• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A question for the Libertarians

Prior to the FASCISM introduced by Woodrow Wilson and FDR , were there any businesses in the US ?
 
There is a simple explanation to the "no true Libertarian....." argument

We dont live in a Libertarian system. Our country is not founded on nor governed by Libertarian models. We are a nation of 330million+ and 50 independent states plus provinces. For a Libertarian PARTY to engage in the governing process, those are the realities we have to work within. By law, we have to provide for the common defense. By law...we have to promote the general welfare. By practicality we have to maintain public property, roads, schools, etc....even if you dont like that.

SO while the individual may disagree with much...hell...ALL of the governing laws we deal with, as a political entity, those are the parameters we operate in.

I am a Kennedy Democrat. To todays democrats, that makes me a Nazi and a fascist. Clearly I can support the democrat party. I also am not aligned with the GOP. I think they are as culpable for the current state of our government as the democrats. So...I am Libertarian...and I vote...and I take care of myself, my family, and my community. The rest of the world can go to hell. But the 'true' Libertarian alternative to our government foundation is simply impractical Its why the Libertarian platform is not a 'true' Libertarian platform. Because how could it be?
 
Contumacious said:
Prior to the FASCISM introduced by Woodrow Wilson and FDR , were there any businesses in the US ?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, there were businesses in the US prior to the administrations of Wilson and FDR. America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the rise of some of the largest and most powerful industrial enterprises in world history.

However, the question seems to be based on two premises that are worth examining: first, that the administrations of Wilson and FDR introduced "fascism," and second, that the preceding era was a libertarian one whose success refutes my original point.

Both of these premises are historically flawed.

First, while Wilson and FDR dramatically expanded the size and scope of the federal government, particularly its regulatory power, labeling their policies "fascism" is an ideological claim, not a historical one. Mainstream historians reserve that term for the specific ultranationalist, authoritarian, and corporatist regimes of Europe in that era. What happened in the US was a fundamental shift in the nature of government intervention, not the start of it.

This brings us to the second, more important premise. The idea that the Gilded Age was a libertarian paradise of pure, unsubsidized, free-market competition is a myth. In reality, the federal government was an aggressive and essential promotional partner to industry. The intervention was simply different.

Instead of the regulatory state that grew under FDR, the 19th-century US was a developmental and subsidy state. Consider the "novel directions" of that era:

  • The Transcontinental Railroads: This monumental undertaking was not financed by purely private risk. It was enabled by one of the largest government subsidy programs in history, with Congress granting over 175 million acres of public land to railroad companies.
  • Industrialization: American industry was not born from pure competition on a global scale. It was incubated behind massive protective tariffs throughout the 19th century, shielding it from more established British competition.
  • Legal Frameworks: The courts and legislature created legal structures, from contract law to corporate personhood, that favored the consolidation of capital and protected businesses from liability.
This was not a government "leaving businesses alone." It was a government with a clear "social political mandate," to use my own words, for westward expansion and national industrialization. It heavily subsidized the risks for the private companies that followed that mandate.

Furthermore, the result of this era directly supports my other point. The dominant business trend was not endless novel competition, but the formation of massive trusts and monopolies—in oil, steel, sugar, and more. These were the very definition of "complex and convoluted systems" created in a company's self-interest, often designed to crush novel competition, not foster it.
 
You are making an extremely explicit No True Scotsman argument, you just believe it to be accurate so you believe it's not a fallacy. You are trying to be the arbiter of libertarianism.
You think no libertarian believes speed limits should exist? That's the government forcing me to do something against my will, because my will is to drive faster and they are making me slow down.

SkyChief said:
Of course I do. The argument was a perfect example of a straw-man.
Click to expand...
A straw man is attacking an argument nobody made. If I said "Oh so you think the government shouldn't exist? Ha ha libertarians want Mad Max world to exist! That's so dumb!" That would be a straw man, because you never argued that the government shouldn't exist.

But you absolutely have argued that no libertarian believes income taxes are acceptable.
 
Contumacious said:
Prior to the FASCISM introduced by Woodrow Wilson and FDR , were there any businesses in the US ?
Click to expand...
What on earth are you blabbering about?
 
trixare4kids said:
That's so true.
I remember when I decided to be a libertarian for one presidential voting cycle.
Click to expand...

trixare4kids said:
I was told by other libertarians that in order to be one I had to be open minded with illegals crossing our borders.
Click to expand...

