How libertarianism started, a look back in its history

[DrunkenAsparagus]

So I guess that Frederic Bastiat, Frederich Hayek, Ludiwig von Mises, Lysander Spooner, Henry Hazlitt and Eugen Böhm von Bawerk never existed? As for the point about "modern Libertarianism" being primarily shaped by business interests, the author really doesn't show a great understanding of the subject. Libertarianism supports free trade, eliminating subsidies and tax breaks for businesses, and ending bailouts for big companies. Big business often like regulation, because it usually raises the cost of doing business and increase the barriers to entry. Libertarianism is many things, but "pro-business" isn't really one of them.

 

[Paul Austin]

A priori assumptions. You assume it works that way, it doesn't.

No, read my previous post. I know it works that way, as its been demonstrated as working that way, the erroneous assumption is actually on your part.

(The answer was already in the thread so I cant see how you got that one wrong)

 

[RGacky3]

So I guess that Frederic Bastiat, Frederich Hayek, Ludiwig von Mises, Lysander Spooner, Henry Hazlitt and Eugen Böhm von Bawerk never existed? As for the point about "modern Libertarianism" being primarily shaped by business interests, the author really doesn't show a great understanding of the subject. Libertarianism supports free trade, eliminating subsidies and tax breaks for businesses, and ending bailouts for big companies. Big business often like regulation, because it usually raises the cost of doing business and increase the barriers to entry. Libertarianism is many things, but "pro-business" isn't really one of them.

Big Buisiness prefers free trade especially when the free trade and capital movement is with much smaller and weaker economies, and it can create its own barriers to entry, libertarianism is not against tax breaks. As for regulation ... it depends on the type of libertarianism.

Also if Libertarianism is not "pro-buisiness" all those CEOs and big buisiness people must be stupid for pushing it.

 

[Paul Austin]

Big Buisiness prefers free trade

Trust me, on a purely profit basis, so leaving an individuals personal politics & morality aside, big bussiness would prefer unfree trade, with lots of rules & laws protecting their profits.

Why do you think they spend so much money lobbying government?

libertarianism is not against tax breaks.

Libertarianism is pro a streamlined, minimal government, with minimum costs & taxes for everyone.

Also if Libertarianism is not "pro-buisiness" all those CEOs and big buisiness people must be stupid for pushing it.

Do they push it?

Most CEO's I see making political contributions make them to the Dems & the GOP, who support big government.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Also if Libertarianism is not "pro-buisiness" all those CEOs and big buisiness people must be stupid for pushing it.

What planet do you live on where the libertarians get substantial funding from big business?

If that were true we would actually stand a chance.

 

[RGacky3]

Trust me, on a purely profit basis, so leaving an individuals personal politics & morality aside, big bussiness would prefer unfree trade, with lots of rules & laws protecting their profits.

3 things.
1. No such thing as "free trade" you're always going to have barriers, be it market or government, or property and so on.
2. Big Buisiness PUSHES for a specific type of "free trade" i.e. poorer countries opening up markets and resourses for big buisiness exploitation, they know those smaller economies cannot compete.
3. These laws are generally universal, and thus apply equally for the small buisinessman and the large one, its like more rules in a boxing match end up helping (generally) the smaller boxer, since he has a natural disadvantage than the larger one.

Why do you think they spend so much money lobbying government?

To make sure the government doesn't do anything that hurts their interests ....

Do they push it?

Most CEO's I see making political contributions make them to the Dems & the GOP, who support big government.

Yes they do, the Heratige foundation, Cato institute, buisiness roundtable, Freedomworks, the Chamber of Commerce and so on, all libertarian institutions are all funded by big big buisiness.

political contributions are just ways to make sure the state works for them. Doesn't mean they are not libertarians.

 

[RGacky3]

What planet do you live on where the libertarians get substantial funding from big business?

If that were true we would actually stand a chance.

Not the party, but the policies.

 

[Paul Austin]

3 things.
1. No such thing as "free trade" you're always going to have barriers, be it market or government, or property and so on.

Theoretically there is a concept of free trade

2. Big Buisiness PUSHES for a specific type of "free trade" i.e. poorer countries opening up markets and resourses for big buisiness exploitation, they know those smaller economies cannot compete.

In other words government inteference, so not libertarianism

3. These laws are generally universal, and thus apply equally for the small buisinessman and the large one, its like more rules in a boxing match end up helping (generally) the smaller boxer, since he has a natural disadvantage than the larger one.

