Is Libertarianism a Pragmatic Ideology?

[Amadeus]

Disclaimer: Please excuse my ignorance if I get any aspect of Libertarian ideology incorrect.

My understanding is that Libertarians are largely anti-regulation, even if those regulations work and produce effective results for society. If something bad happens (e.g. economic or environmental cataclysm) as a result of lax regulations, it's better to let it happen than impose the tyranny of government and 'prevent people from making decisions for themselves'.

So my question is two-fold: Do Libertarians think like this? And secondly (and optionally)... why?

 

[Thrilla]

there is really no such thing as a pragmatic political ideology..... individuals are, however, pragmatic ( or not, depending on how they choose to act on issues issues)

folks whom are wholly invested in the "Scripture" of their ideology are , i believe, more prone to be less pragmatic...it's called "toeing the party line", in real terms... or being an ideologue.

lots of Libertarians are pragmatic.... their ideology will guide their approach to an issue, but it doesn't guide whether they take into consideration things such as future ramification, mitigating facts, etc.... the character of the individual will guide those .

as i see, ideology dictates perspective, but character dictates action.

that said, I wish people would understand that a temporary benefit is not a good excuse to abandon dearly held principles.
for instance, tolerating tyranny in order to temporarily benefit..... the future ramifications of tolerating tyranny are far too important to ignore.

in addition, it's not that Libertarians are "anti-regulation"... that's much too broad a descriptor....Libertarian are against regulations that arbitrarily or unjustly violate certain principles..... they are just like everyone else ( except for the most extreme of authoritarians) in this regard.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Disclaimer: Please excuse my ignorance if I get any aspect of Libertarian ideology incorrect.

My understanding is that Libertarians are largely anti-regulation, even if those regulations work and produce effective results for society. If something bad happens (e.g. economic or environmental cataclysm) as a result of lax regulations, it's better to let it happen than impose the tyranny of government and 'prevent people from making decisions for themselves'.

So my question is two-fold: Do Libertarians think like this? And secondly (and optionally)... why?

Does nothing economically or environmentally bad happen even with our current strict regulations? The Libertarian answer is to hold folks accountable if, and only if, they actually inflict economic or environmental harm upon others, not to attempt to play nanny to prevent any possibility of those bad actions before hand.

 

[Amadeus]

there is really no such thing as a pragmatic political ideology..... individuals are, however, pragmatic ( or not, depending on how they choose to act on issues issues)

folks whom are wholly invested in the "Scripture" of their ideology are , i believe, more prone to be less pragmatic...it's called "toeing the party line", in real terms... or being an ideologue.

lots of Libertarians are pragmatic.... their ideology will guide their approach to an issue, but it doesn't guide whether they take into consideration things such as future ramification, mitigating facts, etc.... the character of the individual will guide those .

as i see, ideology dictates perspective, but character dictates action.

that said, I wish people would understand that a temporary benefit is not a good excuse to abandon dearly held principles.
for instance, tolerating tyranny in order to temporarily benefit..... the future ramifications of tolerating tyranny are far too important to ignore.

in addition, it's not that Libertarians are "anti-regulation"... that's much too broad a descriptor....Libertarian are against regulations that arbitrarily or unjustly violate certain principles..... they are just like everyone else ( except for the most extreme of authoritarians) in this regard.

Interesting perspective. Maybe Libertarianism has been given a bad name in recent years, due to the rapid conservative switch from Neoconservatism. My dealing have mostly been with very anti-regulation, eat-or-be-eaten Libertarians.

 

[Amadeus]

Does nothing economically or environmentally bad happen even with our current strict regulations?

9 times out of 10, regulations fail because they are lax. And regulation isn't a guarantee, it's a mitigator.

 

[Henrin]

The regulations in which you speak of essentially violate human rights due to acting on people when the individual/s in question did nothing wrong. Well, other than not doing what the government wants, which doesn't mean much.

I also don't much care for the government mandating business do their solution to solve a problem instead of leaving it up to the businesses.

 

[Amadeus]

The regulations in which you speak of essentially violate human rights due to acting on people when the individual/s in question did nothing wrong.

Which regulations am I speaking of? I didn't specify any.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Interesting perspective. Maybe Libertarianism has been given a bad name in recent years, due to the rapid conservative switch from Neoconservatism. My dealing have mostly been with very anti-regulation, eat-or-be-eaten Libertarians.

