NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that Libertarianism is too close to anarchy? Please explain why or why not.

I think it's just right, but then again, it's my political party.

No, not really, but that's what makes 'libertarianism' so theoretically unsound. The principles libertarianists espouse logically lead to anarcho-capitalism, yet few libertarians recognize this.

It is close to chaos, which is totally different from anarchy.

Libertarianism isn't anarchy - it's the belief that the government should stay out of its citizens' lives as much as possible. Our founding fathers' concept of limited government is a libertarian concept

Tho I am a libertarian, I don't think Bandarik (or w/e his name is) is right for the job

No, I think they have a lot of good ideas, but government needs to keep corporate power in check.

Privatise the police? That's just going too far; defense and civil order are a legitimate function of government.

Privatise the police? That's just going too far; defense and civil order are a legitimate function of government.
Okay, I am *not* that far a libertarian

"Libertarianism" isn't really all that similar to anarchism at all except for rhetoric. Anarchism is strongly opposed to capitalism, for one thing.

Libertarianism is scary... especially with the privatization of things like schools, police and fire departments, etc. Don't have a problem with personal freedoms though.

Me either. You don't have to agree to all of a party's ideals to be with the party. I'm a pro-life person too. Libertarians are pro-choice because everyone owns their own life, and I agree with that.

Not everything needs to be privatized, but some things should be. Like schools and banks.

I wouldn't trust corporations being given the opportunity to run amok. This is why I would like to see some legislation there, (in a theorethical society adhering to libertarian ideals).

Not everything can or should be privatised. If everything would have to be efficient and lucrative, we should get rid of old people and children.

Some things just need to always be available to everyone, regardless of the cost. Emergency services for one.

I find the thought of privatising schools scary. It can lead to more religious fundamentalist schools. Wouldn't it be safer to let the kids have an alternative to some parent's radical views, instead of enforcing these by sending said children to a school of the same radical convictions?

I am for decentralisation and giving more power to local govt. (state, community, whatever), but there needs to be a degree of central authority. Certainly for things like technology standards, safety standards and infrastructure.


What I like most about the libertarians is their stance on personal freedoms.





Edit: So I voted for the 3d option


The American LP is the only significant one I know of. Why didn't this ideology catch on -or survive where there once was libertarianism- in many other countries?

I'd say just right because its not full blown anarchy it still has for instance a small limited government for defense and such so I'm cool with that.

Me either. You don't have to agree to all of a party's ideals to be with the party. I'm a pro-life person too. Libertarians are pro-choice because everyone owns their own life, and I agree with that.

Not everything needs to be privatized, but some things should be. Like schools and banks.

I do NOT think we should privatize schools... that's... just sick.

If its sick why is it private schools are better than public ones, almost across the board? I don't trust the government to educate me or my children. It's all indoctrination, essentially. They teach us what they want us to know, and leave out the stuff that might lead us to question the larger issues and think for ourselves. The public school system as it exists now is a joke. At the very least, it needs to be drastically overhauled. Our current system rewards failure--wildly.

But I digress. Libertarianism, as a whole, does not espouse anarchy, but it's pretty close in a lot of ways. It centers itself around the idea that a government should be small but efficient; not large and ponderous. I'm about as Libertarian as it gets, and yet I still recognize the need for things like.. you know... a police force. And a fire department and stuff. When you get right down to it, it's just a matter of priorities. Libertarianism doesn't lead to anarchy if you're smart about it.

I don't neccessarily trust corporations teaching children either. Besides, private schools cost money. That's denying someone a right to education if they can't afford it.

I find the thought of privatising schools scary. It can lead to more religious fundamentalist schools. Wouldn't it be safer to let the kids have an alternative to some parent's radical views, instead of enforcing these by sending said children to a school of the same radical convictions?

It would be unfortunate that some children would be subjected to a religious fundamentalist school- but in the long run those children would probably not be able to function as well in a libertarian soceity as their competitors, and therefore those schools would not be able to support themselves, and that whole frame of thought might just disappear. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

As I had said before, while I am libertarian, there are *some* things that the government should have priority over, like education, military, keeping corporate corruption in check

Alright, let's examine corporate motives relative to government motives, since they're the only two widley recognized viable options.

