Its an interesting school of thought to me. Anyone here a libertarian?
Printable View
Its an interesting school of thought to me. Anyone here a libertarian?
I have to agree with ninja: libertarianism is the flip side of Marxist communism, pleasing for idealists to contemplate, but impossible to implement without disastrous consequences.
These kind of posts should be left to Extended Discussion, should they not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Socalism and Communism doesn't work because it always leads to totalitarianism. Libertarianism doesn't alway lead to anachy, so you can't really just claim its the opposite extreme.
Most libertarians do take a practical approch and do believe some government is needed. They just stress that the government should be taking a smaller part.
Can you give an example of a libertarian nation in history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
By the way I live in socialism, I also voted a couple years ago...
The US was very libertarian starting out. Libertarains want us to be a lot more like we were, when our country was formed. With a few adjustments however. We had some really bad banking practices early in our histroy that no libertarian would support.
they were talking about pure communism though (which I agree people interchange socialism and communism when they are different)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Here is the original thread, which has some very detailed explanations of what libertarianism is plus some discussion about the extent of its validity.
http://dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=94520
If you want to debate any of that, please do it here.
Blueline is correct, my post was not suitable for the Ask/Tell thread here, so I split this discussion to ED.
On your first point, Europe's "practical approach" to Democratic Socialism doesn't seem in danger of devolving into tyranny anytime soon, alarmist cries to the contrary notwithstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
A great many libertarians take cues from Ron Paul, and at least pay lip-service to total deregulation and the elimination of all progressive taxes (i.e. bracketed income tax, estate taxes) and "safety net" social programs. While the world has not yet seen a "Libertarian USSR," the purist approach to libertarianism would likely lead not to anarchy, but also totalitarianism, placing unbalanced power in the hands of corporations rather than the state.
How do you know? It always happened in a hurry when it happened in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
A totalitarian government that does absolutely nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
I think he might have been referring more to a corporatocracy sort of situation where the actual government has little control, while corporations effectively control the society.
I'd like everyone to peruse my very basic overview of libertarianism before we start talking about it in general terms:
http://dreamviews.com/community/show...09&postcount=7
Maybe if a free territory style experiment were conducted on a large scale we might have the answers we're looking for. Otherwise, we have a history practically void of libertarian 'states' (I know, an oxymoron, I just couldn't think of any other words) for reference.
Now THAT would be interesting.
There is a movement called the "Free State Project" going on where people move to and live in New Hampshire and try to influence elections in order to elect freedom-minded officials. I think their main objective is to successfully secede from the rest of the country. Will it work? Not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
If my memory serves me right we had another thread on this a while back?
I just thought id pop in, I would consider myself mostly libertarian leaning with a few slight things that aren't considered very libertarian-like.
But for the most part I dream of a Libertarian government some day in the world soon, but with mixed elements to ensure corporations do not become greedy quantity vs quality companies who care little about their product or their consumers, that should be prevented in a appropriate manner, such as:
A Public Rating system for companies and corporations, a system run independently in every city or town which privately investigates what companies do and if they do harm they are publicly exposed locally and eventually nobody will buy their product and they go under, giving a spot open for a honest good company to take its place.
Also, the constitution must have written in plain english, measures which can help prevent increase in government size and power, which leads to totalitarianism if not curbed over the decades and centuries.
In the end though, no government will be a 'great' one and they always end up abusing power and expanding it, so it is US, the human race which must change and not the government.
One day when we all change and stop fighting, over petty idiotic reasons, and change as a race, then we will have peace and harmony with nature, until then we need a government to literally hold the glue in place a little longer before things fall apart.
