The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[ShackledNation]

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.

It is Republicans who have introduced bills like CISPA, SOPA, PIPA, and that absurd New York bill that would prevent people from making anonymous posts online. Both parties are on going in the same direction, just in different industries and areas of our lives. Saying Republicans are more liberty minded is true of some issues, but the opposite can be said for others. Claiming otherwise is ignoring reality.

 

[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.

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.

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?

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.

To quote that wise Man in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
A person is good. But all people? All companies? Not so much.

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.

So after the people you love die, you'll be totally satisfied as long as you get a lot of money. How much? Oh, and that assumes you have the bucks to sue a major corp. Good luck with that.

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.

I have said we are over-regulated about 20x in this thread. At least twice to you. So um, thanks for agreeing with me, i guess.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

Is that why Republicans passed No Child left behind? Is that why Republicans passed the largest expansion of medicare under Bush? Is that why Republicans introduced bills to hamper the freedom of the internet? Its all in the rhetoric that the parties seem different. The Republicans may be moving towards more government control of the economy at a slower pace, but they are still moving in the wrong direction. They aren't offering economic freedom in their actions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is that why Republicans passed No Child left behind?

but those were not Tea Party Republicans, Ron Paul Republicans, Jeffersonian Republicans, Gingrich (32 states signed his Balanced Budget Amendmet) Republicans, Scalia or Thomas Republicans.

Republicans are as far to the right as the electorate will allow.


If they were as pure as libertarians they would not be stopping the mandate, voting 100% against the stimulus, signing the Norquist Pledge, etc. etc. they would be sitting on the sidelines watching like impotent libertarians are.

 

[ShackledNation]

Is that why Republicans passed No Child left behind?

but those were not Tea Party Republicans, Ron Paul Republicans, Jeffersonian Republicans, Gingrich (32 states signed his Balanced Budget Amendmet) Republicans, Scalia or Thomas Republicans.

Republicans are as far to the right as the electorate will allow.


If they were as pure as libertarians they would not be stopping the mandate, voting 100% against the stimulus, signing the Norquist Pledge, etc. etc. they would be sitting on the sidelines watching like impotent libertarians are.

Those were Republicans. There really isn't more you need to say. Republican rhetoric is what you call far right. There are few that are serious. Ron Paul is one of the only ones that ever was.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Those were Republicans. There really isn't more you need to say. Republican rhetoric is what you call far right. There are few that are serious. Ron Paul is one of the only ones that ever was.

100% absurd!!! if Paul got elected he'd face the same choice from independents. Do I get what I can from them, or get nothing, lose the next election, and go back to sitting impotently on the sidelines for another 200 years.

Once you understand that independent flop floppers decide elections you have a basis for understanding whats happening.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is that why Republicans passed No Child left behind? Is that why Republicans passed the largest expansion of medicare under Bush?

These are reasons I generally don't vote Republican.

Is that why Republicans introduced bills to hamper the freedom of the internet?

SOPA and PIPA were bipartisan. Further, it is not my job to defend the Republicans.

Its all in the rhetoric that the parties seem different. The Republicans may be moving towards more government control of the economy at a slower pace, but they are still moving in the wrong direction. They aren't offering economic freedom in their actions.

Applying the brakes at all to a centralized and managed economy is some respite. I see out current administration rushing to the Greek economic model with all possible speed.

 

[dblack]

100% absurd!!! if Paul got elected he'd face the same choice from independents. Do I get what I can from them, or get nothing, lose the next election, and go back to sitting impotently on the sidelines for another 200 years.

Once you understand that independent flop floppers decide elections you have a basis for understanding whats happening.

This view rests on mistaken assumptions about independent voters. It's part of a whole bag of mistaken assumptions generated from the artifice of the one-dimensional left-right view of politics. Independents aren't 'half way between' Democrats and Republicans (just as libertarians aren't 'far-right'). The most common self-descriptor you hear from independents, "socially liberal, economically conservative" is the core ethos of libertarianism.

So, attracting independent voters isn't simply a matter of moving to the 'center'. Most independents feel utterly unrepresented, even by supposed 'moderates', and the mainstream parties ignore them equally. Both are primarily authoritarian in nature. Moving away from this isn't a matter of a compromise between left and right. It's a rejection of both views as they currently manifest.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This view rests on mistaken assumptions about independent voters. It's part of a whole bag of mistaken assumptions generated from the artifice of the one-dimensional left-right view of politics. Independents aren't 'half way between' Democrats and Republicans (just as libertarians aren't 'far-right'). The most common self-descriptor you hear from independents, "socially liberal, economically conservative" is the core ethos of libertarianism.