Not at all. Thats a silly assumption.

To use your analogy, if one of the rules says "the smaller boxer must have his hands tied behind his back" it hardly favours the smaller guy.

More rules =/= favouring the smaller guy (or the bigger guy)

To make sure the government doesn't do anything that hurts their interests ....

Exactly, they want big government to favour them & to protect them, often with laws, & regulations, but if need be purely with the weight of government.

This apply demonstrates a problem many libertarians have with big government, the fact that its mere existance allows it to be corrupted and used as a tool to surpress everyone, of all classes.

Yes they do, the Heratige foundation, Cato institute, buisiness roundtable, Freedomworks, the Chamber of Commerce and so on, all libertarian institutions are all funded by big big buisiness.

& small individuals alike.

political contributions are just ways to make sure the state works for them.

Which is anti-libertarianism.

 

[RGacky3]

Theoretically there is a concept of free trade.

Sure but in my opinion its a dumb concept, because of the nature of markets, its never "free," its like saying a "free" boxing match, meaning no rules (one guy might bring a knife or whatever), the supposition, is that it being free makes it fair.

In other words government inteference, so not libertarianism

Its stripping down government interference.

If libertarians were REALLY interested about getting rid of state interferance, they would be on the front lines fighting against corporatehood.

Not at all. Thats a silly assumption.

To use your analogy, if one of the rules says "the smaller boxer must have his hands tied behind his back" it hardly favours the smaller guy.

More rules =/= favouring the smaller guy (or the bigger guy)

yeah, except thats not the way rules work, rules are applied universally, obviously some rules can be applied so as to mainly defend the rich, however generally the rich want to get rid of regulations that bother them, you don't see buisiness arguing for MORE regulation.

Exactly, they want big government to favour them & to protect them, often with laws, & regulations, but if need be purely with the weight of government.

This apply demonstrates a problem many libertarians have with big government, the fact that its mere existance allows it to be corrupted and used as a tool to surpress everyone, of all classes.

Dude, if one guy is paying off the reff, the other guy does too, even if neither of them believe in having a reff, its practical.

BTW you get rid of the democratic State, all you'll do is create private states ... Something most libertarians cannot really disagree with since they are against any non market solution.

& small individuals alike.

Not really. Anyway, the point stands, most of the super rich are libertarian or libertarian minded.

Which is anti-libertarianism.

No its not, its practical.

 

[Paul Austin]

Its stripping down government interference.

If libertarians were REALLY interested about getting rid of state interferance, they would be on the front lines fighting against corporatehood.

Define corporatehood (its not a real word)

yeah, except thats not the way rules work, rules are applied universally, obviously some rules can be applied so as to mainly defend the rich, however generally the rich want to get rid of regulations that bother them, you don't see buisiness arguing for MORE regulation.

Actually you do all the time.

I think your confusing selective lobbying with libertarianism, the two are different.

One favours big government, but only with laws & regulations that favour them, the other favours small government.

Dude, if one guy is paying off the reff, the other guy does too, even if neither of them believe in having a reff, its practical.

Isnt it easier to just not have a corrupt ref, rather than one available to the highest bidder?

BTW you get rid of the democratic State, all you'll do is create private states ... Something most libertarians cannot really disagree with since they are against any non market solution.

Which libertarians support the removal of the democratic state?

Im not a libertarian but all the ones that I know want a small democratic state, not to abolish it completely.

Not really.

Yes, really

Anyway, the point stands, most of the super rich are libertarian or libertarian minded.

Except as demonstrated thats not actually true, & indeed as demonstrated many spend vast fortunes on pushing for the direct opposite.

No its not, its practical.

No, it was anti-libertarianism, thus proving you wrong.

 

[RGacky3]

Define corporatehood (its not a real word)

The state chartered entity called the "corporation" ... that gives various benefits to Capitalists.

Actually you do all the time.

I think your confusing selective lobbying with libertarianism, the two are different.

One favours big government, but only with laws & regulations that favour them, the other favours small government.

I'm not confusing them, lobbying is an action, libertarianism is an ideology, of coarse libertarians would prefer not to HAVE to lobby, but they do.

Isnt it easier to just not have a corrupt ref, rather than one available to the highest bidder?

Yes ....

Which libertarians support the removal of the democratic state?

Im not a libertarian but all the ones that I know want a small democratic state, not to abolish it completely.

