A question for the Libertarians

[Ikari]

Time will tell.

It already did. We've done this same thing before, it's never worked.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It already did. We've done this same thing before, it's never worked.

My understanding is it did have positive results. Why did Biden keep most the tariffs in place from then?

 

[Ikari]

My understanding is it did have positive results. Why did Biden keep most the tariffs in place from then?

Biden serves the same oligarchy as Trump. But even then, it's not the extent of trade war Trump is going for.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Biden serves the same oligarchy as Trump. But even then, it's not the extent of trade war Trump is going for.

Let me guess. You are a fan of The Blacklist.

 

[Ikari]

Let me guess. You are a fan of The Blacklist.

I'm a fan of free market capitalism.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm a fan of free market capitalism.

I am a fan of fair and free. I guess you have no concern about fairness.

 

[Phys251]

You might lean more towards classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is very close to libertarianism, in that both ideologies prioritize individual freedom and limited government intervention.

However there is a distinct difference with regards to the role of government. Libertarians draw a hard line with the Non Aggression Principle, which holds that no person, or group of persons, or the government should have the power (or authority) to take wealth or property from the citizen. Period.

Classical liberals rationalize the government taking wealth (or property) in the form of Direct taxation (income, and property). They give government a lot of wiggle room with providing social welfare programs, and redistribution of wealth. Libertarians strongly oppose any redistribution of wealth by the government.

So if you don't object to income taxes or property taxes, you could be a classical liberal.

"Classical liberal" is a fancy term for a righty.

 

[VanceMack]

I am a Libertarian. I am also a realist. The positing on the question in the OP is so for removed from reality that its rather ludicrous. Lets start with the basics. Oh...wait...before any supporter of the two major parties thinks it wise to mock Libertarians...just remember...and this is said with love........YOU turned the country into the shit show that it is today...so if ANYONE should sit back and shut the **** up...its you.

Libertarian ideals are some of the most widely believed political ideas in the world. Smaller more responsive government, limited government involvement in personal lives, limited government engagement in personal business ventures, etc. Its a great place to start. However...

The Libertarian party does an absolute shit job of promoting a realistic and working model that people can vote for. Libertarian candidates cant barely get elected in local politics, let alone city and state politics and forget about federal. So even pretending to host an argument on the topic listing is so far fetched its ridiculous. Libertarians should focusing on the ideas that resonate with citizens and push legitimate local candidates first...then state...THEN fed politics. if they actually had a seat at the table they would have to develop a platform that incorporates the understanding that as a party...you are asking for a seat at the table...and have no business trying to tip that table over. If there were actual significant Libertarian political base, then they could put as close and realistic a libertarian feel on policy as possible...with the understanding that we arent building a car...we are tuning it.

No...I don't think businesses should be funded or subsidized...but I do believe that businesses should have more of their own tax dollars. There is a caveat to that. Where business venture promotes the greater good...like for example the development of medical procedures or clean energy where society at large can benefit...than I dont oppose some publicly funded investment...I just think it should be closely monitored and scrutinized.

 

[Lord of Planar]

"Classical liberal" is a fancy term for a righty.

No it isnt. It is a real designation. If you think it is right wing, the you are ready to fall if the left edge. It is a moderate stance.

 

[Ikari]

I am a fan of fair and free. I guess you have no concern about fairness.

Says the guy supporting a system designed to syphon wealth out of the middle class and concentrate it into the top 1%.

lol

 

[Lord of Planar]

Says the guy supporting a system designed to syphon wealth out of the middle class and concentrate it into the top 1%.

lol

That's right. Slander me when you have nothing.

 

[Ikari]

That's right. Slander me when you have nothing.

That's not slander, that's the position you hold. The Oligarchs are all about the concentration of wealth, and you've freely admitted support for the system.

You wanted to come at me talking about fairness, but the got all mad when I pointed out the end-game of your anti-capitalist planning.

Fairness? How far you taking that one. DEI was about fairness, you support that? Unions were about fairness, you support that? Social programs aimed to help the poor is about fairness, you support that? Or was that just some trite platitude you hauled out in this case to defend your call for central-planned markets and anti-capitalist policies?