On one hand, you've got the corporations, driven by greed and the desire to make money.

On the other hand, you've got the government, driven by the desire to "protect the people" and foster it's own ideals at home and abroad.

Now, the internet, for example [which I'll remind you all that we're using right now] has proliferated largely due to corporate interest; that is to say that the collective greed of the American corporate society has driven them to further this medium; and in so doing they've revitalized and revolutionized a wholel bunch of different markets, they've brought to the world a new communications medium that has insofar proven unparalleled in its ability to allow people from across the globe to share their views and opinions [like here]. Likewise, we have the cell phone; a wonderful invention that has helped countless people worldwide keep in touch with their loved ones and business contacts. Both of these phenomenons came about essentially because someone wanted to make a buck. When you get right down to it, their motivations are simply a means to an end. Same thing with schools; if they give your kids a shitty education or otherwise do something that you the consumer does not like, you yank the kid and they lose money.

Now what has the government, with their "desire to protect the people" given us in the last fifty years? The hydrogen bomb? Yeah, that's a wonderful comparison.

Corporations have more of a drive to succeed, and personal interests aside if they've got a good business sense, they should know how important it is to keep the consumer happy. If they don't, they'll go out of business. The government doesnt have any competition, and that allows them to act pretty much however they want. I trust the government far, far less than the private sector in just about everything.

But yeah, nationwide privitization of the education system probably isnt a good idea. It's one of those issues that's probably best dealt with on a local basis, as opposed to involving the state or the federal government. They're just too out of touch.

But I digress. Libertarianism, as a whole, does not espouse anarchy, but it's pretty close in a lot of ways. It centers itself around the idea that a government should be small but efficient; not large and ponderous. I'm about as Libertarian as it gets, and yet I still recognize the need for things like.. you know... a police force. And a fire department and stuff. When you get right down to it, it's just a matter of priorities. Libertarianism doesn't lead to anarchy if you're smart about it.

I agree, the only part I dont like that they want to be privatized is the entire police force. I think we should maintain the felony's and such to the government. But in order to give the police force less to worry about (and relieve the budget a bit) since they seem to not care about any major crimes only traffic tickets and such. I would like it if they allowed private business to take charge of minor crimes like minor property crimes, neighborhood speed enforcement and other misdameanors. They could stop focusing on only revenue makers and work on person on person crimes mainly.

Politics plays way into the police enforcement to much as it is. Here in my town in Oregon our DA sent out a survey to get a ranking system from 1-5 on the least to highest priority crimes to pursue with jail time (for minor crimes). Guess what the results were opposite of what they have been going after forever. They used to have it ranked as Marijuana related or other minor drug offenses at #1 and property crimes (theft) as 5. After the survey they realized we want the property crimes and theft as #1 and minor drug offenses last. I can only hope more community's will get a census out there of what they really want and force the DA to pursue the more important issues.

Alright, let's examine corporate motives relative to government motives, since they're the only two widley recognized viable options.

On one hand, you've got the corporations, driven by greed and the desire to make money.

On the other hand, you've got the government, driven by the desire to "protect the people" and foster it's own ideals at home and abroad.

So greed is better than protection? You also don't mention the corporate drive to spread it's own ideals- i.e. brand marketing, consumerism, through monopoly control of virtually all forms of communication.

Now, the internet, for example [which I'll remind you all that we're using right now] has proliferated largely due to corporate interest; that is to say that the collective greed of the American corporate society has driven them to further this medium; and in so doing they've revitalized and revolutionized a wholel bunch of different markets, they've brought to the world a new communications medium that has insofar proven unparalleled in its ability to allow people from across the globe to share their views and opinions [like here]. Likewise, we have the cell phone; a wonderful invention that has helped countless people worldwide keep in touch with their loved ones and business contacts. Both of these phenomenons came about essentially because someone wanted to make a buck. When you get right down to it, their motivations are simply a means to an end. Same thing with schools; if they give your kids a shitty education or otherwise do something that you the consumer does not like, you yank the kid and they lose money.