We've had many.Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla
Unfortunately you've contradicted yourself right off the bat. One cannot have a libertarian government that intervenes in the economy. True, I stated in my overview of libertarianism (linked a few posts up) that there are some people that support some basic regulation in the economy to ensure worker safety and consumer safety, but I also pointed out how that is inconsistent with libertarianism's core principles and typically leads to worse conditions and economic instability.Quote:
But for the most part I dream of a Libertarian government some day in the world soon, but with mixed elements to ensure corporations do not become greedy quantity vs quality companies who care little about their product or their consumers, that should be prevented in a appropriate manner, such as:
There is no reason why this could not be done under private supervision.Quote:
A Public Rating system for companies and corporations, a system run independently in every city or town which privately investigates what companies do and if they do harm they are publicly exposed locally and eventually nobody will buy their product and they go under, giving a spot open for a honest good company to take its place.
You also assume that once the government is gone, most companies will simply sell numerous quantities of shitty products or provide poor services.
How do you ensure people follow this new constitution? Would you have yearly consent-agreements or something? What if they don't consent to the constitution?Quote:
Also, the constitution must have written in plain english, measures which can help prevent increase in government size and power, which leads to totalitarianism if not curbed over the decades and centuries.
So there is no point in having any sort of minarchist government if it will just simply expand.Quote:
In the end though, no government will be a 'great' one and they always end up abusing power and expanding it, so it is US, the human race which must change and not the government.
Well that's not a very good plan, in my opinion. It's like saying, "one day my lung cancer will be cured, but until then I'm going to keep smoking until the cure arrives."Quote:
One day when we all change and stop fighting, over petty idiotic reasons, and change as a race, then we will have peace and harmony with nature, until then we need a government to literally hold the glue in place a little longer before things fall apart.
Unfortunately it is government control over things that largely contributes to violence.
Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a debate over present government or future government. If you want to reply to my above points (that goes for guerilla or anyone else) send me a PM :).
thats cool, I understand what you mean though but in my gut I just don't feel like 100% libertarianism would work because if companies are left with no rules, who is to say they are following any sort of moral code or standard, maybe companies would choose to not say all the ingredients or even show calories and whatnot...etc
Just explain this to me, how does stuff like that work in a libertarian system? cause I cannot picture how it would prevent corporations from turning into scumbags pretty much.
For me 90% libertarianism is what I lean towards with a few tiny regulations
I suppose this relates to libertarianism so I'll reply :P
Well the first part of understanding free-market/libertarian economics is actually studying economics. No, I don't mean take classes or anything. You'll probably end up with a socialistic or Keynesian teacher that way and end up learning very little. I mean simply reading books, articles, and essays, and listening to podcasts on free-market economics. That's what I'm doing now and it's working out great.Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla
You also sort of answered your own question. In a libertarian economy, accountability would be major. There is no reason why a sort of review board could be established. Any business wanting to be taken seriously would release information about their product/service, and due to the fact that there will be no monopolies (as we know them know [government established, coercive, shitty, etc]), companies would need to strive to please their consumers. If Company A just threw out a shitty product no one would buy it. However, companies throw out shitty products now because they're either monopolies or they can just be bailed out by the government.
What I'm saying here is awfully simple-sounding, I know.
Well that's fine but it's terribly inconsistent with libertarianism.Quote:
For me 90% libertarianism is what I lean towards with a few tiny regulations
Please, do yourself and the world a favor and do not make that generalization. The two are very different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Yes, discard all knowledge obtained through research and disciplined study of the field, because it is biased toward ideas that make sense and/or are applicable to real systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
We can totally discount the fact that corporations would also be in control of the flow of information and free to control that flow in the short and medium term through alliances with other corporations that would serve their interest in guaranteeing revenue that would otherwise depend upon the quality of their product and/or service.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
We can also discount the influence corporations would have on what positions would be available at what rates of pay and what influences would be impressed upon individuals at each pay grade regarding what products and services they should buy.
In the transition to a Libertarian economy, corporations would be accountable to a media that is in their pocket via advertising and a government that is in their pocket via campaign contributions.
In a full-blown Libertarian economy, corporations would be accountable to a public that they tell what to think in a government that they tell what to allow, by the most efficient means possible.