Trix, there are huge problems with open borders that libertarians will not address....

remember the videos exposing all the young Chinese men of military age crossing? lots of them, more than even the Mexicans crossing they explained. and well financed.

so who would send the Chinese military men over the border?

what else was coming over the border ?? what terrorist from what Country was coming over the border?


so far they have no answer; some will just deny this is happening. (um it is happening)


trixare4kids said:
Plus, members from both parties condemn you for voting libertarian because you're vote won't count.
Click to expand...

in reality, your vote doesn't count. the Elite love electronic voting as the voting goes precisely how they want it to go.

trixare4kids said:
I was finally convinced voting for one from the major two parties was best.
Click to expand...

there is no 'best' out there. with the current regime, we now have Dark Maga they didn't tell you about. but here we are....

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Dark+Maga+is+technocracy and what answers for this are out there? basically Deep Silence.

enjoy the riots people. https://needtoknow.news/2025/06/who...iot-are-the-riots-staged-what-is-the-endgame/


.
 
Like many of the official party positions...the Libertarian border policy is rooted in feel good ideology and not functional or political reality. There is a reason why the party 'enjoys' such low voter support.
 
I have not kept up with that situation. Anymore, I do not know what to believe on most instances with doing lots of research to get several points of view. This world is so upside down with lying media, it is difficult.
 

Yes, but that's not what you support. Here is our exchange:

aociswundumho said:
What's the specific criteria for which industries should be controlled by the state?
Click to expand...

Econ4every1 said:
1) Any industry that by it's nature creates a natural monopoly, e.g. utilities like water, electricity, gas, and large-scale infrastructure such as railways and telecom networks is what comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Those are your words supporting state control over the water supply. That's the opposite of mutual aid and charity.


The mugger created the situation (your money or your life) by threatening violence. The person with water did not create the water shortage. Owning something and refusing to give it away is nowhere near the same as threatening to harm someone unless they hand over their property.

Coercion means using force or threats to compel behavior. Scarcity isn’t coercion - it’s reality. If I refuse to give you my sandwich, that doesn’t make me a criminal.

If simply possessing something essential in a crisis counts as coercion, then everyone who refuses to share food, medicine, or shelter is a coercer. That’s the kind of moral logic you find in murderous communist regimes - so it’s no surprise you think this way.
 
Deuce said:
What on earth are you blabbering about?
Click to expand...

They both held fascist values. Wilson engaged in mass propaganda, state control of industry during ww1, political repression, and glorification of government. FDR luved Mussolini, and imposed central planning via the NRA, despicable public/private "partnerships" like the tennessee valley authority, cult of personality (fireside chats), lots of nationalism (CCP and the WPA), and ever increasing state control over the individual, from social security to labor laws to banking reforms, FDR drastically increased federal control over economic and personal life, and always in the name of the "common good." FDR also had no problem with rounding up over 100,000 innocent people and putting them in prison camps with zero due process based only on their ancestry.
 
Deuce said:
You are making an extremely explicit No True Scotsman argument, you just believe it to be accurate so you believe it's not a fallacy.
Click to expand...
It is accurate. You don't even know what libertarianism IS.

An object with corners cannot possibly be a sphere. A person who believes that government should have the power to take a citizen's earnings by force cannot possibly be a libertarian.

You mistakenly think that by invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy, you've somehow changed reality. You didn't. The fact is that NO libertarian believes that government should have the power to take a citizen's earnings by force.
Deuce said:
You are trying to be the arbiter of libertarianism.
Click to expand...
False. I'm using the fundamental libertarian principle to define what a libertarian IS and is NOT. My argument is based on FACT and understanding. Your argument is based on ignorance and flawed logic, because you obviously do not even know what the core libertarian principle is.

It would be simple to go on https://lp.org/ and LEARN ABOUT the core libertarian principle, and WHY no libertarian believes that government should never have the power to take a citizen's earnings by force.