A lot of libertarians want to minimize the democratic state so that there is NO democracy in the economy, making the state basically useless, and only a tool of the rich.

Since money = power, the more economic power the private capitalists have the more political power they will have.

Except as demonstrated thats not actually true, & indeed as demonstrated many spend vast fortunes on pushing for the direct opposite.

I gave out a list of Organizations, all funded mainly by very wealthy buisinessmen and large corporations, and all which expouse libertarian ideologies.

No, it was anti-libertarianism, thus proving you wrong.

Son of a bitch, lobbying is something you HAVE TO DO NO MATTER WHAT if you're a large corporation, thats like saying socialists are hypocrites because they use money.

 

[Paul Austin]

The state chartered entity called the "corporation" ... that gives various benefits to Capitalists.

In that case then they do oppose it.

I'm not confusing them, lobbying is an action, libertarianism is an ideology, of coarse libertarians would prefer not to HAVE to lobby, but they do.

No, you are confusing it as you are suggesting those lobbying for things in direct contradiction to libertarians are libertarians.

A lot of libertarians want to minimize the democratic state

Minimize isnt abolish.

You stated clearly they wanted to abolish it, thus you were wrong.

so that there is NO democracy in the economy, making the state basically useless, and only a tool of the rich.

How is it a tool of the rich if it doesnt, & cant favour them?

Surely it would be the other way around & a tool when its big & can be used to push laws that favour them?

Since money = power, the more economic power the private capitalists have the more political power they will have.

Only if there is a big government to corrupt...

I gave out a list of Organizations, all funded mainly by very wealthy buisinessmen and large corporations, and all which expouse libertarian ideologies.

Now list the ones supporting other ideologies (including socialism) & tell me who gets most money.

Telling me some groups, who recieve some donations, from some rich people (as well as donations from people who arent rich) doesnt tell me that all, or even a majority, of rich capitalists support libertarianism, or even that they do so to further their bussiness ambitions.

In fact the very real fact that more money goes elsewhere suggests the complete opposite.

 

[RGacky3]

In that case then they do oppose it.

I see libertarians going off on unions, never seen one going off on corporations, or limited liability laws or anything like that .... because they are full of ****, they are basically pro plutocracy and anti democracy.

No, you are confusing it as you are suggesting those lobbying for things in direct contradiction to libertarians are libertarians.

how is that a contradiction? Practical measures to make it in THIS system doesn't mean you support THIS system ... also its kind of pro-libertarian, since its the just the free market.

How is it a tool of the rich if it doesnt, & cant favour them?

Surely it would be the other way around & a tool when its big & can be used to push laws that favour them?

I'm saying it WOULD be more and more a tool of the rich if libertarians have their way.

Only if there is a big government to corrupt...

No, even without a government, the private corporations would just set up entities that function as a state except that these entities would be non democratica and only answerable to the rich .... WHICH THEY ARE ALREADY DOING.

Now list the ones supporting other ideologies (including socialism) & tell me who gets most money.

Telling me some groups, who recieve some donations, from some rich people (as well as donations from people who arent rich) doesnt tell me that all, or even a majority, of rich capitalists support libertarianism, or even that they do so to further their bussiness ambitions.

In fact the very real fact that more money goes elsewhere suggests the complete opposite.

Most corporations that fund democrats or republicans do so for purely practical reasons, not ideological.

The groups that push the ideology get most of their funding from large corporations, I guanratee you the IWW, or the US socialist party has NO billionaire funders, but the heratige foundation certainly does, as does the chamber of commerce.

 

[Paul Austin]

I see libertarians going off on unions, never seen one going off on corporations, or limited liability laws or anything like that .... because they are full of ****, they are basically pro plutocracy and anti democracy.

Scroll back a few pages & you can read about my uncle Jack, a libertarian union rep.

Actually unions began before the socialist movement & early ones were often christian &/or liberal.

As for never going off on big bussiness, yes, they do, if its relevant to their ideology, so Im afraid youre just confused.

To be fair I can see how, as I think many libertarians dont sell their ideology to clearly on this front but none the less that are fully against any state corruption or inteference thst unfairly favours big bussiness.

how is that a contradiction?

Quite simple really, if I was a libertarian, & lobbied for laws to favour big bussiness, then it would be a contradiction & I wouldnt be a libertarian.

I'm saying it WOULD be more and more a tool of the rich if libertarians have their way.