I'm not really up for a debate on whether socialist or Keynesian economics are "disciplined fields of study."Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
He seems to be interested in libertarianism, so I told him to study economics, specifically free-market economics. I also said not to take classes because he'd end up with a socialistic or Keynesian teacher, thus he would learn very little about free-market economics. Do you understand?
Could you rephrase...everything? I'm not sure what you mean.Quote:
We can totally discount the fact that corporations would also be in control of the flow of information and free to control that flow in the short and medium term through alliances with other corporations that would serve their interest in guaranteeing revenue that would otherwise depend upon the quality of their product and/or service.
We can also discount the influence corporations would have on what positions would be available at what rates of pay and what influences would be impressed upon individuals at each pay grade regarding what products and services they should buy.
In the transition to a Libertarian economy, corporations would be accountable to a media that is in their pocket via advertising and a government that is in their pocket via campaign contributions.
In a full-blown Libertarian economy, corporations would be accountable to a public that they tell what to think in a government that they tell what to allow, by the most efficient means possible.
On paper, they are different. When put into practice, communism is the same as pure socialism. Everybody owning everything and nobody owning anything amount to the same thing. In both cases, the government actually owns everything and lets the people partake in some of their stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
Let's pretend an entire nation owns everything in that nation. What does that really mean? Can I walk into the house where you sleep and walk off with the television because it belongs to both of us? No, the government wouldn't allow it. Property is not really collective in communism. You use the television because the government let you use it. The government has control of the economic system, and they distibute stuff out as they please. That is pure socialism. Communism and pure socialism work the same way. The differences are only in the way their names and plans are labelled.
I understand you're moving to discredit the university system in which knowledge is tested against a body of well-informed peers in favor of a system of cherry-picking texts which reinforce a pre-established dictum.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
1) businesses do not begin, in any real-world economy, on an even playing fieldQuote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
2) businesses are not limited to competition as the sole means of interaction, but are free to cooperate, conspire, or collude as it serves their interests
3) Improving product or service are neither the sole nor primary means of increasing profit for large businesses
4) The only significant discrepancy between businesses and governments at a sufficiently large scale is the unit of influence: dollars versus votes. For governments, dollars count somewhat more than votes. For businesses, only dollars count.
Excellent strawman!Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
And?Quote:
1) businesses do not begin, in any real-world economy, on an even playing field
And?Quote:
2) businesses are not limited to competition as the sole means of interaction, but are free to cooperate, conspire, or collude as it serves their interests
In which type of economy?Quote:
3) Improving product or service are neither the sole nor primary means of increasing profit for large businesses
To get the dollars companies must satisfy costumer demand.Quote:
4) The only significant discrepancy between businesses and governments at a sufficiently large scale is the unit of influence: dollars versus votes. For governments, dollars count somewhat more than votes. For businesses, only dollars count.
Does "Libertarianism" exist in any more developed form? Particularly in an academic context?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Which, if they control the avenues of information for even a significant chunk of the populace, they are also free to define.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I'm not sure what you mean about "academic context." Could you clarify?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
You could also successfully say the same about government.Quote:
Which, if they control the avenues of information for even a significant chunk of the populace, they are also free to define.
However, as I said accountability would be major. While a company may in fact, say, sell laptop computers and then own a venue of media, there is no reason why either their media department could be independent in its content, or no reason why a completely separate independent media company/review board could exist. There would most definitely be the demand if people could not immediately trust a company's word. Hell, there are independent review websites/magazines/TV shows now.
Even if there were no private review boards or something of the sort, people would eventually realize that the product they're buying is bad compared to others and abandon the bad product and move to the good one. "But what about if they own the market?" you say? Free-market "monopolies" are much different than current monopolies. One is approved by the government and is allowed to exist, thus being able to take hold over the market and not allow any other businesses in, while the other is a "monopoly" by merit via satisfying customers. If they stop satisfying, they no longer become a monopoly and another business or businesses take up the slack.
