• 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!

Why Should Liberals Like Libertarian Ideas?

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
liberals and libertarians can see eye to eye on quite a few things, or at least reach the same value judgement.... but at the end of the day, they can't come together.

it's really a matter of left authoritarianism vs libertarianism... the 2 aren't reconcilable to any great degree..... and really, contemporary liberals aren't about to lose their authoritarian stripes anytime soon.
they learned long ago that government force is the best way to control peoples lives, and they're not about to give that up for anything.
 

Cyrylek

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,467
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Boston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
All I hear from most libertarians and conservatives is calls for less regulation and more power for business interests, not for better processes and smarter regulation.

That's all you hear, but not necessarily all they are saying.

No offense, I also have hard time accepting that, now and again, "liberals" and conservatives have good ideas.

The poster named after the head of a Californian thug claims outright (and perhaps even believes) that all libertarians are simply liars with ulterior motives.

Comparing to such "position", I trust we are doing okay, both of us.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Can you cite an example where the Declaration was successfully used to enact policy or avoid prosecution in a way that was upheld by the courts? In other words, when has the Declaration ever actually impacted the application of law?

you stated A big WRONG...after i stated it u.s.code.

its code...plain and simply
 

Hard Truth

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
9,122
Reaction score
3,751
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you stated A big WRONG...after i stated it u.s.code.

its code...plain and simply


You are correct that it was incorporated into US code as "organic law." (and I have to admit I learned that just yesterday) However, it has no actual impact on the legislative process or the application and enforcement of the law.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You are correct that it was incorporated into US code as "organic law." (and I have to admit I learned that just yesterday) However, it has no actual impact on the legislative process or the application and enforcement of the law.

what the law is simply.. it is the founding principals of america, and what we are supposed to live by....we have rights, that do not come from government, but a higher power, and government is here to secure those rights, and when government not longer secures them, then the people have the right to alter or abolish that government, and institute a new government with those same principles.

thank you..for your comment that you learned something.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It all depends on the mode of regulation. "More" or "less" is not the issue. Policing, safety measures - sure. Just don't forget the cost-benefits analysis. But all too often the government interferes in business, picks winners, distorts markets - and the very pernicious "corporate power" you are decrying is exercised exactly through these channels.

The cost benefit analysis is built into the system. Our procedure is extremely rigorous for creating regulations for any government agency. It usually involves somebody complaining (usually about the externalized costs of an industry, whether in pollution or injury or other costs the industry wants to fob off on the public). Then there is analysis of the problem and the production of alternative solutions. Then there are public hearings. Then after the regulation is posted, there is judicial review available.

So the notion that bureaucrats just willy nilly regulate is just a rightwing meme.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
liberals and libertarians can see eye to eye on quite a few things, or at least reach the same value judgement.... but at the end of the day, they can't come together.

it's really a matter of left authoritarianism vs libertarianism... the 2 aren't reconcilable to any great degree..... and really, contemporary liberals aren't about to lose their authoritarian stripes anytime soon.
they learned long ago that government force is the best way to control peoples lives, and they're not about to give that up for anything.

Yes, yes, translated: libertarians want the rich and powerful to be able to exploit the poor with impunity; progressives want laws that level the playing field. Only a rightwinger would call that authoritarian. The rest of us call it democracy and self-determination.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To a large extent other countries have grown their industrial sector at our expense because of their supply of cheap labor (thanks to a lack of legal protection for workers who advocate for their interests) and lax environmental laws. The conservative/libertarian solution is for the USA to do the same. Although the lack of regulation of business combined with a lack of freedom for individuals benefits a portion of the residents of those countries, a large portion of the workers are being exploited and the environment is being destroyed. That is not a just, desirable or sustainable situation, and the people of those countries will not tolerate it indefinitely.

I have a feeling you are misrepresenting the positions... Frankly, the country is so far gone its almost irreparably damaged, and Obamacare is just another blow that will bring the country down to the level of a third world police state, especially if some of these problems don't get addressed and soon... We are talking like 2-5 years and there may not be a USA any longer, at least not in a form we would recognize...
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I have a feeling you are misrepresenting the positions... Frankly, the country is so far gone its almost irreparably damaged, and Obamacare is just another blow that will bring the country down to the level of a third world police state, especially if some of these problems don't get addressed and soon... We are talking like 2-5 years and there may not be a USA any longer, at least not in a form we would recognize...

And that because . . . We have one of the lowest tax rates on the rich in the world, the stingiest safety net, the most archaic private health care system, and the least regulation of industry?

Sounds like tea partiers and libertarians have gotten what they wanted and that's why the economy is failing. You seem to have it totally backwards
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, yes, translated: libertarians want the rich and powerful to be able to exploit the poor with impunity; progressives want laws that level the playing field. Only a rightwinger would call that authoritarian. The rest of us call it democracy and self-determination.

your translator is broken..... and your idiot narrative is false.
 

Neomalthusian

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,296
Reaction score
3,009
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
And that because . . . We have one of the lowest tax rates on the rich in the world, the stingiest safety net, the most archaic private health care system, and the least regulation of industry?

Sounds like tea partiers and libertarians have gotten what they wanted and that's why the economy is failing. You seem to have it totally backwards

This is propaganda. None of this is intelligently connected. In mental health circles it's called a "loose association."