Now what has the government, with their "desire to protect the people" given us in the last fifty years? The hydrogen bomb? Yeah, that's a wonderful comparison.


Well, the internet was actually invented by the government, as were computers in general. I would argue that coorporations have done more to hurt the internet than anything else, by seeking to limit, commodify and otherwise exploit a previously free service. If corporations have their way, they'll certainly try to commercialize EVERYTHING on the internet; just as pirate radio was ground out of existance by big buisness, the internet is, in my mind, being crushed by corporate weight.

Just as a side note, I think the thing which most popularized the internet was explicitly anti-corporate in nature- free MP3s. This more than anything else, IMO, ensured the internet would become an ubequitous part of western existence.
Corporations have more of a drive to succeed, and personal interests aside if they've got a good business sense, they should know how important it is to keep the consumer happy. If they don't, they'll go out of business. The government doesnt have any competition, and that allows them to act pretty much however they want. I trust the government far, far less than the private sector in just about everything.

But governments do have competition: they have to get reelected. If they don't keep the voters happy, they're out of a job. The US definitely needs electoral reform, but it's certainly not fair to say there's no government incentive to succeed.

What a fallacy. The idea that corporations seek to restrict and hinder the internet is ridiculous. Name one instance in which they've tried to do this, aside from the RIAA who are just pricks.

I'll start by citing one instance where the government has tried to do so: the Patriot Act.

And yes, greed is better than "protection." At least, the government's brand of "protection."

I don't think the Liberterians will amount to much.

One think I see of the two parties is a sense of compassion for the less off.

A common theme I have listened to Liberts is that people basically need to get off the govmerment teet and get a job. They need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps blah blah blah.

The other thing I like is their tests that basically show just about everybody is a Liberterian to some degree and the fact that the Founding Fathers were really Liberterians.....

Disclaimer: Obviously can't speak for all. Just the ones I have met or conversed.

Speaking of the ones I have personally met; there isn't one that I haven't found to be an arrogant jackass......

Also, GMP, youre thinking a bit too narrowly. Mp3 piracy isnt as "anti corporate" as you think. Corporations make and distribute p2p software, you know.

What a fallacy. The idea that corporations seek to restrict and hinder the internet is ridiculous. Name one instance in which they've tried to do this, aside from the RIAA who are just pricks.

Sure; Microsoft's attempts to limit and control the way we access and use the internet are well documented; I wouldn't say corporations want to hinder or restrict the internet per se, but they are certainly trying to shape it into their image.

I'll start by citing one instance where the government has tried to do so: the Patriot Act.

So because one government acts irresponsibly, all governments will act irresponsibility? Walmart censors its products, but that doesn't mean ALL corporations will censor their products, does it?

And yes, greed is better than "protection." At least, the government's brand of "protection."

Well, I don't really think governments are solely concerned with protection... ideally the focus of government is civil service- serving the electorate. Some governments are bad; but that doesn't mean we should give up on ALL governments.

Sure; Microsoft's attempts to limit and control the way we access and use the internet are well documented; I wouldn't say corporations want to hinder or restrict the internet per se, but they are certainly trying to shape it into their image.


Source please?

One think I see of the two parties is a sense of compassion for the less off.
Gosh, I guess I missed that one.... I know the current administration seems to have a lot of compassion for the very well off. I find a lot of Libertarian ideals are very appealing to me, but I don't see a Libertarian party ever coming into power in this country any time within my lifetime. Maybe in an alternate universe.

You'd be surprised. The Libertarian party has been growing very rapidly. We've only been around for about thirty years and we're the largest third party in the nation.

Furthermore, the Democrats are losing steam year after year. It is my belief that politics in America will become modernized with the continued weakening of the Democratic party, and a new split will form amongst the Republicans as the ideas and platform ideals within it expand and become less generalized. It's already hapening; just look at Ron Paul.

Aside from that, generation Y seems to be very much interested in the tenets of Libertarianism. I know it's a small sampling [and that some of the voters probably arent from America], but take a look at the current poll results, for example. The Libertarians as a third party are much more viable than you think. I've met many, many people in my generation that espouse Libertarianism.