Uhm not quite, you're still painting socialism and communism (pure or whatever) as the same thing. Socialism is about government intervention whereas communism is about government control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Private property still exists in socialism. The only reason people group it with communism (namely in the US) is to make it sound evil and negative. Propaganda.
Blueline, the way you make corporations in the free market accountable to the customers, as in "if they're bad people will realize it and stop buying from them"... To me it would just create a cycle of people getting screwed by shady business practises and switching to another company, getting screwed again a little while later and switching once more, etc. Point being, it's a reactionary system where people only switch providers/brands after the damage has already been done. When the government intervenes with regulations to protect the customer, it's a precautionary measure so things don't have to get that bad before something is done.
Also, how would a libertarian economy handle certain socialist regulations or practises that are already common. Things like minimum wage, sick days, maternity leave, working hours, unions, paid vacation, etc.
What does that mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The government controls the money with pure socialism, and the government intervenes with communism. Both involve government control/intervention. The government owns the money and lets people use it at the government's discretion in both systems. Is that not true?
How is the property that the government owns and hands out as they please "private property" in socialism and not "private property" with communism? Can you give more specific details of the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
What worth a damn company doesn't care about losing customers? Do you have any idea how obsessed with money big business owners and executives are? They go into convulsions when two cents are on the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The government would no longer be so nosy. Companies would worry about losing employees, especially in a really good economy, which we would have if the government would get out of the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Socialism is actually more about government control, whereas Communism is more about communal control. The two become blurred because Communism may or may not require a state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Well both are terribly destructive ideologies and don't require much propaganda, but this is beside the point of the thread.Quote:
Private property still exists in socialism. The only reason people group it with communism (namely in the US) is to make it sound evil and negative. Propaganda.
When I say people will switch businesses, of course it would have to be after damage has been done to initial buyers. It would then be relayed by various media outlets and word-of-mouth so others would not even buy the product.Quote:
Blueline, the way you make corporations in the free market accountable to the customers, as in "if they're bad people will realize it and stop buying from them"... To me it would just create a cycle of people getting screwed by shady business practises and switching to another company, getting screwed again a little while later and switching once more, etc. Point being, it's a reactionary system where people only switch providers/brands after the damage has already been done.
This is assuming people don't do research on whatever they're going to buy and everyone is an impulse buyer. But the likelihood of that, to me, is slim. It also assumes businesses will just pump out shitty products. People don't start businesses to piss off customers and lose money.
Unfortunately those regulations rarely help the customer in the long run and hurt honest businesses, which hurts the economy.Quote:
When the government intervenes with regulations to protect the customer, it's a precautionary measure so things don't have to get that bad before something is done.
Minimum wage would probably (read: hopefully) be abolished. Sick days, maternity leave, paid vacation, and working hours would be left up to the businesses/employees. Unions would probably exist but hopefully wouldn't be as ridiculous as they are now.Quote:
Also, how would a libertarian economy handle certain socialist regulations or practises that are already common. Things like minimum wage, sick days, maternity leave, working hours, unions, paid vacation, etc.
This is assuming there is a small government.
Actually socialism consists a whole field of thinking in which communism is a sub-category. You have:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
-Communism [ Usually called Marxism ]
-Fascism
-Saint-Simonism
-Fourerites
-Owenites
-Proudhonism [ Also called Mutualism ]
It just goes on.
Well not necessarily. There is 'private property' in fascism but it's not really private. It's just property supposedly granted by the state which an individual is allowed to steward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Nonsense. For one the government is already screwing people by its very existence. So where is the logic in having a monopoly that prevents monopolies? Also are you really ready to announce that every corporation is out to screw people? Also if someone is getting constantly screwed over then what is stopping them for becoming a provider of goods in the market and not screw over people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Abolished the laws that make it compulsory to have these measures. If businesses still wish to keep these measures then it is their choice. I think workers will naturally seek out professions that offer the best services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
No one wants to talk about Libertarianism :(