How is removing the power to implement laws favouring rich corporations more of a tool for the rich than maintaininv a system that allows the implementation of laws favouring big corporations?

That defies logic.

No, even without a government, the private corporations would just set up entities that function as a state except that these entities would be non democratica and only answerable to the rich .... WHICH THEY ARE ALREADY DOING.

& has nothing to do with libertarians.

Most corporations that fund democrats or republicans do so for purely practical reasons, not ideological.

Exactly, in practical terms their goals are more achievable under big government, not libertarianism.

I guanratee you the IWW, or the US socialist party has NO billionaire funders

Be fair, they have virtually no funding & with good reason.

You keep focusing on billionaires, but the majority of libertarians are not billionaires, & libertarianism grew from the left, so what about the ordinary libertarian?

 

[RGacky3]

Scroll back a few pages & you can read about my uncle Jack, a libertarian union rep.

Actually unions began before the socialist movement & early ones were often christian &/or liberal.

Early socialists were generally christian and liberal, socialist =/= Marxist.

As for never going off on big bussiness, yes, they do, if its relevant to their ideology, so Im afraid youre just confused.

To be fair I can see how, as I think many libertarians dont sell their ideology to clearly on this front but none the less that are fully against any state corruption or inteference thst unfairly favours big bussiness.

I never see them do it in the media ... they are always generally defending big buisiness, I have NEVER heard a libertarian argue against corporatehood.

Quite simple really, if I was a libertarian, & lobbied for laws to favour big bussiness, then it would be a contradiction & I wouldnt be a libertarian.

You lobby for laws that benefit you're own buisiness, because if you don't your competitor wins, even if you're against the whole lobbying system to begin with, or maybe you just lobby to prevent laws that would hamper your profits.

Its not against the ideology at all, just like someone who thinks the American democratic system is flawed isn't contradicting himself when he votes.

How is removing the power to implement laws favouring rich corporations more of a tool for the rich than maintaininv a system that allows the implementation of laws favouring big corporations?

That defies logic.

Here is how, because without the check of a democratic government, the corporations would just have their own institutions benefiting them the same way the state would ... only without the democratic check.

It doesn't defy logic, the state answers to money yes, but it also answers to the electorate .... if you weaken the stat economically it relies more and more on the money, and other institutions can fill the void that ONLY answer to money.

& has nothing to do with libertarians.

But it's the result of libertarian ideology.

Exactly, in practical terms their goals are more achievable under big government, not libertarianism.

No ... also most buisiness lobbying is done to lower taxes ... not raise them, and to get RID of regulations.

Be fair, they have virtually no funding & with good reason.

You keep focusing on billionaires, but the majority of libertarians are not billionaires, & libertarianism grew from the left, so what about the ordinary libertarian?

European libertarianism grew from the left, i.e. left libertarianism, however the pro-capitalist libertarian grew most certainly from the right, and from the buisiness class, and you'r right, most libertarians are not billionaires, but most billionaires definately have libertarian leanings at least economically.

 

[Paul Austin]

I never see them do it in the media ...

Well thats really not their fault.

I dont think they can demand what the media reports.

But there is a difference between you not seeing something on the tv, & that proving someones political ideology.

You lobby for laws that benefit you're own buisiness

Which is not libertarianism, nor supported by libertarianism.

Thats big government, not small government

It doesn't defy logic, the state answers to money yes, but it also answers to the electorate .... if you weaken the stat economically it relies more and more on the money, and other institutions can fill the void that ONLY answer to money.

You couldnt be more wrong. If you limit government, so it cant be corrupted to pass legislation favouring lobbying groups etc., then youve removed the money & made it even more about the people.

At the moment you can argue its in the interest of some corporations & lobby groups to offer incentives to government, & the size of those incentives marginalizes the voice of the people.

Remove the powers than can be corrupted & all youre left with is the peoples voice.

No ... also most buisiness lobbying is done to lower taxes ... not raise them, and to get RID of regulations.

Sorry, but do you have a clue how many laws & regulations are passed each year?

You're actually arguing the opposite of demonstratable reality.

Now, if you want to argue that competing bussinesses & sectors argue to remove their opponents rules, whilst pushing their own, you might be closer to the mark, but thats part of the problem of big government & what libertarianism is actually against.

European libertarianism grew from the left, i.e. left libertarianism

European and American libertarianism share the same roots, they werent born seperately.

you'r right, most libertarians are not billionaires

Doesnt their very existance defy your argument?