I doubt it. I think it has more to do with the likes of the Koch Brothers funding and/or running libertarian think tanks, PACs and modeling legislation and have practically taken over the ideology behind the term but have little to do with libertarianism. In reality their ideology is best described as a Plucracy rather than anything truly Libertarian. Sadly, the name surely has been sullied.

 

[votemout]

Lets take a look at the trucking industry. This industry is heavily regulated and for the most part i agree with about all of the regulations. Even though its has added additional costs to the consumer. Well enter NAFTA and Mexico, the mexican trucking industry is NOT as regulated as the American and Canadian industry is.
The Mexican trucking companies enter America first thing their trucks fail inspection they are not considered safe for the roads. Then they have no hours of service regulations meaning they can run like that Walmart trucking was running with out getting sleep. Mexico is unwilling to adopt out regulations and they are for the most part unsafe for the roads.

But they are suing the US for violation of the NAFTA agreement. So now those regulations will work AGAINST the american trucking industry. thing the roads are dangerous now? Just wait until the mexican UNREGULATED drivers are running our roads accidents will skyrocket.
Good luck

 

[Amadeus]

Lets take a look at the trucking industry. This industry is heavily regulated and for the most part i agree with about all of the regulations. Even though its has added additional costs to the consumer. Well enter NAFTA and Mexico, the mexican trucking industry is NOT as regulated as the American and Canadian industry is.
The Mexican trucking companies enter America first thing their trucks fail inspection they are not considered safe for the roads. Then they have no hours of service regulations meaning they can run like that Walmart trucking was running with out getting sleep. Mexico is unwilling to adopt out regulations and they are for the most part unsafe for the roads.

But they are suing the US for violation of the NAFTA agreement. So now those regulations will work AGAINST the american trucking industry. thing the roads are dangerous now? Just wait until the mexican UNREGULATED drivers are running our roads accidents will skyrocket.
Good luck

Is this example for or against regulation?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Disclaimer: Please excuse my ignorance if I get any aspect of Libertarian ideology incorrect.

My understanding is that Libertarians are largely anti-regulation, even if those regulations work and produce effective results for society. If something bad happens (e.g. economic or environmental cataclysm) as a result of lax regulations, it's better to let it happen than impose the tyranny of government and 'prevent people from making decisions for themselves'.

So my question is two-fold: Do Libertarians think like this? And secondly (and optionally)... why?

It would depend on if an action is violating the non-aggression principle. For example, poisoning my water with your industrial waste is a violation of my property rights. Intentionally poisoning people, no matter how indirectly, is to me an act of force that warrants a reaction. If you want to call being stopped from polluting or littering on my property or publicly owned land a "regulation" then fine.

 

[votemout]

Is this example for or against regulation?

The truth, did you read it? regulation is good to a point but can be detrimental just the same.

 

[Amadeus]

It would depend on if an action is violating the non-aggression principle. For example, poisoning my water with your industrial waste is a violation of my property rights. Intentionally poisoning people, no matter how indirectly, is to me an act of force that warrants a reaction. If you want to call being stopped from polluting or littering on my property or publicly owned land a "regulation" then fine.

What if the act is not aggressive, but is instead a matter of practices that are economically beneficial to a particular company?

 

[Amadeus]

The truth, did you read it? regulation is good to a point but can be detrimental just the same.

Sorry, I thought you are arguing for more regulation, since it is a lack of regulation that allows the problem.

 

[votemout]

Sorry, I thought you are arguing for more regulation, since it is a lack of regulation that allows the problem.

No the regulations are here in america but the mexican .gov, does not think they need to follow our regulations. They dont think they need to weigh their loads, they dont think they need to make their drivers stop after driving 11 hours. They dont think they need to have their equipment problem free. They dont think they need to drug test their truckers OR have physicals done yearly!

But alas they are building ports in mexico because the corporations would make more in profits by unloading in the mexican ports. why? Because they are not regulated NO OSHA rules among others.

So while regulations YES make complete sense and are needed to a point. They can do the exact opposite once people figure out how to legally get around them.

But once you see more and more mexican trucks on the road LOOK OUT FOR YOUR SAFETY that guy could be up for 20+ hours and snorting all kinds of dangerous sleep inhibiting drugs. But if they get onto an accident you wont know it because they wont be required to drug test like we are as truckers.

ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you see my point amadeus?

