request for evidence that a libertarian policy works

[ReverendHellh0und]

request for evidence that a libertarian policy works

REQUEST DENIED!







:2razz:

 

[Groucho]

I understand the appeal of libertarianism -- it kind of holds that overall, we are good people who would, if left alone, basically do good on our own. It holds that evil people will lose in the long run because we good people will refuse to give them our business or otherwise support them.

In real life, this never happens. Evil people get power, consolidate it, and do everything they can to prevent anyone from taking that power away. Just because there are more of us doesn't mean we will win. The entirety of human existence is one example after another of this, including much of American history.

It's like communism in reverse. The appeal of communism is that we will all contribute the best we can given our skills and then we will all share happily the rewards we do together, like a family, with he individual needs less important than society's needs. That doesn't work either, of course.

Human nature requires us to have something in the middle, which is what we now have.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Name ONE successful modern age libertarian government. (At a NATIONAL level)

Moving goal posts now are we?
Care to defend your mischaracterization using Somalia or are you willing to admit that it was wrong?

Switzerland and Hong Kong certainly conform more to libertarian virtues.
Both happen to be some of the most successful and stable economies of the world.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I understand the appeal of libertarianism -- it kind of holds that overall, we are good people who would, if left alone, basically do good on our own. It holds that evil people will lose in the long run because we good people will refuse to give them our business or otherwise support them.

In real life, this never happens. Evil people get power, consolidate it, and do everything they can to prevent anyone from taking that power away. Just because there are more of us doesn't mean we will win. The entirety of human existence is one example after another of this, including much of American history.

It's like communism in reverse. The appeal of communism is that we will all contribute the best we can given our skills and then we will all share happily the rewards we do together, like a family, with he individual needs less important than society's needs. That doesn't work either, of course.

Human nature requires us to have something in the middle, which is what we now have.

Stopping you right there.
That is not how I view the world at all.

There are good people and bad people, they generally occupy the extremes of the bell curve while normal people are in the middle.

All I want from life is the cause and effect of individual actions to be felt by the individuals so that, maybe, one day we will evolve to be better problem solvers.

 

[rathi]

I'd say the libertarian philosophy towards social issues has proven quite effective, and been adapted quite well by many societies. The general concept of being personally opposed to something yet not using the government to persecute it is a cornerstone to handling diversity.

The biggest problem I find with Libertarian thought is it ignores the fact that there are many threats to liberty beyond the government. Bandits, corporations, neighboring countries ect. will all screw you over even worse and don't let you vote in the process. Get rid of the government that offers protection from such threats, and you find your freedoms are more restricted than before. That said, government can easily cross the line and truly become the worst monster and its not easy to determine exactly where that line is. However, unless you are willing to accept that those other threats exist, its hard to make a rational choice about the matter.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I'd say the libertarian philosophy towards social issues has proven quite effective, and been adapted quite well by many societies. The general concept of being personally opposed to something yet not using the government to persecute it is a cornerstone to handling diversity.

The biggest problem I find with Libertarian thought is it ignores the fact that there are many threats to liberty beyond the government. Bandits, corporations, neighboring countries ect. will all screw you over even worse and don't let you vote in the process. Get rid of the government that offers protection from such threats, and you find your freedoms are more restricted than before. That said, government can easily cross the line and truly become the worst monster and its not easy to determine exactly where that line is. However, unless you are willing to accept that those other threats exist, its hard to make a rational choice about the matter.

Not to be insulting but I think most people don't understand the philosophy at all.

We recognize those threats to liberty.
National defense is fine, so is rescinding corporate person hood and reasonable criminal law is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Orion]

I don't think libertarianism is possible at this point, given how long people have dependented on the current system combined with the current world population. More people seems to inherently facilitate more government; but you could probably also say that without more government, the world's population would not be where it is at today.

I think of environmental factors. If governance would work on the local level then there would be nothing to prevent a township upstream from polluting the water of communities downstream., unless of course the townships went to war over it.

Humans always crave more power. I don't see how people can be expected to be left to their own devices without a) wanting more control and say-so over everyone else and b) wanting to give more control to a higher body to protect them, provide for them, etc.

The closest thing I can think of to libertarianism was the U.S. before the development of strong governance: the "wild west" days with individual townships and a lot of lawlessness.

I like the social side of libertarianism, but economically it's not viable at this point, with so many corporations vying for control over the world market. The last thing we need is to downgrade our regulations, but I do agree that responsible governance is necessary. Maybe it's just not possible once the system gets big enough. Maybe the whole thing needs to come crashing down, and then will revert to localized libertarianism in the end?

 

[The Uncola]

Moving goal posts now are we?
Care to defend your mischaracterization using Somalia or are you willing to admit that it was wrong?