I mean they dont exist to do what you claim motivates libertarians, so are you sure youre not seeing this wrong?

 

[Guy Incognito]

European and American libertarianism share the same roots, they werent born seperately.

No, they have completely separate lineages. European libertarianism comes from anarcho-communism, like Bakunin. American libertarianism is derived from laissez faire liberalism, like Locke.

 

[Paul Austin]

No, they have completely separate lineages. European libertarianism comes from anarcho-communism, like Bakunin. American libertarianism is derived from laissez faire liberalism, like Locke.

Sorry, Locke was European, & predates anarch-communism, so kind of negates your argument.

I was given Locke to read as a child by my British libertarian father.

 

[RGacky3]

Well thats really not their fault.

I dont think they can demand what the media reports.

But there is a difference between you not seeing something on the tv, & that proving someones political ideology.

Or even on political boards like this one .. Self-Proclaimed libertarians, on most subjects will side WITH the company and against the communit/union or whatever, and I never hear them brin up things like corporatehood.

Which is not libertarianism, nor supported by libertarianism.

Thats big government, not small government

You can lobby for smaller government ... but again ... I think we are talking past each other here.

You couldnt be more wrong. If you limit government, so it cant be corrupted to pass legislation favouring lobbying groups etc., then youve removed the money & made it even more about the people.

At the moment you can argue its in the interest of some corporations & lobby groups to offer incentives to government, & the size of those incentives marginalizes the voice of the people.

Remove the powers than can be corrupted & all youre left with is the peoples voice.

No, if you limit government in the economic sphere Capitalists take over, not the people, you limit the institution that is publically accountable and replace it with institutions that are privately accountable, to profits.

Sorry, but do you have a clue how many laws & regulations are passed each year?

You're actually arguing the opposite of demonstratable reality.

Now, if you want to argue that competing bussinesses & sectors argue to remove their opponents rules, whilst pushing their own, you might be closer to the mark, but thats part of the problem of big government & what libertarianism is actually against.

And do you also realize how many regulations are stripped down and exceptions are put in?

Lobbying government is not an ideological thing, Unions do it, corporations do it, private groups do it, everyone does it, even if they don't agree with the system.

European and American libertarianism share the same roots, they werent born seperately.

I disagree European libertarianism has always been at its roots anti-capitalist.

Doesnt their very existance defy your argument?

I mean they dont exist to do what you claim motivates libertarians, so are you sure youre not seeing this wrong?

I don't think so, it comes with the mindset, rich people tend to think of Capitalism as a merit system (thus justifying their wealth) and as such want to leave everything up to capitalism.

 

[Paul Austin]

Or even on political boards like this one .. Self-Proclaimed libertarians, on most subjects will side WITH the company and against the communit/union or whatever, and I never hear them brin up things like corporatehood.

As I said previously I do agree they could improve their "sales pitch" on that one, but just because you dont see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

If you missunderstand something you can point to the fact it wasnt explained properly to you, but the missunderstanding would still be real, & still be yours.

No, if you limit government in the economic sphere Capitalists take over, not the people, you limit the institution that is publically accountable and replace it with institutions that are privately accountable, to profits.

You appear to be arguing two seperate arguments here.

With relation to the single original point, government (& not any imagined private institutes), then, as mentioned before, if they were limited, then they could not be corrupted & all that would be left would be the voice of the people.

Now on the completely seperate issue of any private institutions, that might be set up afterwards, then they would be, as the name suggests, private, have no legal authority & not the publics concern.

If bussiness wants to set up private institutions (or indeed if workers do), then isnt that their right?

They have no legal authority over others so surely thats a matter of free choice?

And do you also realize how many regulations are stripped down and exceptions are put in?

Bingo!

So the total rises, not falls?

Lobbying government is not an ideological thing, Unions do it, corporations do it, private groups do it, everyone does it, even if they don't agree with the system

Yes but you miss the point, they lobby for what they believe in, not what they oppose.

Your argument is akin to me saying unions lobby to restrict unions.

They dont.

Same way libertarians dont lobby to oppose libertarianism (or increase of government).

Therefore those companies lobbying for bigger government are by defenition not libertarians.

I disagree European libertarianism has always been at its roots anti-capitalist.

Actually anti-state, theres a big difference.

Im beginning to see where your confusion lies though, you are equating two seperate things as the same thing.