So, attracting independent voters isn't simply a matter of moving to the 'center'. Most independents feel utterly unrepresented, even by supposed 'moderates', and the mainstream parties ignore them equally. Both are primarily authoritarian in nature. Moving away from this isn't a matter of a compromise between left and right. It's a rejection of both views as they currently manifest.

Most "independents" lack a developed political philosophy. They are populist by nature and easily manipulated by the popular press and lynch-pin issues. Though many of the positions that "independents" hold are openly contradictory, this rarely dawns on them as they hold said positions, not based on a solid economic or social platform, but rather based on what television, movies and the press have portrayed.

That said, I do understand why a great many would snub politics in general as a farce. The most apt description of "independents" is "uninterested and disengaged.

 

[dblack]

Most "independents" lack a developed political philosophy. They are populist by nature and easily manipulated by the popular press and lynch-pin issues. Though many of the positions that "independents" hold are openly contradictory, this rarely dawns on them as they hold said positions, not based on a solid economic or social platform, but rather based on what television, movies and the press have portrayed.

That said, I do understand why a great many would snub politics in general as a farce. The most apt description of "independents" is "uninterested and disengaged.

That's been my view in the past. But more and more I'm happy to be proven wrong on that. They may not be politically active, but "uninterested and disengaged" isn't really accurate. Most of them just feel unrepresented by the perceived choices - which is why I spend so much time trying to tear down the myth that the currently prevailing versions of "left" and "right" are the only choices.

When these people realize that the status quo isn't the only option, they are relatively quickly converted into activists. This is the "secret" of the Paul campaign that most of the mainstream analysts just don't get.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Most "independents" lack a developed political philosophy. They are populist by nature and easily manipulated by the popular press and lynch-pin issues. Though many of the positions that "independents" hold are openly contradictory, this rarely dawns on them as they hold said positions, not based on a solid economic or social platform, but rather based on what television, movies and the press have portrayed.

That said, I do understand why a great many would snub politics in general as a farce. The most apt description of "independents" is "uninterested and disengaged.

That's been my view in the past. But more and more I'm happy to be proven wrong on that. They may not be politically active, but "uninterested and disengaged" isn't really accurate. Most of them just feel unrepresented by the perceived choices - which is why I spend so much time trying to tear down the myth that the currently prevailing versions of "left" and "right" are the only choices.

When these people realize that the status quo isn't the only option, they are relatively quickly converted into activists. This is the "secret" of the Paul campaign that most of the mainstream analysts just don't get.

I would call them bitter and disaffected, possibly apathetic to boot. That's how I was but I started getting pissed off at what I could see happening to this country. I think more and more people will follow.

Let's face it up until now the propaganda machine was attempting to shoehorn people into the left-right paradigm and was largely successful. The malcontents were relegated to the sidelines and labeled as radicals. The internet is changing how people get their news starting with Gen exxers like me. We are more likely to see the media's attempts at manipulation because we are more removed from it. The people younger than I am are even more removed from the propaganda. This is why they are trying to clamp down on the internet now more than ever. It won't work though. People will find a way and if they attempt it they will just seal their doom that much faster.

People are mobilizing and they are demanding their rights be upheld. It's a beautiful thing and I am encouraged by the developments over the last few years.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Everyone who points out his gaping logical flaws and epic egomania is "attacking" him...Get used to it.

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.

He has been shown numerous examples of FDA overreach, corruption and plain old incompetence in this very thread...He simply doesn't give a rats ass.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The most common self-descriptor you hear from independents, "socially liberal, economically conservative" is the core ethos of libertarianism.

anyway, back in the real world independents don't see it that way at all and so flip flop back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. In doing so they decide most elections.

 

[dblack]

The most common self-descriptor you hear from independents, "socially liberal, economically conservative" is the core ethos of libertarianism.

anyway, back in the real world independents don't see it that way at all and so flip flop back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. In doing so they decide most elections.

So, you're simply disputing the actual views of independents. That's fair. I'm going by admittedly anecdotal evidence - I hear people reciting the 'socially liberal, economically conservative' line all the time. And by and large those are the folks turning on to Ron Paul's message.

That's really at the core of what confounds so many people about the new libertarians. Liberals want to claim we're 'far-right', but neo-cons calls us 'narco-liberals' or what-not. They're both right; in that we don't really fit on their manufactured political map, and many independents find themselves in the same kind of limbo. But that's not a problem with the 'real world' - it's a problem with the map.

 

[The Rabbi]

The most common self-descriptor you hear from independents, "socially liberal, economically conservative" is the core ethos of libertarianism.

anyway, back in the real world independents don't see it that way at all and so flip flop back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. In doing so they decide most elections.

In any case, most independents want to vote for someone who can actually win. Narco-libertarians cannot actually win. And most independents do not want this country to retreat to isolationism, a central tenet of the narco world.