Switzerland and Hong Kong certainly conform more to libertarian virtues.
Both happen to be some of the most successful and stable economies of the world.

FAIL

Switzerland is a Federal Republic.

About 110,000,000 links available at:

Switzerland government - Google Search



Hong Kong's government is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

About 161,000,000 links available at:

Hong Kong government - Google Search



Somalia is what "libertarian government" looks like in the real world instead of on paper.

 

[rathi]

Not to be insulting but I think most people don't understand the philosophy at all.

We recognize those threats to liberty.
National defense is fine, so is rescinding corporate person hood and reasonable criminal law is perfectly acceptable.

My mistake, I failed to properly articulate my position. While libertarians may recognize the other dangers to liberty, I would say that their policies lack the strength to effectively combat them.

In a hypothetical society in which you determined all the laws, exactly how would you change the rules regarding the relationship between government and corporation compared to current America?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

FAIL

Switzerland is a Federal Republic.

About 110,000,000 links available at:

Switzerland government - Google Search

Yea and how does that prove that the policies they adopt are the similar/same as a libertarian would want?

What does it matter that it is a federal republic?

Hong Kong's government is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

About 161,000,000 links available at:

Hong Kong government - Google Search

So?

They have a economic policy of positive non-interventionism.
Which is pretty much the same as libertarians view on how an economy should be managed.

Somalia is what "libertarian government" looks like in the real world instead of on paper.

A former dictatorship, ruined by external and civil war is somehow, that also practices sharia law is an example of a libertarian government?

What are you smoking?

 

[The Uncola]

?

What are you smoking?

Your crappy argument.

 

[Whigfield]

Oh just so the Americans don't get to rob the name libertarianism for all time.

There is a more socially friendly version called left-libertarianism.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

My mistake, I failed to properly articulate my position. While libertarians may recognize the other dangers to liberty, I would say that their policies lack the strength to effectively combat them.

In a hypothetical society in which you determined all the laws, exactly how would you change the rules regarding the relationship between government and corporation compared to current America?

No problem, I'm not trying to be insulting.
Just remember that please.

Corporations are given benefits that the average citizen is not given.
They are allowed to break the law and only pay fines, instead of serving time in jail, in a lot of situations.
Sometimes the fines are worth committing the legal infraction.

Removing the ability for them to be considered persons would be the next step as well as disallowing them to own patents and copyright.

Only individuals (maybe partnerships) should be able to own those and for a smaller period of time than current law allows.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Your crappy argument.

You don't seem to understand what you're talking about.

A libertarian leaning government can be a federal republic, confederation, limited participation republic, monarchy, etc.

It's a system where people are afforded the maximal personal and economic freedoms, with in reasonable bounds.

 

[Whigfield]

I think its a bit intellectually dishonest that libertarians do not try to show the diverse range of libertarian thinking.

Personally, I can think of 5 schools of libertarianism.

All the discussion I have read on this forum is Right Libertarianism. (though I am surprised I have yet to run into any libertarian socialists.

 

[Goobieman]

Can anyone provide evidence that a libertarian economic and social approach to society will yield positive results for reducing the number of poor, social issues, educational, health issues, environmental issues. Also, I am looking for data that will show the effect on income equality.

Why? Why must any of these things be addrssed in order for libertarianism to be a viable/valid/sound ideology?

 

[Goobieman]

...I believe that in order for society to function at an acceptable level for today's technology and expectations, than there are certain minimum standards that must be met. Many times, because of the nature of not working for it, people expect these things to just happen and they do not want to put the necessary work into it. So they can be their own enemies in regards to that. The Federal government than has to be the responsible one and make sure it gets done.

No. It does not. This is an utterly false premise.
Maximum freedom = maximum personal responsibilty. The more personal responsibility the government takes away from people, the less freedom those people ultimately have.

 

[Goobieman]

Why talk in the theoretic about Libertarian societies?

Go spend a few weeks in Somalia and see it up close and personal.

Except that Libertarianism =/= anarchy, so, no.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I think its a bit intellectually dishonest that libertarians do not try to show the diverse range of libertarian thinking.

Personally, I can think of 5 schools of libertarianism.

All the discussion I have read on this forum is Right Libertarianism. (though I am surprised I have yet to run into any libertarian socialists.

There are a couple of those here but I prefer the slight right version because it allows for experimentation.
I think I fall more in line with Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

So I guess I'm a libertarian distributionist.

 

[Whigfield]

There are a couple of those here but I prefer the slight right version because it allows for experimentation.
I think I fall more in line with Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

So I guess I'm a libertarian distributionist.

Yes, its nice to see someone who actually looks at libertarian political philosophy without the strong blind partisan babble that seems to be the standard.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No. It does not. This is an utterly false premise.
Maximum freedom = maximum personal responsibilty. The more personal responsibility the government takes away from people, the less freedom those people ultimately have.