You see corrupt bussiness as all bussiness, & assume that the support of legitimate trade, with limited restrictions as comperable to the support of all bussiness, including that which benefits from corruption & government inteference.

The two are seperate things.

In reality libertarianism isnt pro or anti big bussiness, it is more concerned with limiting the structure & power of the state (including with regards to the influence of big bussiness).

The attitude of the libertarian, regarding both state & bussiness is let them do as they wish, providing it doesnt impinge upon the freedoms & liberties of others.

Obviously, under big government, the actions of the state affect the lives of people more so there is a greater focus on that (at present) that you seem to associate not with the curtailment of state inteference, but as a support of big companies.

 

[RGacky3]

You appear to be arguing two seperate arguments here.

With relation to the single original point, government (& not any imagined private institutes), then, as mentioned before, if they were limited, then they could not be corrupted & all that would be left would be the voice of the people.

Now on the completely seperate issue of any private institutions, that might be set up afterwards, then they would be, as the name suggests, private, have no legal authority & not the publics concern.

If bussiness wants to set up private institutions (or indeed if workers do), then isnt that their right?

They have no legal authority over others so surely thats a matter of free choice?

Of coarse the private institutions have legal authority, i.e. propertarian authority, economies of scale take over, and you end up having the type of situation you had for exmaple in Bermuda in the 1600s, or the banana republics and so on, where you basically have corporations working as states, controling the economy and thus peoples lives.

The free choice you talk of, in Capitalism is dependant on dollars, so you have to premis with that, I want a society where its not dependant on dollars.

As far as the governemnt you take it out of the economy and you're not left with the voice of the people, you're left with the voice of the capitalists, that is if the market takes over those government functions.

Bingo!

So the total rises, not falls?

I meant exceptiosn to existing regulations.

Yes but you miss the point, they lobby for what they believe in, not what they oppose.

Your argument is akin to me saying unions lobby to restrict unions.

They dont.

Same way libertarians dont lobby to oppose libertarianism (or increase of government).

Therefore those companies lobbying for bigger government are by defenition not libertarians.

... Most companies do not lobby for bigger government, also its not about bigger or smaller government, thats a flawed way of looking at it, what its about is what KIND of government, and with what role.

Actually anti-state, theres a big difference.

Im beginning to see where your confusion lies though, you are equating two seperate things as the same thing.

You see corrupt bussiness as all bussiness, & assume that the support of legitimate trade, with limited restrictions as comperable to the support of all bussiness, including that which benefits from corruption & government inteference.

The two are seperate things.

In reality libertarianism isnt pro or anti big bussiness, it is more concerned with limiting the structure & power of the state (including with regards to the influence of big bussiness).

The attitude of the libertarian, regarding both state & bussiness is let them do as they wish, providing it doesnt impinge upon the freedoms & liberties of others.

Obviously, under big government, the actions of the state affect the lives of people more so there is a greater focus on that (at present) that you seem to associate not with the curtailment of state inteference, but as a support of big companies.

No, anti-state AND anti-capitalist, the seek to do away with the state AND the propertarian rule that creates Capitalism .... This is just hsitorical fact, at least in regards to european libertarianism.

 

[Paul Austin]

Of coarse the private institutions have legal authority, i.e. propertarian authority, economies of scale take over, and you end up having the type of situation you had for exmaple in Bermuda in the 1600s, or the banana republics and so on, where you basically have corporations working as states, controling the economy and thus peoples lives.

You are confusing limited government with an absence of government, the two are very different.

Libertarianism doesnt argue for the complete abolition of all forms of state.

As far as the governemnt you take it out of the economy and you're not left with the voice of the people, you're left with the voice of the capitalists, that is if the market takes over those government functions.

Again you are throwing two seperate things together.

Government would no longer be influenced by bussiness, so would be only the voice of the people.

Thats a full stop right there.

Now when we get to private institutions thats a completely seperate issue.

You keep throwing them together.

As for what private bussiness did, again it has no legal authority, it could not compel you, therefore if you didnt like what a private institute did you could ignore it, & seek alternatives.

Again you seem to be confusing limited government with a complete absence of government.

Yes, if government didnt exist someone would have to invent it, which could be bussiness (which is closer to your bermuda example) but libertarians arent arguing for no government at all.

... Most companies do not lobby for bigger government

Go count the laws & regulations. We've been through this.

