- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
request for evidence that a libertarian policy works
REQUEST DENIED!
:2razz:
request for evidence that a libertarian policy works
Name ONE successful modern age libertarian government. (At a NATIONAL level)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
?
What are you smoking?
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?
Your crappy argument.
Why? Why must any of these things be addrssed in order for libertarianism to be a viable/valid/sound ideology?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.
No. It does not. This is an utterly false premise....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.
Except that Libertarianism =/= anarchy, so, no.Why talk in the theoretic about Libertarian societies?
Go spend a few weeks in Somalia and see it up close and personal.
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.
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.
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.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)
No, they are not.I am not confusing them. I am stating that they are the same thing because they are.
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.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.
Entirely false:An unusable freedom is not a freedom.
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.
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?