• 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!

request for evidence that a libertarian policy works

You are referring to political freedom. I am referring to freedom in general of which political freedom is a subset.
Your selective defintion of freedom defeats your argument, and the standard built upon it, in and of itself. The freedom to do something doesn't hinge on practical abillity to do that something; your attempt to necessarily link the two moves you away from discussing 'freedom' and towards discussing 'entitlement'.

That you have a freedom in no way means you are entitled to the means necessary to exercise said freedom.

Because I am talking about actual, real freedom not [legal and political freedom].
Please -- in meanngful and supportable terms, compare and contrast those two concepts.

Besides, you are the one bringing government up, show me where I said that I wanted government to be the equalizer in this thread.
If you aren't talking about the tenets of an ideology providing means to generate the 'ability' to exercise freedoms thru the actions of government, then thru what other means did you consider when asking your question?

What I wanted to know is if libertarianism would be an equalizer on its own.
So, please either answer the question I asked or politely butt out.
Yes....and as has been previously noted, your standard is meaningless in judging the validity of Libertarianism as an ideology, as is your question pursuant to same. You might as well be asking if the Smart Car can efficiently haul iron ore from Superior to Cleveland and then argue that it is a useless, ineffective vehicle because it cannot
 
Last edited:
Your selective defintion of freedom defeats your argument, and the standard built upon it, in and of itself. The freedom to do something doesn't hinge on practical abillity to do that something; your attempt to necessarily link the two moves you away from discussing 'freedom' and towards discussing 'entitlement'.

Its not selective. Given that political freedoms are a subset of the term, which includes political freedom, economic freedom, freedom to move my leg, or any lack of restriction, I am simply applying the term as it is. In this thread, I have no intention of discussing entitlements but wanted to know if libertarianism would negate the need.

That you have a freedom in no way means you are entitled to the means necessary to exercise said freedom.

Yes, yes you keep posting that and you are certainly entitled to your opinion as am I.

Please -- in meanngful and supportable terms, compare and contrast those two concepts.

Look at my first response in this post.

If you aren't talking about the tenets of an ideology providing means to generate the 'ability' to exercise freedoms thru the actions of government, then thru what other means did you consider when asking your question?

My initial curiosity was if there was another mechanism to achieve freedom rather than through government intervention. In other words if society was able to take care of itself on its own.

Yes....and as has been previously noted, your standard is meaningless in judging the validity of Libertarianism as an ideology, as is your question pursuant to same. You might as well be arging that the Smart Car is a useless, ineffective vehicle because it cannot efficiently haul iron ore from Superior to Cleveland.

Yet Harry has responded with some rather useful literature that supports the idea that libertarian policy can result a more free society. So there may be some merit in the philosophy. Also, I never posted that the philosophy was useless, however, I have posted that I have concerns.
 
Last edited:
Yet Harry has responded with some rather useful literature that supports the idea that libertarian policy can result a more free society. So there may be some merit in the philosophy. Also, I never posted that the philosophy was useless, however, I have posted that I have concerns.
None of this changes the fact that your question isn't valid as your standard related to said question isn't sound. Ss such, there's no reason to address the question; my entire purpose of responding was to point this out.

You have since demonstrated a willful, determined refusal to understand that, and as such, there's no sense in carrying this any further.
 
None of this changes the fact that your question isn't valid as your standard related to said question isn't sound. Ss such, there's no reason to address the question; my entire purpose of responding was to point this out.

You have since demonstrated a willful, determined refusal to understand that, and as such, there's no sense in carrying this any further.

I disagree. It is a perfectly valid question as I wanted to know what the benefits of a particular philosophy are, or even if they exist. If a given philosophy does not have a benefit that I seek, than I will abandon it or not consider it. But it is always worth it to seek more knowledge.

I think your ultimate mistake in your rebuttal was to assume I already knew the answer when in fact I did not. You have a habit of reading things into posts that are not actually there, as is demonstrated by your insistence that I was trying to advocate for government intervention when I have reviewed my posts in this thread and I do not see where that happened. This is also demonstrated again by your assumption that I already knew the answer. You would do better to debate what is in front of you.

Ultimately all you have accomplished is a loss of respect from me for you and your lack of intellectual honesty.
 
Last edited:
I despise the term left-libertarianism. That is just a red herring term that socialists give to themselves. It also pisses me off because of one thing I have said for years and firmly believe: All socialism is authoritarian. People who fancy themselves socialists absolutely reject it, and thus try to paint themselves the "left-libertarian" type, which is a joke.

Pure libertarianism ultimately defines itself as reasonably far right on the economic scale. Acting as an invisible hand for business and economics with no or minimal public sector control is de facto right-fringe thinking, while only allowing for minimal interference (SEC, anti-trust, and a little extra discretionary red tape).

Left-libertarianism is just Robin Hood-ism.
 