 

[Amadeus]

No the regulations are here in america but the mexican .gov, does not think they need to follow our regulations. They dont think they need to weigh their loads, they dont think they need to make their drivers stop after driving 11 hours. They dont think they need to have their equipment problem free. They dont think they need to drug test their truckers OR have physicals done yearly!

But alas they are building ports in mexico because the corporations would make more in profits by unloading in the mexican ports. why? Because they are not regulated NO OSHA rules among others.

So while regulations YES make complete sense and are needed to a point. They can do the exact opposite once people figure out how to legally get around them.

But once you see more and more mexican trucks on the road LOOK OUT FOR YOUR SAFETY that guy could be up for 20+ hours and snorting all kinds of dangerous sleep inhibiting drugs. But if they get onto an accident you wont know it because they wont be required to drug test like we are as truckers.

ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you see my point amadeus?

Not really. I don't see how regulation actually contributes to this problem.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Lets take a look at the trucking industry. This industry is heavily regulated and for the most part i agree with about all of the regulations. Even though its has added additional costs to the consumer. Well enter NAFTA and Mexico, the mexican trucking industry is NOT as regulated as the American and Canadian industry is.
The Mexican trucking companies enter America first thing their trucks fail inspection they are not considered safe for the roads. Then they have no hours of service regulations meaning they can run like that Walmart trucking was running with out getting sleep. Mexico is unwilling to adopt out regulations and they are for the most part unsafe for the roads.

But they are suing the US for violation of the NAFTA agreement. So now those regulations will work AGAINST the american trucking industry. thing the roads are dangerous now? Just wait until the mexican UNREGULATED drivers are running our roads accidents will skyrocket.
Good luck

Stopping unregulated and unsafe Mexican trucks from crossing the border is a perfect example of a government action that is in accord with libertarian philosophy. Such trucks are unfair competition for our own truckers, and pose a threat to any of us using the same highways. The purpose of government, as outlined in t he Declaration of Independence, is to protect our liberties. Having dangerous trucks on the highway interferes with our right to life and liberty, and so it is appropriate that government get them off of the road.

Libertarianism is akin to conservatism, but without the contradictory and counterproductive "social" conservative, i.e., authoritarian, issues such as abortion, marriage rights, and the war on drugs. If a law helps to preserve liberty, then it is a good law. If it infringes on liberty, it is a bad law.

 

[votemout]

Not really. I don't see how regulation actually contributes to this problem.

OMG never mind

 

[votemout]

Stopping unregulated and unsafe Mexican trucks from crossing the border is a perfect example of a government action that is in accord with libertarian philosophy. Such trucks are unfair competition for our own truckers, and pose a threat to any of us using the same highways. The purpose of government, as outlined in t he Declaration of Independence, is to protect our liberties. Having dangerous trucks on the highway interferes with our right to life and liberty, and so it is appropriate that government get them off of the road.

Libertarianism is akin to conservatism, but without the contradictory and counterproductive "social" conservative, i.e., authoritarian, issues such as abortion, marriage rights, and the war on drugs. If a law helps to preserve liberty, then it is a good law. If it infringes on liberty, it is a bad law.

Right i agree BUT the problem is they are now suing the US to allow their trucks on our roads with out those regulations we the American truckers have to obey.
stating it breaks the NAFTA agreements. ENJOY you soon to be VERY DANGEROUS roads

 

[StringBean]

9 times out of 10, regulations fail because they are lax.

And this is where you lost your way.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Right i agree BUT the problem is they are now suing the US to allow their trucks on our roads with out those regulations we the American truckers have to obey.
stating it breaks the NAFTA agreements. ENJOY you soon to be VERY DANGEROUS roads

Let them sue. It's time for our government, the one that is supposed to protect our liberties, to stand up and tell them to (bleep!) off.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Right i agree BUT the problem is they are now suing the US to allow their trucks on our roads with out those regulations we the American truckers have to obey.
stating it breaks the NAFTA agreements. ENJOY you soon to be VERY DANGEROUS roads

That's because NAFTA was mostly written in favor of corporations not the safety of people.

 

[votemout]

That's because NAFTA was mostly written in favor of corporations not the safety of people.

Yes i know gotta love how the repukes started it and the democraps finished it huh? That one party system working of by and for the corporations.

 

[votemout]

Let them sue. It's time for our government, the one that is supposed to protect our liberties, to stand up and tell them to (bleep!) off.

Yea yea problem is we will fold.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Yes i know gotta love how the repukes started it and the democraps finished it huh? That one party system working of by and for the corporations.

Pretty much.