In one sense, yes. In another sense, no. Ultimately a person's freedom is what they can realistically choose from the options that their situation affords them. This may or may not have anything to do with some legal or philosophical definition of the term, such as the word liberty.

My desire is to maximize real freedom for things people deal with every day because that is what actually affects their lives. However, it is complicated by the fact that society is complicated and people can do things that make sense to them but be detrimental to greater things, which in turn can turn around and indirectly make their lives worse. So yeah, sometimes we need an arbitrator.

 

[Goobieman]

In one sense, yes. In another sense, no. Ultimately a person's freedom is what they can realistically choose from the options that their situation affords them.

You're confusing the freedom to do someting with the practical (physical, economic, etc) ability to do that something. Government exists to secure your freedom to do something; it is up to you to provide the ability to do it. If you do not have that ability, then you go without, as no one can be held responsible for your inabilities.

You have the freedom to go to a church of your choosing. If no such church exists near you, the government has no responsibility to create one.

You have the freedom to own and use a gun. If you cannot afford to buy one, the government has no responsibility to provide one.

(et cetera)

 

[Slartibartfast]

You're confusing the freedom to do someting with the practical (physical, economic, etc) ability to do that something. Government exists to secure your freedom to do something; it is up to you to provide the ability to do it. If you do not have that ability, then you go without, as no one can be held responsible for your inabilities.

You have the freedom to go to a church of your choosing. If no such church exists near you, the government has no responsibility to create one.

You have the freedom to own and use a gun. If you cannot afford to buy one, the government has no responsibility to provide one.

(et cetera)

I am not confusing them. I am stating that they are the same thing because they are.

I would have the freedom to go to a church of my choosing IF I have a means to get there. IF the church allows me in. IF nothing else is preventing me. If those things are not in the way, than yes, I have that freedom. It is the same with guns.

An unusable freedom is not a freedom. The simple fact is that different people have different sets of freedoms depending on their individual situation.

 

[Goobieman]

I am not confusing them. I am stating that they are the same thing because they are.

No, they are not.
'Freedom' is the legal and political liberty to do something.
'Ability' is the physical capability to do something.
Thus, they are different, and the former exists independently of the latter. Your attempt to draw a necessary relationship between the two concepts is unsound.

I would have the freedom to go to a church of my choosing IF I have a means to get there. IF the church allows me in. IF nothing else is preventing me.

These are illustrative of a lack of -ability- on your part, not your lack of -freedom- to do them. You still have the -freedom- to do these things, regardless of your -ability- to do them, as the political and legal liberty to do so clearly exists.

An unusable freedom is not a freedom.

Entirely false:
I have -freedom- to own a M134 Minigun, regardless of my -abiliity- to buy one.

I have the -freedom- to own a million acres of property, regardless of my -ability- to buy it.

I have the -freedom- to spend every day of your life outside the White House protesting the government, regardless of my -ability- to do so.

Et cetera.

The government does not exist to provide you the means to exercise your rights. The only way for the government to provide you the -ability- to exercise your -freedoms- is to, as previosuly noted, limit the -freedoms- of others. How do -your- freedoms exceed those of everyone else?

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, they are not.
'Freedom' is the legal and political liberty to do something.
'Ability' is the physical capability to do something.
Thus, they are different, and the former exists independently of the latter. Your attempt to draw a necessary relationship between the two concepts is unsound.


These are illustrative of a lack of -ability- on your part, not your lack of -freedom- to do them. You still have the -freedom- to do these things, regardless of your -ability- to do them, as the political and legal liberty to do so clearly exists.


Entirely false:
I have -freedom- to own a M134 Minigun, regardless of my -abiliity- to buy one.

I have the -freedom- to own a million acres of property, regardless of my -ability- to buy it.

I have the -freedom- to spend every day of your life outside the White House protesting the government, regardless of my -ability- to do so.

Et cetera.

You are referring to political freedom. I am referring to freedom in general of which political freedom is a subset.

The government does not exist to provide you the means to exercise your rights. The only way for the government to provide you the -ability- to exercise your -freedoms- is to, as previosuly noted, limit the -freedoms- of others. How do -your- freedoms exceed those of everyone else?

Because I am talking about actual, real freedom not a legal definition. Besides, you are the one bringing government up, show me where I said that I wanted government to be the equalizer in this thread.

What I wanted to know is if libertarianism would be an equalizer on its own. So far the answer seems to be no. In fact I specifically attempted to construct the initial question in this thread to avoid policy debates that are not productive as I doubt either of us are prepared to change our life goals.

So, please either answer the question I asked or politely butt out.