Deuce said:
You think no libertarian believes speed limits should exist?
Click to expand...
What a remarkably stupid question. There is no intelligent answer to a stupid question. Libertarian principles have NOTHING to do with traffic laws.
Deuce said:
That's the government forcing me to do something against my will, because my will is to drive faster and they are making me slow down.
Click to expand...
Your level of ignorance and misunderstanding about simple concepts is truly remarkable.
Nobody has a RIGHT to drive on government-made roadways. Driving on public roads is a privilege granted by local government (driver's license).

Earning wages or salary to feed yourself and your family is NOT a privilege. it is a RIGHT. You don't need permission from the government to provide for your family. But still, government takes (a portion of) your earnings - YOUR PROPERTY.

Every libertarian on the planet knows that this is WRONG. Every one of us.
Deuce said:
But you absolutely have argued that no libertarian believes income taxes are acceptable.
Click to expand...
Correct. That's 100% true.
 
SkyChief said:
What a remarkably stupid question. There is no intelligent answer to a stupid question. Libertarian principles have NOTHING to do with traffic laws.
Click to expand...
lmao

Correct. That's 100% true.
Click to expand...
Which makes our arguments not straw man arguments.
 
Deuce said:
lmao
Click to expand...
You mistakenly conflated natural rights with the privilege to drive on public roads. Your question "You think no libertarian believes speed limits should exist?" is really stupid. It's sad that this even needs to be explained.
Deuce said:
Which makes our arguments not straw man arguments.
Click to expand...
Your arguments are stupid, based on a profound lack of knowledge about libertarianism, and the differences between natural rights and government granted privileges.
 
[To maintain context for readers]

Yes, but that's not what you support. Here is our exchange:

aociswundumho said:
What's the specific criteria for which industries should be controlled by the state?
Click to expand...

Econ4every1 said:
1) Any industry that by it's nature creates a natural monopoly, e.g. utilities like water, electricity, gas, and large-scale infrastructure such as railways and telecom networks is what comes to mind.
Click to expand...

And your response:

aociswundumho said:
Those are your words supporting state control over the water supply. That's the opposite of mutual aid and charity.
Click to expand...
I do think the state should control the water supply, specifically when it's delivered as a utility as I stipulated in my response.

aociswundumho said:
That's the opposite of mutual aid and charity.
Click to expand...
Delivering water to a city is beyond the scope of mutual aid or charity and is much different than our last 6-8 exchanges where we discuss water delivery during a crisis like a hurricane.

You really couldn't predict this as my response?

I'll take your other response separately.
 
I find it extremely amusing that there is a group of people who declare that a Federal sales tax would be totally fine and normal but that a Federal income tax is a moral outrage, against the very pillars of their belief system.
 
Deuce said:
I find it extremely amusing that there is a group of people who declare that a Federal sales tax would be totally fine and normal but that a Federal income tax is a moral outrage, against the very pillars of their belief system.
Click to expand...
Because you cannot make the distinction between Direct Taxes, and INdirect Taxes.

Direct Taxes are taken by force (coercion). Indirect taxes can be avoided.

Your amusement is based on ignorance.
 
It seems we've arrived at the moral core of your philosophy, and it rests on a distinction that is as convenient as it is inadequate. Your final escalation to comparing my logic to "murderous communist regimes" is a telling sign of a weak argument; when reason fails, resort to slurs. I will ignore this ad hominem attack and focus on your flawed reasoning.

You argue that because the water seller did not create the hurricane, they cannot be a coercer. This is a clever but ultimately hollow distinction.

You are correct: the mugger creates a threat, while the water seller finds one. But you are making a profound moral error by assuming that only the creator of a threat can act coercively. The core of coercion is not the origin of the duress, but the leveraging of that duress to compel an action.
  • The mugger leverages a threat he created.
  • The predatory seller leverages a threat that nature created.
From the victim's standpoint, the result is identical: they are forced to surrender their property under a threat of grievous harm or death. The choice to hand over your wallet to an armed man is no more "voluntary" than the choice to hand over your life savings to the monopolist who controls the only water that can save your child. A choice is not free when the alternative is misery or suffering.