, also its not about bigger or smaller government, thats a flawed way of looking at it, what its about is what KIND of government, and with what role.

Yeah, a big role, or a small role.

Big government (heavy on legislation & intervention) & small government (limited legislation relating to more essential issues & intervention only when required).

No, anti-state AND anti-capitalist, the seek to do away with the state AND the propertarian rule that creates Capitalism .... This is just hsitorical fact, at least in regards to european libertarianism.

Maybe in your text book, not in reality (remember I am European and my father was libertarian).

I think youre doing what Guy Incognito did & mistaking things like the rise of anarcho-communism, which does share some lineage with libertarianism, with libertarianism itself.

It was the anarcho-communist splinter that was anti-capitalist, not all libertarians.

Long history short whigs became liberals, liberals fractured into classical liberalism and social liberalism, classical liberalism developed into what people call libertarianism, & some social liberals becams socialist liberals, & merged more into the left & so on to become anarcho-communists, whilst others remained as the sort of social liberals that are represented by people like the modern liberal parties.

Its an over simplification (theres a lot more in & out flow than that) but it paints a general picture.

Btw. I hope every libertarian in the place gives us a billion likes for this exchange considering neither of us are libertarians & we're having the debate for them.

 

[RGacky3]

You are confusing limited government with an absence of government, the two are very different.

Libertarianism doesnt argue for the complete abolition of all forms of state.

Sure ... the examples I gave were not anarchism.

Again you are throwing two seperate things together.

Government would no longer be influenced by bussiness, so would be only the voice of the people.

So if you're arguing for public funding of elections, or banning campain contributions, or money as speech (as oppsed to property) I'm all with you.

Now when we get to private institutions thats a completely seperate issue.

You keep throwing them together.

As for what private bussiness did, again it has no legal authority, it could not compel you, therefore if you didnt like what a private institute did you could ignore it, & seek alternatives.

Again you seem to be confusing limited government with a complete absence of government.

Yes, if government didnt exist someone would have to invent it, which could be bussiness (which is closer to your bermuda example) but libertarians arent arguing for no government at all.

Everyone believes in limited government, just limited to what?

Also governmetns cannot compell you ... just leave the country, the same with private corporations, as private corporations take over the economica activity of governments ... like roads, they start to have the ability to compell people through their property.

Yeah, a big role, or a small role.

Big government (heavy on legislation & intervention) & small government (limited legislation relating to more essential issues & intervention only when required).

Well nobody is for "big government" ... the question is government for what and for whome and how ...

Maybe in your text book, not in reality (remember I am European and my father was libertarian).

I think youre doing what Guy Incognito did & mistaking things like the rise of anarcho-communism, which does share some lineage with libertarianism, with libertarianism itself.

It was the anarcho-communist splinter that was anti-capitalist, not all libertarians.

Long history short whigs became liberals, liberals fractured into classical liberalism and social liberalism, classical liberalism developed into what people call libertarianism, & some social liberals becams socialist liberals, & merged more into the left & so on to become anarcho-communists, whilst others remained as the sort of social liberals that are represented by people like the modern liberal parties.

Its an over simplification (theres a lot more in & out flow than that) but it paints a general picture.

I live in europe, I've never heard libertarianism to be pro-capitalist, and many anarchist organizations call themselves libertarian ... where in europe do you live?

 

[Paul Austin]

So if you're arguing for public funding of elections.

Never, ever, ever, under any circumstances would I ever argue for such an idea because it is possibly one of the worst ideas in history.

You have either got to force people to fund politicians that are totally repugnant to them (come on, seriously, 1930's Germany youd force Jews to fund the nazis?), or you limit political participation & create political stagnation with a closed shop.

It is not only a horrible idea but when you think it through its actually offensive.

I cant imagine anything worse than being forced to fund people who might be campaigning to kill me.

Its also massively open to corruption & allows for the ridiculous scenario of potentially having to fund every single human on the planet, if they all decided to run.

No, politics is about representation.

You put your ideas forward, if people support them they fund them, if they dont they wont.

I could never countenance people forced, under threat of imprisonment to fund those who might oppress them, or who are frivalous lunatics.

Seriously, again, could you really see yourself locking up a Jew in 1930's Germany for not funding Hitler?

Its a repugnant notion with a capital R.

Everyone believes in limited government, just limited to what?

Well thats debatable, but we both know (I hope) that at the moment government is on the wrong side of the line.

