The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[dblack]

I'll admit, I haven't been able to come up with ANY correlation between the Greens and libertarianism, so that comment was a bit mystifying.

All I can think of is the both are against the 2 mainstream parties warmongering foreign policy.

That's one, a rather important one. There are others. Both are opposed to corporate welfare, for example. It's always a mistake to pass up opportunities to find common ground in politics.

 

[Polk]

I'll admit, I haven't been able to come up with ANY correlation between the Greens and libertarianism, so that comment was a bit mystifying.

There is some degree of overlap dealing with protection of property rights. Of course, most libertarians in America don't support real private property rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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.

That's a beautiful counter. You know he won't be able to come up with CURRENT examples. Of course, that's because we have tons of laws protecting consumers from predatory monopolies.

Predatory monopolies like cable companies that are granted monopoly status by law, or utilities that are granted monopoly status by law? Or the United States Postal Service, which has monopoly status by law? Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Can you name a single monopoly that did not get to be a monopoly without government help?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll admit, I haven't been able to come up with ANY correlation between the Greens and libertarianism, so that comment was a bit mystifying.

There is some degree of overlap dealing with protection of property rights. Of course, most libertarians in America don't support real private property rights.

The Green Party supports private property rights? When did that start?

 

[Polk]

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

That's a beautiful counter. You know he won't be able to come up with CURRENT examples. Of course, that's because we have tons of laws protecting consumers from predatory monopolies.

Predatory monopolies like cable companies that are granted monopoly status by law, or utilities that are granted monopoly status by law? Or the United States Postal Service, which has monopoly status by law? Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Can you name a single monopoly that did not get to be a monopoly without government help?

Cable companies aren't granted monopoly status by law. They were granted temporary monopolies because the alternative is that no one would have laid the fiber, but that's not really an issue now. The USPS doesn't have a monopoly on delivery (see FedEx and UPS). They do have a government-granted monopoly on certain types of deliveries, but that's a element of our constitutional commitment to have national mail delivery (get rid of USPS, and large portions of the country would be without mail service).

As for monopolies that came into being without any government assistance? Standard Oil is an obvious example. AT&T was another. U.S. Steel was for a period.

 

[Polk]

I'll admit, I haven't been able to come up with ANY correlation between the Greens and libertarianism, so that comment was a bit mystifying.

There is some degree of overlap dealing with protection of property rights. Of course, most libertarians in America don't support real private property rights.

The Green Party supports private property rights? When did that start?

At least in this country, Greens has been at the forefront of pushing the idea that companies don't have the right to pollute the land of private citizens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a beautiful counter. You know he won't be able to come up with CURRENT examples. Of course, that's because we have tons of laws protecting consumers from predatory monopolies.

Predatory monopolies like cable companies that are granted monopoly status by law, or utilities that are granted monopoly status by law? Or the United States Postal Service, which has monopoly status by law? Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Can you name a single monopoly that did not get to be a monopoly without government help?

Cable companies aren't granted monopoly status by law. They were granted temporary monopolies because the alternative is that no one would have laid the fiber, but that's not really an issue now. The USPS doesn't have a monopoly on delivery (see FedEx and UPS). They do have a government-granted monopoly on certain types of deliveries, but that's a element of our constitutional commitment to have national mail delivery (get rid of USPS, and large portions of the country would be without mail service).

As for monopolies that came into being without any government assistance? Standard Oil is an obvious example. AT&T was another. U.S. Steel was for a period.

They were granted local monopolies because local communities granted them exclusive legal access, the rational for that is bullshit.

Standard Oil and US Steel were not monopolies.

AT&T was a government regulated utility, and thus protected from competition, making it an example on my side of the argument, not your pathetic attempt to rewrite history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is some degree of overlap dealing with protection of property rights. Of course, most libertarians in America don't support real private property rights.

The Green Party supports private property rights? When did that start?

At least in this country, Greens has been at the forefront of pushing the idea that companies don't have the right to pollute the land of private citizens.

They also push the idea that private citizens don't have the right to develop their land. That doesn't sound like property rights to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll admit, I haven't been able to come up with ANY correlation between the Greens and libertarianism, so that comment was a bit mystifying.