 

[LibertyForAll]

The most common self-descriptor you hear from independents, "socially liberal, economically conservative" is the core ethos of libertarianism.

anyway, back in the real world independents don't see it that way at all and so flip flop back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. In doing so they decide most elections.

So, you're simply disputing the actual views of independents. That's fair. I'm going by admittedly anecdotal evidence - I hear people reciting the 'socially liberal, economically conservative' line all the time. And by and large those are the folks turning on to Ron Paul's message.

That's really at the core of what confounds so many people about the new libertarians. Liberals want to claim we're 'far-right', but neo-cons calls us 'narco-liberals' or what-not. They're both right; in that we don't really fit on their manufactured political map, and many independents find themselves in the same kind of limbo. But that's not a problem with the 'real world' - it's a problem with the map.

I agree. I am not even sure Libertarian describes me. My philosophy is libertarian but I reject the label as it applies in modern politics. If I give them the power to label me as such I give them the power to classify and marginalize me along with it. There is not really a single canopy under which you can lump all those with libertarian leanings.

Political parties as a rule require you to compromise your beliefs even if its to a small degree. In essense they are a voting block and gain power from their ability to control the votes of their members. This is the very thing that has caused our country to become the welfare/police state. Each side compromises to achieve goals.Witness Santorum's comments about taking one for the team and voting with democrats to further the parties goals. I will never be able to toe the party line when it compromises my principles. In each case I will have to weigh the bad against the good and make an informed decision.

 

[flacaltenn]

"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 ...[because]... The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

There are several flaws in your premises and logic HERE and in the OP..

1) There IS no safe product or professional advice. Even aspirin and food can be abused. You ASSUME that regulation and govt standards will remove the majority of risk from consumption. This risk-free life fallacy seems to be tied to all leftist thought.

2) The threat of alienating customers, stock holders, and other corporate stake holders is USUALLY higher then the fallout from fines from regulators. Who gets punished when an elevator crashes? Does the govt provided inspector get punished? Hardly.

3) The fact that you can list companies that have been punished in court BUILDS the argument for natural effects controlling market behaviour not belittles them. Your question as to why these companies STILL EXIST goes back to my #1. Your assumption shouldn't mean that ANY HARM done results in your corporate demise. How many lives might have been SAVED by the same drug that had side effects that creating more harm than anticipated? We can't survive in a zero risk society run in ANY conceivable way.

4) Regulation has limited effect. And the "market is evil" folks forget that MOST regulating are born with CONFLICTING missions. That is to both PROMOTE a market and PUNISH the same market. As the ad for Hebrew Nation goes == "... we don't. We answer to a HIGHER Authority".. You'll see this same truth if you ask VeggieHeads who they trust to certify their organic food..

5) There are MANY important "naturally occurring" constrainsts on corporate behaviour before you ever get to Govt regulation. To try and discount all these is foolish. Need me to list them?

6) The advice and regs we get from GOVT if subjected to the same scrutiny would fail miserably. How long does it take to CPSC to determine a "safe crib". How many ways were you told to put your baby to sleep? On their back, on their side, ect?? In an effort to clean the air the EPA fouled the waters of hundreds of community with MTBE.. I don't feel safe with a single central authority PRETENDING to define everything from my toilet to my lightbulbs... Do YOU?

7) What do you expect to gain by attempting to ridicule a belief in free market economics? Are you just JONESING for more regs on frozen green peas? More unaccountable czars? What's your angle?

 

[Pho_King]

The big problem with libertarianism is it demands that individuals hold themselves accountable. We have pussified ourselves way too much for such a crazy concept to ever take hold.

 

[eflatminor]

In any case, most independents want to vote for someone who can actually win.

Perhaps that is true of independents. However, if at least some of us Libertarians don't vote R, it will be Obama that wins.

It is true we don't think drugs should be illegal anymore than alcohol. It is true we think too much military interventionism has not served America well, which is a very different thing from promoting isolationism. However, given that we share similar views with regard to fiscal policy, debt, entitlements, etc, I don't understan why you would go out of your way to alienate Libertarians.

For instance, I'm a long time Libertarian voter that for the first time, plans to vote for the Republican nominee for President. Why would you desire to change that by badmouthing those who agree with you on so many of the really important points?

 

[Oddball]

7) What do you expect to gain by attempting to ridicule a belief in free market economics? Are you just JONESING for more regs on frozen green peas? More unaccountable czars? What's your angle?

His angle is to try and pass himself off as the smartest dickweed in the room.

Trouble being that every time he tries doing so with one of these goofball threads, his poorly though out bases for them get shot with more holes than the victims of the St. Valentine's day massacre.