I disagree.
Of course you do.

It is a perfectly valid question as I wanted to know what the benefits of a particular philosophy are, or even if they exist.
Yes. As judged by an invalid set of determiners.
Thus, an invalid question.

If a given philosophy does not have a benefit that I seek, than I will abandon it or not consider it.
And when the 'benifit' you seek isnt applicable, either wholesale or in particular, your discarding of it on those grounds isnt sound.

I think your ultimate mistake in your rebuttal was to assume I already knew the answer when in fact I did not
.
Not at all. The purpose of my response was to address the nature of the question you asked and the standard by which you were judging the ideology.

You have a habit of reading things into posts that are not actually there...
And you, of not paying attention.

Ultimately all -you- have accomplished is a loss of respect from me for you and your lack of intellectual honesty.
 
Of course you do.

Yes. As judged by an invalid set of determiners.
Thus, an invalid question.

And when the 'benifit' you seek isnt applicable, either wholesale or in particular, your discarding of it on those grounds isnt sound.
.
Not at all. The purpose of my response was to address the nature of the question you asked and the standard by which you were judging the ideology.

Completely wrong. I have now twice stated the reason why my line of inquiry was perfectly valid and you have done nothing to refute it, except substitute your own incomplete definition of freedom. You started your refute by stating that maximum freedom = maximum responsibility and when pointed out that all you were referring to was political freedom and not the full application of the word. You confused that with ability, which I will admit is related, it was not what I was referring to, which, again, I showed you over multiple posts.

Than you went off on a tangent about entitlement, which is something I never once mentioned in this thread, I am pointing this out yet again.

You glossed over my argument and stated my argument was invalid because I did not use terms as you wish. So be it, but don't pretend that makes me intellectually dishonest. However, it completely ties into my initial question as I was curious about any societal benefits of such a policy. Societal benefits = people doing more stuff = more freedom. It is pretty simple and it amazes me that you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend it.
 
Last edited:
Why talk in the theoretic about Libertarian societies?

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

that's a rather stupid analogy

that is like saying "the killing fields" was a typical socialist paradise
 
Completely wrong. I have now twice stated the reason why my line of inquiry was perfectly valid...
And I have thrice stated why it isn't. It is pretty simple and it amazes me that you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend it

You want to judge the validity of an ideology by a standard - what you want an ideology to be able to do - without showing that said stabdard is sound.
 
And I have thrice stated why it isn't. It is pretty simple and it amazes me that you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend it

You want to judge the validity of an ideology by a standard - what you want an ideology to be able to do - without showing that said stabdard is sound.

I don't have to show that the standard is sound. Soundness is an individual judgment not something objective.
 
I don't have to show that the standard is sound.
You do if you if want your determination to sway someone who doesn't agree with your subjectivity.

Soundness is an individual judgment not something objective.
:rofl
I see you don't enderstand what5 'sound' means. I apologize for overestimating you.
 
You do if you if want your determination to sway someone who doesn't agree with your subjectivity.

:rofl
I see you don't enderstand what5 'sound' means. I apologize for overestimating you.

All values are subjective as is soundness. We all want different things in life.
 
All values are subjective as is soundness. We all want different things in life.
As I said - I see you don't enderstand what5 'sound' means.
I again apologize for overestimating you.
 
As I said - I see you don't enderstand what5 'sound' means.
I again apologize for overestimating you.

Than it shouldn't be hard for you to make the kill shot by giving me the definition.
 
Than it shouldn't be hard for you to make the kill shot by giving me the definition.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.
"Actually true" is not, contrary to your claim, ever subjective.

Agaion, my apologies.
 
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.
"Actually true" is not, contrary to your claim, ever subjective.

Agaion, my apologies.

The problem is that you think that natural rights are true. Interesting. Hate to tell you, but they are as subjective as any other moral code.

You are falsely applying the concept here.
 
The problem is that you think that natural rights are true. Interesting. Hate to tell you, but they are as subjective as any other moral code.

You are falsely applying the concept here.

how can a definition be "true"

what is subject to a test for veracity is applying an accepted definition to something.

calling welfare a "right" is not true using the accepted definition of right, HOwever, if your definition of a right is actually what I call an entitlement then it calling welfare a right might be a "true" statement to you
 
how can a definition be "true"

what is subject to a test for veracity is applying an accepted definition to something.

calling welfare a "right" is not true using the accepted definition of right, HOwever, if your definition of a right is actually what I call an entitlement then it calling welfare a right might be a "true" statement to you

Why in the world do you guys keep bring up welfare? That had nothing to do with my initial question.

But yeah, perception is what makes these things subjective. I agree with that.
 
Why in the world do you guys keep bring up welfare? That had nothing to do with my initial question.