 

[aociswundumho]

I've heard this hypothetical many times, but, if you'll forgive the pun, it doesn't hold water. Let me explain all the fatal flaws of your argument.

Your argument is a classic example of applying a sterile, theoretical economic model to a complex, chaotic, and deeply human situation where the model's core assumptions do not hold.

Yes, it's a model used to analyze situations like shortages. Calling it “sterile” doesn’t refute it; it just tells me that you don't like what the model reveals.

Reality doesn’t stop being economic just because there's a hurricane. Scarcity still exists, and rationing will still happen - either by price or by state violence. I prefer the former, you prefer the latter.

It prioritizes a theoretical concept of market efficiency while ignoring infrastructure collapse, information imbalances, critical time lags, and the profound ethical and social consequences of denying people access to a substance they need to survive.

In other words, your example assumes there is always an adequate supply of potable containerized water just outside any affected area, ready and able to pounce on a market opportunity to supply water to an area affected by a hurricane.

No it doesn't. You are missing the point of price signals. If water is scarce and prices rise, that incentivizes suppliers to try to overcome barriers. The market response does take time, but it will still be faster than the government. Look at how long it took the idiot government to respond after katrina.

Your argument conflates two functions of the price system that operate on vastly different timelines.

• Rationing (Immediate): High prices do immediately ration the existing, on-the-ground supply. Those who can and are willing to pay the high price get the water.
• Signaling (Delayed):The signal for new supply to enter the market is not instantaneous. A producer hundreds of miles away must learn of the shortage, source trucks, find drivers willing to enter a disaster area, secure fuel, and navigate damaged infrastructure. This can take days.
  The weakness is that people can die of dehydration in the time it takes for the "supply signal" to produce an actual response. The argument celebrates a long-term solution while ignoring a potentially fatal short-term reality.

Price rationing is exactly what you want when demand suddenly exceeds supply. If water’s free, the first guy in line can buy it all. If it’s expensive, he thinks twice. High prices discourage hoarding and panic buying.

The argument implicitly assumes a functioning transportation and communication network. In a major hurricane's aftermath, this is rarely the case.

• Impassable Roads: Roads are flooded, bridges are out, and debris makes travel impossible. A truck full of water might be just 20 miles away but have no physical way to reach the people in need.
• Communication Blackouts: Power outages and damaged cell towers mean sellers can't contact suppliers, and suppliers may not even be aware of the specific, localized demand.
• Fuel Scarcity: The very same scarcity affecting water also affects gasoline, making it difficult or impossible for suppliers to operate their delivery trucks.

The free market model assumes goods can flow to where prices are highest. In a disaster, the "flow" itself is broken, rendering the price signal impotent.

Fema trucks (if they ever come) also depend on roads and fuel. This point supports my side of the argument, because if the infrastructure is down, that's even more reason to let people improvise, trade, and respond locally rather than wait for some idiot bureaucrat to make a decision.

 

[aociswundumho]

Can we agree monopolies are bad?

No, because you don't believe monopolies are bad. You support giving a relatively tiny group of politicians a monopoly on the use of force and violence - the most dangerous and murderous monopoly ever created.

Your argument presents the market as a collection of equal actors. The reality is a power imbalance.

A seller with the only pallet of bottled water in a ten-mile radius is not a simple participant in a competitive market; they are a temporary, hyper-localized monopolist. The buyer is not a rational actor making a calculated choice; they are a desperate person with incomplete information. They don't know if a FEMA truck is an hour away or if this is their only chance to get water for two days. The seller can exploit this information asymmetry and desperation, which goes beyond efficient "rationing" and into the realm of predatory behavior.

I agree that in disasters, temporary monopolies can occur. But outlawing high prices eliminates the incentive to bring in new supply, which prolongs the monopoly. Allowing higher prices draws in competition and supply faster.

Lastly, your argument completely ignores the cascading consequences (negative externalities) of pricing people out of water.

