton love regulations less than Bush did, my argument is that they all love them. The goal of regulations is to take power away from the people and to be able to siphon money to a handful of organizations, the ones who of course pay the biggest bribes to our parties.

(the bold is me, the unbold is from the link)

 

[M14 Shooter]

More like this:

Fascism - Anarchism - Totalitarianism - Authoritarianism - Classical Liberalism (Democrat-Republican/Libertarian) - Independent - Republican - Democrat - Authoritarianism - Totalitarianism - Anarchism - Fascism.

I see/view the political spectrum as a circle. The far left can be the far right. Obama is a perfect example of this. He's a fascist, yet is a socialist - two ideas that in theory would be an oxymoron or would contradict one another - yet Obama pulls both off at the same time.

Nah, that's big lie bullshit.

Anarchism is an absence of government, in no rational analysis can it be lumped with totalitarian systems such as communism and fascism.

First off anarchy is impossible, Secondly I told you I view the political spectrum as a circle.

Anarchy is just a starting point.....

The problem is that you put anarchy between the two forms of governmeent least like it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

First off anarchy is impossible, Secondly I told you I view the political spectrum as a circle.

I know, I was taught the same. The only thing is that it's bullshit. Freedom and Slavery are not the same thing.

Anarchy is just a starting point.....

View what I wrote as a clock with anarchy being 12..

Except that it simply isn't the case.

Dude, I don't even think anarchy is viable and it is impossible, however I just threw it in there.

I'm not comparing anarchy to totalitarianism, authoritarianism or fascism.......

I was merely using anarchy as a starting point - like 12 on a clock. I suppose using my analogy "independents" would be 6 on the clock.... Fascism would be 11 and 1 etc...

Like I said I view the political spectrum as a circle.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Nah, that's big lie bullshit.

Anarchism is an absence of government, in no rational analysis can it be lumped with totalitarian systems such as communism and fascism.

First off anarchy is impossible, Secondly I told you I view the political spectrum as a circle.

Anarchy is just a starting point.....

The problem is that you put anarchy between the two forms of governmeent least like it.

Once again I'm using anarchy as a starting point - NOT a comparison...

Anarchy divides the two sides and both sides have their fair share of authoritarians, totalitarians and fascists......

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dude, I don't even think anarchy is viable and it is impossible, however I just threw it in there.

Nick, I understand and this isn't meant to be an attack on you. What I'm going after is the concept that political philosophy is a circle. It isn't, it is a line from the absence of government on one end, which is anarchy, to complete government on the other, which is totalitarianism.

I'm not comparing anarchy to totalitarianism, authoritarianism or fascism.......

I was merely using anarchy as a starting point - like 12 on a clock. I suppose using my analogy "independents" would be 6 on the clock.... Fascism would be 11 and 1 etc...

Like I said I view the political spectrum as a circle.

It's what the public schools have pushed, but it doesn't hold water.

 

[dblack]

all these schemes are artificial, its just a question of how well they model what each of us sees as political reality. The one dimensional model forces us to arrange the various ideologies along side each other in ways that suggest false relationships. Two dimensional maps (like the Nolan Chart) offer a much better picture of how the various political philosophies relate.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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.

Hmmm. You're right. The theory is not that companies will regulate themselves but rather that "The Market" will regulate them. I simply disagree with this theory. Certainly this will work when it comes to putting companies that provide poor service or quality out of business. But will "The Market" stop tainted lettuce, chicken, turkey, tomatoes, avocadoes, from poisoning people BEFORE they get to market, the way the USDA did? Will the Market implement safety regulations that prevent injury and death BEFORE it happens?
the Libertarian Theory seems entirely reactive.
Well, if company "A" sells enough products that hurt or kill people THEN they will get sued or go out of business. How gratifying. So how much would the death of your spouse or child be worth to you?
If company "B" has enough people get hurt or die due to unsafe conditions, if they screw enough employees, THEN people will stop working there and that will be bad for them and they will lose employees and have to change their practices or go under. Reactive and does nothing for those who have been hurt, injured or screwed.
Now let me again, make this clear because some Libertarians will immediately start throwing out whackjob labels and projections. I THINK WE ARE OVER-REGULATED. Is that clear? Okay good. My contention is not that our system is f-ed up. It's that I find the idea of NO regulation, extreme and naive.