But yeah, perception is what makes these things subjective. I agree with that.

only because welfare is one of those things some call rights and others deny that claim
 
only because welfare is one of those things some call rights and others deny that claim

Some, but it was never mentioned in this thread. Its kind of annoying when people put words in my mouth.

Anyway, the initial question was:

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.

I guess another way of asking is "would a libertarian society become a dystopia or would these things be roughly equal or better than we have it today?"

Now obviously, I am responding to indicators such as general poverty level and other forms of "social good" as that is what I care about. Others want liberty and to hell with the practicality of it, which is fine for them. I think the two need to be in balance personally as we have seen that communism does not work however it failing does not negate the needs it was attempting to address. However, it occurs to me that our current model of government may not necessarily be the best and it might be good to import ideas from other models as they prove effective. Ultimately that was the nature of my question. Is there something in this model that we can use to make society better (socially, not in terms of liberty, even though increasing liberty is also a social good, I dispute the idea of it being the only social good).
 
Last edited:
The USA for the first hundred- one hundred twenty so years was close and it worked pretty well
 
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.

I like the idea of libertarianism, but I would like to know if such an approach actually makes society better (per the above indicators).

I am willing to look at this with an open mind too.

And before anyone posts one. Appeals to the libertarian notion of liberty will not sway me. Neither will libertarian notions of morality (you are not my responsibility, etc)

First off, it depends on what you mean when you say libertarianism. There are different schools and degrees within libertarianism, just as there are in any political philosophy.

But a few of things you listed are things libertarianism simply will not do. Libertarianism will not reduce the number of poor people. Or at least that is not at all the goal or purpose of a libertarian society. Libertarianism accepts that people are have varying levels of ability and work ethic. Those lacking in one or both are likely to fall to the bottom of the pile. Ideally, libertarianism is a meritocracy. You rise as high (economically speaking) as your labors can take you. Libertarianism doesn't see a problem with income inequality. A brilliant, driven individual who produces a useful product SHOULD make significantly more money than the simpleton next door who puts in the minimal amount of effort to get by with little to no creativity or thought towards improving things. The first individual's labor is worth much more, thus his income should be worth much more. Libertarianism strives for equal opportunity, not equal results.

Now pure, hardcore libertarianism (aka minarchism) doesn't recongize that in today's world, certain basic tools are needed to provide equal opporunity for all. Their objection to public funding of education would be a huge example.

Furthermore, they have an almost religious like faith in the free market to heal all wounds and make everything right. They fail to recognize that the market can fail (think of the disaster privatized roads would be) and if left unprotected, unscrupulous individuals acting out of self interest (the driving engine of capitalism) will seek to eliminate competition and create monopolies or collusion based partnerships so they can increase their own profits without contributing any extra value to society.

Furthermore, certain products have externality costs that are not accounted for in the price the market sets. Pollution is a classic example of an externality cost.

Libertarianism is based on the idea that in a "natural state" man has total freedom. Without a government of any kind, I'm free to do anything I please. However, my neighbors are equally free to do whatever they please and they may chose to steal my property, commit violence against me, or even murder me. So we collectively invest a small portion of our individual soverignty in government so that it will guarantee our remaining freedoms. I give up the right to steal and murder, but I'm assured that I won't suffer that fate at the hands of another. With that security and my remaining freedom, I'm able to maximize my efforts as I see fit.

Moderate libertarianism recognizes that there are a few other legitimate roles of government beyond just ensuring our freedoms - protecting the free market from corruption, addressing market failures and externality costs, and equipping citizens with the basic necessities to compete (I'm thinking an education here, not a guaranteeing a minimum standard of living for able bodied individuals who could otherwise earn it).
 
The USA for the first hundred- one hundred twenty so years was close and it worked pretty well

Pretty well yes. However, the trend I am seeing when I consider that information is that as population and technology has increased, libertarianism has decreased.

Ultimately, I think the changing of preferred mainstream political philosophies is the result of increasing urbanization. Libertarianism and being independent makes a lot of sense in a low technology and rural society as you have few resources. However, as resources (such as technology) increase and population density grows, the need to create and maintain a social order increases with it.

If you will notice, a lot of our political disputes are urban vs rural as much as they are from different cultures and outlooks. Different people in different situations will have different basic needs and this affects their ideology.
 
The problem is that you think that natural rights are true. Interesting. Hate to tell you, but they are as subjective as any other moral code.
You are falsely applying the concept here.
No... the problem is that you have not shown that the standard by which you want to judge the efficacy of Libertarisnisn to be sound; until you do, your question, based on that standard, is thus meaningless.
 
In that case, goobie, you have failed to understand the entire thread. As it stands noone else has had a problem responding except you. That is far more telling about you than it is about the initial question in the thread. :shrug:

So ultimately I am not too worried about it.

Have fun keep trying to trash it though. I hope it brings you some amusement.
 
Back
Top Bottom