• Public Health Crisis: If a significant portion of the population cannot afford clean water, they will turn to contaminated sources. This can lead to outbreaks of cholera, dysentery, and other waterborne diseases. A public health crisis affects everyone, including those who could afford the expensive water, through the spread of disease and the overwhelming of any functioning medical facilities.

This is about scarcity, not pricing. People get sick and desperate when they don’t get water - not when prices go up. Preventing price increases doesn't make more water appear, it just hides the reality.

High prices are the symptom, not the disease.

• Breakdown of Social Cohesion: When people see their neighbors hoarding a life-essential resource and selling it at astronomical prices, or when they are unable to provide for their families, it erodes trust and can lead to civil unrest, looting, and violence. The long-term cost of rebuilding a community's social fabric is far higher than the supposed short-term benefit of "efficient" price signaling.

Thus, the need for government to step in to prevent people from profiting off human misery. Another example of incentives that are not in line with the interests of preventing unnecessary suffering and more importantly the failure of Libertarian market philosophy.

In other words: "I don’t like the consequences of scarcity, so I blame the system that acknowledges it." But all your beloved price ceilings do is cause shortages and create black markets. The libertarian view isn’t heartless, it’s just honest about the fact that scarce goods have to be allocated somehow. The price system may be imperfect, but it beats the hell out of pretending central planners know better.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That's not slander, that's the position you hold. The Oligarchs are all about the concentration of wealth, and you've freely admitted support for the system.

You wanted to come at me talking about fairness, but the got all mad when I pointed out the end-game of your anti-capitalist planning.

Fairness? How far you taking that one. DEI was about fairness, you support that? Unions were about fairness, you support that? Social programs aimed to help the poor is about fairness, you support that? Or was that just some trite platitude you hauled out in this case to defend your call for central-planned markets and anti-capitalist policies?

Oh please. You accused me. live with it.

 

[Ikari]

Oh please. You accused me. live with it.

You accused me, live with it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But I see you're left with your deflections now and can't deal with arguments any longer.

Enjoy your central planning and oligarchy. But libertarian philosophy is not what you're pushing.

 

[Gardener]

I just didn't delude myself in a closed sphere of radical political conspiracy and propaganda.

You can't even see the inherent anti-free market, anti-immigration BS that is completely against libertarian philosophy, but embraced so heavily by MAGA.

I did not even vote for Trump

 

[Lord of Planar]

You accused me, live with it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But I see you're left with your deflections now and can't deal with arguments any longer.

Enjoy your central planning and oligarchy. But libertarian philosophy is not what you're pushing.

There you go again.

 

[Gardener]

and you wont even answer a simple question.







.

I already did.

You are simply too immersed in propagandist jargon like "dark maga" to notice.

 

[Gardener]

There you go again.

He lives in an extremely simplistic world where you either march in complete authoritarian lockstep with him or you are his opposite.

He supports the entrenched power structure unquestioningly while pointing fingers at others.

 

[Ikari]

He lives in an extremely simplistic world where you either march in complete authoritarian lockstep with him or you are his opposite.

He supports the entrenched power structure unquestioningly while pointing fingers at others.

lol

Such lies.

 

[Ikari]

There you go again.

Just pointing out the reality. You move to support the oligarchy and more of the same, but you have to deflect when presented with facts.

 

[Gardener]

Just pointing out the reality. You move to support the oligarchy and more of the same, but you have to deflect when presented with facts.

Oligarchy, oligarchy, oligarchy....

Instead of repeating a new word you just learned over and over again, have you ever considered learning what in means, instead?

 

[Ikari]

Oligarchy, oligarchy, oligarchy....

Instead of repeating a new word you just learned over and over again, have you ever considered learning what in means, instead?

I know what they mean. Just because all you're left with is ad hom doesn't mean you've made a good argument.

 

[Gardener]

I know what they mean. Just because all you're left with is ad hom doesn't mean you've made a good argument.

If you knew what it meant, you would apply it to Gates, Zuckerberg and the rest of the technocrats wh9 control is all to a far greater degree than Trump.