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.

Thank you for telling me what I think. Want to tell me what I'm wearing now? Tell you what, if I refrain from projecting bull shit views on you, maybe you could refrain from doing the same with me. Or not. Up to you but if I just ranted about how you want corporations to kill people because you hate all people and animals, would you instantly know I wasn't worth taking seriously? This kind of instant labeling anyone disagreeing with Libertarians as being heretics (although in their religion, it's usually "Statists!" or some other such prattle), is part of the reason they are often not taken seriously.
What I am saying is that I have lived in countries that did not have a strong centralized government. While i enjoyed the privilege and protection that comes with having money in a poverty state, I wasn't blind to what was going on around me.
You want to talk about violence? Okay let's do that. Here are countries without a strong, cetnralized government:
Mexico
the Ukraine
Columbia
Central African Republic
Sudan
Zimbabwe
Algeria

I could go one but tell ya what. I've lived in three of those countries. I have friends in others. Which one do you want to go live in because violence is not a problem? You want to talk about your freedoms being oppressed by the authoritarian state? Let's see how you feel about paying for bodyguards out of pocket and even then, having to exercise strong acuity to your surroundings. Hell, I'll bet you could just walk out of your house in a nice suit, walk miles to your local mall, buy something expensive, and get home in one piece. That's freedom and I appreciate it. You seem focused on how you're "oppressed" and you freedoms are taken away. But I have yet to see a Libertarian tell me how they personally, have been oppressed.
Even countries WITH a strong, centralized government but no regulatory agencies or enforcement, are not places I would want to live. China. India. Russia. You want their environment? Then we can all wear face masks! Or make sure we are never exposed to the Indian Ocean or Ghanges. I like surfing. In America, you don't die from it. That's nice.
I could go on but my point is that without at least SOME regulation and enforcement from the government, industry will abuse pretty much everything in the nae of profits. People are good. They can usually be trusted not to go around hurting others for a buck. Global companies? Not so much.

The theory that "The Market" will just make everything fine is flawed to me. Government agencies aren't great. They're not efficient. They're often WAY excessive. But I find that SOME regulation is better than none at all because frankly, I'd rather have my family safe and alive, than the privilege of trying to launch and win a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar corporation.

I've also seen Libertarians and others use the absurd logic that if the USDA catches thousands of bad food products a year, but because they're under-manned and no company or agency is perfect, they don't catch EVERYTHING- that means we would be better off without them altogtether. unreal.

 

[LibertyForAll]

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!



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



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?

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.

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?

I wasn't trying to attack you. I was just pointing out that if you believe that we are basically good then freedom is a more viable option. Those who seek government intervention in their lives are saying people can't be good on their own without the threat of incarceration or fines or even death.

I think its enough of a regulation to say that food needs to be safe and if the ceo of a food manufacturer can be held liable for the decisions he makes that cause harm then they won't take any chances. If they do people could sue the shit out of the company and the assholes will be in jail. We don't need a government agency going in and examining every minor detail of a business and setting standards.

There are certain regulations that I can get behind. I am in favor of smoking bans in public buildings. I am in favor of regulations requiring food to be labeled with ingredients and nutritional information. These are relatively minor things in the grand scheme and don't require government funds to maintain a huge oversight agency. They also happen to be regulations that enhance my freedom by giving the information I need to make a decision on what to ingest or what businesses to patronize.

Let me give you an example of FDA over regulation. I have sleep apnea and require a machine called a cpap to sleep. It basically forces air down by throat to keep pressure on it to make sure it doesn't close while I sleep. It isn't something I ingest and isn't in anyway harmful or even potentially harmful but I have to have a prescription to get the machine and a prescription to get supplies for the machine like the mask I wear.