Your "sandwich" analogy is equally flawed because it deliberately minimizes every relevant factor of the scenario we are discussing:
  1. Scale: You are not talking about your personal sandwich. We are talking about a seller with a commercial quantity of goods—a pallet of water—held specifically for the purpose of sale.
  2. Context: You are not simply "refusing to give away" your property in a normal situation. You are actively choosing to exploit a life-or-death crisis for maximum financial gain.
  3. Power: The power dynamic between two people in an office over a sandwich is trivial. The power a monopolist holds over a community dying of thirst is absolute.
Let's fix your analogy to make it accurate. It's not that you refuse to give me your sandwich. It's that we are trapped in a famine, you have the only truckload of bread, and I am watching my family starve. You then offer me a loaf not for a fair price, but for the deed to my house. According to your logic, this is not coercion because you didn't cause the famine. This is patent nonsense. It is predatory exploitation, plain and simple.

You claim that if this is coercion, then "everyone who refuses to share food, medicine, or shelter is a coercer." This is a gross exaggeration. We are not discussing a private citizen's refusal to give away their personal supplies. We are discussing a commercial actor using a position of absolute, life-or-death monopoly power to extract exorbitant prices. Laws against price gouging in emergencies exist precisely because civilized societies recognize that there is a fundamental difference between engaging in commerce and exploiting human misery.

Ultimately, your argument is a defense of radical indifference disguised as a principle. It is a philosophy that clears a person of all moral responsibility as long as they did not personally cause the crisis they are profiting from. In other words, if you find a man who has slipped and will fall to his death without help, because you didn't cause his situation, it's perfectly ok to exploit him for anything you can. The mugger and the predatory water seller are two sides of the same coin. One is a crime of commission, the other a crime of radical, predatory omission. Both build their profit on the violent desperation of others.
 
Yep.

The basic tenet I follow as a libertarian, is the freedom to do what ever the damn I wish, until I infringe on the rights or security of someone else. I may not be as "true" as some believe a libertarian should be, because I believe we need enough government to keep from Anarchy.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have not kept up with that situation. Anymore, I do not know what to believe on most instances with doing lots of research to get several points of view. This world is so upside down with lying media, it is difficult.
Click to expand...

Never rely on logical fallacies in place of actual research and information gathering:

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These policies are causing job losses on both sides of the border, it's freaking obvious, you don't need media sources, you need eyes and ears. Even Fox News will acknowledge this:


This isn't cute, this isn't funny, this an obvious negative effect for the US, Canada and most of the world.
 
Deuce said:
I find it extremely amusing that there is a group of people who declare that a Federal sales tax would be totally fine and normal but that a Federal income tax is a moral outrage, against the very pillars of their belief system.
Click to expand...
Why?

I myself favor a form of a consumption tax. I have spoken of this believe here for years. In simple form, necessities have no tax. We tax items not considered necessities. It because a very fair system in that the poor, who can only afford necessities pay no tax, and a very small part of their money for the few non-essentials they do buy.
 
SkyChief said:
Because you cannot make the distinction between Direct Taxes, and INdirect Taxes.

Direct Taxes are taken by force (coercion). Indirect taxes can be avoided.

Your amusement is based on ignorance.
Click to expand...
This is amusing at times, other times very tiring that they are incapable of understand simple nuances.
 
SkyChief said:
Nobody has a RIGHT to drive on government-made roadways. Driving on public roads is a privilege granted by local government (driver's license).
Click to expand...
So you accept that a legitimate function of government is the creation of roads? Because despite your protests that you are the only one in this thread that seems to have a grasp on what ideas, beliefs and philosophies constitute true Libertarian ideas, there are plenty of Libertarians who would reject the idea that road creation is a legitimate function of the state. You seem to be perfectly willing to accept that the state can set rules on it's own roads, but I think I could easily create a simple hypothetical where you'd change your mind in which case your back to trying to defend the question that Duce asked you.

SkyChief said:
Direct Taxes are taken by force (coercion). Indirect taxes can be avoided.
Click to expand...
So let me ask. Is coercion only coercion when a an entity/ies takes an action that is perceived as threatening/ harmful that an individual cannot avoid?

If your answer is anything close to a yes, is this a simple binary, or are there degrees, grey areas?


.
 