Yes, yes, translated: libertarians want the rich and powerful to be able to exploit the poor with impunity;

Libertarians want good faith and fair dealing in individual contracts. A third party meddler getting involved in people's individual trades with one another does not promote good faith and fair dealing.

progressives want laws that level the playing field.

Progressives devotedly vote for Democrats that do things like repeal Glass Steagall, slash the capital gains tax rates from which the rich disproportionately benefit hugely, kick out derivatives traders to protect the banking elite, start wars, re-up the Patriot Act, and so and and so forth ad nauseam. Whatever progressives THINK they want, they are delusional for thinking government will give it to them.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,549
Reaction score
36,603
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Libertarians get stuck in this world of childish dreams and circular logic where some magical free market fairy will always make things better. If the free market did it, it must be good. If it seems bad, it must be because the market wasn't free enough.

Libertarians basically read Ayn Rand and take Econ 101 and think they know enough to decide some sort of optimal economic policy. That's like taking Physics 101 and deciding you're ready to be an engineer. Trouble is, Physics 101 leaves you with a world of perfectly rigid smooth objects moving in a frictionless vacuum via instantaneous applications of 100% efficient force. The concepts aren't wrong, they're just not enough to accurately describe and predict a very complicated world.

People aren't rational, informed actors. They don't always make decisions in their best self-interest, or in the interest of anyone else. They can and will screw you over to make more money for themselves. And they'll get away with it and do it to the next person. Not every market can really be a free market. The fundamental forces required for a free market to run effectively sometimes are not present.

People buy Tyson chicken over Target's Market Pantry brand, and they'll swear it tastes better.

It doesn't. It comes from the same machine at the same plant. They flip a switch to change the labels.

Because people are not rational, informed consumers, and the relationship between business and customer is not an equal one, nor is the relationship between employer and employee.
 

Neomalthusian

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,296
Reaction score
3,009
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Libertarians get stuck in this world of childish dreams and circular logic where some magical free market fairy will always make things better. If the free market did it, it must be good. If it seems bad, it must be because the market wasn't free enough.

You're misattributing this to libertarians. Libertarians have no problem admitting that laws and regulations enforcing good faith and fair dealing are the only way for free markets to work. In fact almost all of our economic woes and financial market instability can be traced back to ineffectively promoting good faith and fair dealing in various markets. A free market is not anarchy. A free market is simply where the price for various things is determined by what people are generally willing to buy and sell them for. In other words, it's a market for something in which government is not setting the price.

Libertarians basically read Ayn Rand and take Econ 101 and think they know enough to decide some sort of optimal economic policy.

I assume most people who engage in political debate have not really done a lot more than that, even though they enjoy discussing topics that relate to economic policy.

People aren't rational, informed actors. They don't always make decisions in their best self-interest, or in the interest of anyone else.

I think they believe they are making decisions in their best self-interest, even if others disagree. Why does our disagreement give us the right to control those decisions? It doesn't. We don't regulate things in order to override other people's misguided self-interest beliefs. Personally I am convinced it is not in anyone's best self-interest to purchase a pack of cigarettes. If I believe that government is there to make sure people don't do things out of alignment with what I think is in their best self-interest, I would be calling tobacco prohibition. We regulate to enforce fair contracts, good faith, and so forth. Not to take care of people and make their choices for them.

Not every market can really be a free market. The fundamental forces required for a free market to run effectively sometimes are not present.

I agree, there are varying degrees of freedom that certain markets can sustain without destabilizing, and none more important than financial markets, thanks to derivatives and ever-more-complex financial instruments spreading risk to people who can't know they're signing up for it. Enforcing good faith and fair dealing in a world of derivatives and hedge funds (if it's even possible at all) is going to require more complex intervention compared to, say, enforcing good faith and fair dealing in markets for household goods.
 
Last edited:

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And that because .

Now, what comes next is not a dismissal of the points you brought up, because these issues you raise are legitimate, or facets of a larger problem.

. . We have one of the lowest tax rates on the rich in the world,

This is a problem, but the problem is not a tax issue in as much as its a problem due to the fact of corporate personhood that was created in America.

You see; try and "tax the rich" and the rich will send in the lawyers and lobbyists and ensure that the loopholes are written so that the rich that you WANT to tax will be exempt. Instead you wind up taxing the upper-middle class.

the stingiest safety net,

I think you meant among the strongest... But reductions in this are a greater economic issue resulting ultimately from those international free trade agreements that put American workers in competition with Chinese slave factories where there are suicide nets installed.

the most archaic private health care system,

This is a result of insurance companies influencing the cost of procedures to te point where in many cases Americans pay more than twice as much on many medications as Canadian neighbors (who have their own HC issues).

Next, this also has to do with pharmaceutical companies working to make doctoring patients with chemicals that address symptoms rather than addressing root causes of these diseases.

It might be prudent to look at all the reasons that overall Americans are amongst the most unhealthy populations...


and the least regulation of industry?

The root here is again corporate personhood and the lobbyists that have grown up with that system where, now the biggest corporations control more wealth than many nations...

Sounds like tea partiers and libertarians have gotten what they wanted and that's why the economy is failing. You seem to have it totally backwards

This statement is logically absurd...
- non- sequitar tea parties and libertarians do not have the control to have caused these problems yet they are to blame for the result?
- strawman: tp&l's do not WANT to see the country fail as much as they are pointing out the unsustainability of current policies and programs.

There's also the false causation fallacy, in that premise a and b are not a cause of the result... If anything they are parallel concepts.
 
Top Bottom