This is a more thorny question for a non-libertarian such as myself, because its really a very subjective issue.

Like Ive said a few times Im not a libertarian & if you look to my profile you will see no political affiliation & basically thats because I grew out of isms & ologies.

I did flirt with most, but eventually I came to the conclusion that they are all flawed & could never be truely implemented in their pure state.

I think part of this realization came between 1975 & 1979 when the most socialist incarnation of government thats ever been witnessed in the UK almost destroyed the country in the pursuit of idealism.

That four year period resulted in the labor party being out of power for around 18 years, & their rehabilitation coming only after they had fully expelled virtually all socialists.

Thats how bad that government was, the country took two decades to forgive them, & only then when they had convinced the electorate that they had changed.

Anyway, incidents like that woke me up. The ideal world is different for all of us & there is no one size fits all, so now Im an Austinarian, I believe what I believe & accept I cant force everyone else to agree. The best I can do is navigate the least worst path, that offers the best to most.

Bringing it back to this post, if there was a libertarian regime it wouldnt be 'strict' libertarian & therefore I really couldnt tell you where the line would be for the limits they would aim for.

I would imagine in a single term youd probably just see some small government fiscal conservatism type economic measures, coupled with some cuts to unessential spending & intrusive government, probably a degree of decentralization & the devolution of certain powers to more local authorities such as states or counties & the decriminalization of certain things, like cannabis & other recreational, or social activities.

But its really hard to say given Im not a libertarian politician & that I dont know what the political constraints of the day would be.

Also governmetns cannot compell you ...

Yes it can.

Never heard of jails?

If you dont do what government says it has the authority & power to infringe your human rights.

This is one of the very real dangers of big government.

The worlds prison systems are full of people who didnt hurt anyone, but merely offended the government, or rejected their rules (possibly a majority)

the same with private corporations, as private corporations take over the economica activity of governments ... like roads, they start to have the ability to compell people through their property.

There is a huge fundemental difference.

If I disagree with the designs of a private company I can walk away & find an alternative, if I disagree with the state they can compel me to deal with them, or punish me with the removal of my liberty.

Thats literally a life & death difference.

Well nobody is for "big government" ... the question is government for what and for whome and how ...

You keep saying no ones for big government, but it keeps on growing like a cancer, & right at the top you suggested growing it more by expecting it to force parents to fund pedophiles & Jews to fund nazis (yes, I appreciate you probably didnt have those exact examples in mind, but its what we'd get).

I live in europe, I've never heard libertarianism to be pro-capitalist, and many anarchist organizations call themselves libertarian ...

Yes, right libertarians are few & far between in a lot of Europe (as are anarchists for that matter) & most liberals are just plain old social liberals, so Im not surprised youve not seen many.

where in europe do you live?

Currently in Nottingham, England, but Im a "nomad" from a "nomadic" family. I lived in more countries than I can remember & have family from even more.

It confuses people sometimes as they might read one post about an Indian (sub-continent variety), Sri Lanken, or Thai relative, then read another post about my English ancestors, or being in Munich in 1976, & then another thread talking about me being related to 9 presidents (10 if you include R.H. Lee) & then sitting there scratching their heads trying to figure who, or what I am.

& Ive made it "worse" for my kids by carrying on the "nomadic" tradition, so they have even more complicated stories to tell.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Big Buisiness prefers free trade especially when the free trade and capital movement is with much smaller and weaker economies, and it can create its own barriers to entry,

Some businesses like it, but the biggest defenders of protectionism are incumbent industries who don't want more competition. Protected firms in poorer countries don't like it either.

Libertarianism is not against tax breaks.

Yes, it is. Tax breaks are nothing more than thinly disguised subsidies that favor government supported behavior. Libertarians favor tax cuts, but only if they are applied in an even, non-distortive manner. The point of the tax code is to raise revenue for necessary government functions, not encourage me to buy a bigger house, get married, or build a factory in a certain state.

As for regulation ... it depends on the type of libertarianism.

The topic of the thread seems to be market libertarianism. Let's go with that.

Also if Libertarianism is not "pro-buisiness" all those CEOs and big buisiness people must be stupid for pushing it.

Deregulation helps certain industries and hurts others, but libertarians are generally concerned with freedom and overall prosperity. Certain industries being helped doesn't make libertarianism "pro-business". If a certain industry can survive and do better in a free market, fantastic. If not, that's their problem.