Econ4every1 said:
So you accept that a legitimate function of government is the creation of roads?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. I said that government grants the privilege to drive on public roads.
I know libertarians who reject the idea that road creation is a legitimate function of the state, but that belief is not requisite to being libertarian.
No, you could not do that. Deuce has very flawed logic, and a profound misunderstanding about the most fundamental core libertarian values.
Econ4every1 said:
So let me ask. Is coercion only coercion when a an entity/ies takes an action that is perceived as threatening/ harmful that an individual cannot avoid?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Coercion happens when one person (or a group of persons/government) promises to harm another person if they don't comply with their demands, or act in a certain way.
Econ4every1 said:
If your answer is anything close to a yes, is this a simple binary, or are there degrees, grey areas?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, no. Either coercion happened, or it didn't. If there exists some threat to inflict harm in some way, (fine, physical or emotional injury, incarceration, etc) then coercion happened.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yep.

The basic tenet I follow as a libertarian, is the freedom to do what ever the damn I wish, until I infringe on the rights or security of someone else.
Click to expand...
And THIS is the most fundamental core axiom of libertarian ideology. AKA the Non Aggression Principle.

"Government should never be able to do anything you can't do. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you can't send the government to steal for you." - Ron Paul
Lord of Planar said:
I may not be as "true" as some believe a libertarian should be, because I believe we need enough government to keep from Anarchy.
Click to expand...
Libertarians can disagree on many things (and we do). But every libertarian in the Milky Way galaxy believes that government should not have the power to force (coerce) citizens to do something against their will.

I pay Income Tax not because I agree to it - I pay because the government promised to hunt me down and punish me if I don't. That is the essence of coercion.
 
Last edited:
SkyChief said:
I didn't say that. I said that government grants the privilege to drive on public roads.
Click to expand...
You seemed to be implying that the privilege to drive on public roads was legitimate, so is it or isn't it?

SkyChief said:
I know libertarians who reject the idea that road creation is a legitimate function of the state, but that belief is not requisite to being libertarian.
Click to expand...
The government seizing monopoly power and control of roadways seems to be core to a subset of Libertarians who see privatization as the only legitimate way to build roads. I can even imagine a conversation with a Libertarian that would claim that anyone who believes that not a libertarian.
SkyChief said:
No, you could not do that. Deuce has very flawed logic, and a profound misunderstanding about the most fundamental core libertarian values.
Click to expand...
So would you said that the government holds the legitimate power to prevent citizens from driving on roads unless they acquire a license, insurance, inspection and registration? Is there any legitimate reason the government would able to deny a citizen the privilege to drive on public roads?

SkyChief said:
In my opinion, no. Either coercion happened, or it didn't. If there exists some threat to inflict harm in some way, (fine, physical or emotional injury, incarceration, etc) then coercion happened.
Click to expand...
So, imagine a situation where a person, though no fault of yours, finds themselves in a life threatening situation and you are the only person around to help.

1) Do you have a moral or ethical duty to help them if there is minimal or no risk to your safety?
2) If you demanded exorbitant payment in return for your help, again, let's imagine zero risk of harm to yourself and little if any incontinence or cost, is that coercion?

SkyChief said:
promises to harm another person if they don't comply with their demands, or act in a certain way.
Click to expand...
Is the "promise" in this context implicit, explicit or both?
SkyChief said:
I know libertarians who reject the idea that road creation is a legitimate function of the state, but that belief is not requisite to being libertarian.
Click to expand...
While I think all Libertarian philosophy is morally, ethically and politically deeply flawed, I'm curious, can you point me to the authoritative source of what ideas a True™ Libertarian holds? Apologies in advanced if you've already posted this in the thread.

Do you deny that there are two recognized schools of thought within libertarianism? The Minarchist and the Anarchist? Are one of those schools of though not Libertarian?
SkyChief said:
But every libertarian in the Milky Way galaxy believes that government should not have the power to force (coerce) citizens to do something against their will.
Click to expand...
  1. The thief has violated your property rights by initiating force (theft).
  2. You want your television back, but the thief refuses to return it. It is now against his will to give you the TV.
  3. According to libertarian principles, a legitimate authority (like a court or police force) has the moral right to use coercion to get your television back from the thief and return it to you.
Is my example wrong? Because it's clearly in conflict with what I quoted as you stated, "that government should not have the power to force (coerce) citizens to do something against their will.".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…