All I can think of is the both are against the 2 mainstream parties warmongering foreign policy.

That's one, a rather important one. There are others. Both are opposed to corporate welfare, for example. It's always a mistake to pass up opportunities to find common ground in politics.

But being mutually against something is not a good basis for a relationship. Being mutually agreed on how to achieve the goal is the best basis for a good relationship.

Libertarians would get rid of corporate welfare by removing all power from the federal government to use the people's money to benefit ANYBODY for any reason. I don't think the Greens would go for that.

 

[manifold]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.

 

[dblack]

All I can think of is the both are against the 2 mainstream parties warmongering foreign policy.

That's one, a rather important one. There are others. Both are opposed to corporate welfare, for example. It's always a mistake to pass up opportunities to find common ground in politics.

But being mutually against something is not a good basis for a relationship. Being mutually agreed on how to achieve the goal is the best basis for a good relationship.

Libertarians would get rid of corporate welfare by removing all power from the federal government to use the people's money to benefit ANYBODY for any reason. I don't think the Greens would go for that.

Yeah... that's a good point. But it's a start.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.

You have no clue what "pure Libertarianism" even means.

You're tossing out nonsensical terms.

Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is an economic system. Libertarianism is a broad spectrum political philosophy.

Despite your strongly held belief, 3+3 does not equal grapefruit.

 

[manifold]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.

You have no clue what "pure Libertarianism" even means.

You're tossing out nonsensical terms.

Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is an economic system. Libertarianism is a broad spectrum political philosophy.

Despite your strongly held belief, 3+3 does not equal grapefruit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero.

spoken like a liberal fool with a conceptual IQ in the severely to traumatically retarded range. Here's an easy way to prove it: please state your most substantive reason for thinking libertarianism won't work. We won't hold our breath waiting for you to reply.

 

[manifold]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero.

spoken like a liberal fool with a conceptual IQ in the severely to traumatically retarded range. Here's an easy way to prove it: please state your most substantive reason for thinking libertarianism won't work. We won't hold our breath waiting for you to reply.

Yeah, you sure sound like a guy interested in having a sincere, intelligent discussion on the subject.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll admit, I haven't been able to come up with ANY correlation between the Greens and libertarianism, so that comment was a bit mystifying.

All I can think of is the both are against the 2 mainstream parties warmongering foreign policy.

Not really. Have you heard the greens complaining about any of Obama's numerous wars?

 

[bripat9643]

Cable companies aren't granted monopoly status by law.

Yes they are. You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.

They were granted temporary monopolies because the alternative is that no one would have laid the fiber, but that's not really an issue now.

Wrong again. They still have legal monopolies, and I fail to see why that isn't an issue.

The USPS doesn't have a monopoly on delivery (see FedEx and UPS).

It has a monopoly on first class mail, dipstick. Is everything you believe untrue?

They do have a government-granted monopoly on certain types of deliveries, but that's a element of our constitutional commitment to have national mail delivery (get rid of USPS, and large portions of the country would be without mail service).

In other words, they have a monopoly. Nothing in the Constitution says the USPS has to have a legal monopoly. Your theory about national mail service is also bogus.

As for monopolies that came into being without any government assistance? Standard Oil is an obvious example. AT&T was another. U.S. Steel was for a period.

Nope. Standard Oil never had a monopoly, and AT&T had a legal monopoly. U.S. Steel also never had a monopoly.

When it comes to being wrong, you're batting 1000.

 

[bripat9643]

There is some degree of overlap dealing with protection of property rights. Of course, most libertarians in America don't support real private property rights.

The Green Party supports private property rights? When did that start?

At least in this country, Greens has been at the forefront of pushing the idea that companies don't have the right to pollute the land of private citizens.

You mean it pushes the idea that you don't have the right to pollute your own land. It's against the law to pollute the private property of other people and always has been. That's why pollution problems always occur on government own property.

 

[bripat9643]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.

So-called "pragmatism" is nothing more than a demand that others drop their ideas and adopt yours.

 

[manifold]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.

So-called "pragmatism" is nothing more than a demand that others drop their ideas and adopt yours.

That doesn't sound very pragmatic at all IMO.