Source please?
The US court findings more or less speak for themselves in regards to Microsofts attempts to dominate browsers, operating systems and ISP software in order to maintain their effective monopoly. (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#iiii)

Other good examples are the attempts of cable companies to gain monopoly control of broadband services to complement their monopoly over cable service in some 96% of the US (i.e. 96% of the US has access to only one cable company).

Yeah, I'd have to admit that though the the Libertarian Party has zero chance of winning the Presidency, they do bring issues to the table. Their almost comical protest of income taxes each year on Tax Day does bring to mind that a Constitutional Amendment had to be ratified in order to exact the Income Tax, and that it was not the intent of the Founding Fathers.

I do say that each day I live is one day closer to becoming a Libertarian. At least, under a Libertarian government, I wouldn't have to drive by homes built for people without jobs that are nicer than the apartment I can afford.

The one thing I can say for goverment programs (in a way) is that Unemployment Security was there when I needed it. Laid off in August of 2002, it was until May of 2003 that I found a job that paid close to what I was making before. Many don't know that you pay for Unemployment Insurance out of every paycheck, and that it's not quite welfare. The Unemployment Extension granted by Congress was, however, and enabled me to live a few more months without taking a job at Wal-Mart, which wouldn't have allowed me enough to feed my *huge* family of three (2 parents, 1 kid).

I like Libertarian ideals, and think the party has something to offer. But, all things in moderation, eh?

BTW, any Libertarian Regions out there? Looking for one. Send a telegraph to San Mabus. Thanks.

Ah, but herein lies the flaw in your logic. Civil Libertarianism doesnt necessarily endorse the abolition of monopoly laws; leastaways if they do, I have yet to hear about it. I suppose then, that the point you're trying to make is that corporations act in their own best interests, often to the detriment of other people or corporations. This is a widley known tenet of human nature, and will continue to exist in any system, be is Libertarianism, Socialism, Communism, or Fascism. Libertarianism just doesnt kid itself about it.

What cracks me up is when socialists point out this information, and then turn around and suggest that the government be given a monopoly over everything. Given the way our government has repeatedly and unrepentatnly wasted and pissed away our tax dollars, I fail to see how this would be a viable polciy.

I wont pretend to defend Microsoft in this case, but my point stands. Invoking this as proof that corporations are evil is a fallacy since in essence, they're pretty much just looking after themselves. Call it self preservation on a bigger scale. If there isn't another company competent enough to fill the void, then nuts to them. If there is, and the coropration in question is preventing them access to the market, then something should be done. It's not quite as cut and dry as "Oh, Microsoft wants a bunch of people to use Netscape, therefor corporations are more evil than the government."

and that it was not the intent of the Founding Fathers.

So? To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

You could feasibly claim that it was not the intent of the Founding Fathers for America to remain under the intent of the Founding Fathers, however paradoxical that may sound.

True Weegies, but they were putting holes in people's heads over a tax on tea. You think they'd put up with this?

Ah, but herein lies the flaw in your logic. Civil Libertarianism doesnt necessarily endorse the abolition of monopoly laws; leastaways if they do, I have yet to hear about it. I suppose then, that the point you're trying to make is that corporations act in their own best interests, often to the detriment of other people or corporations. This is a widley known tenet of human nature, and will continue to exist in any system, be is Libertarianism, Socialism, Communism, or Fascism. Libertarianism just doesnt kid itself about it.

What cracks me up is when socialists point out this information, and then turn around and suggest that the government be given a monopoly over everything. Given the way our government has repeatedly and unrepentatnly wasted and pissed away our tax dollars, I fail to see how this would be a viable polciy.

I wont pretend to defend Microsoft in this case, but my point stands. Invoking this as proof that corporations are evil is a fallacy since in essence, they're pretty much just looking after themselves. Call it self preservation on a bigger scale. If there isn't another company competent enough to fill the void, then nuts to them. If there is, and the coropration in question is preventing them access to the market, then something should be done. It's not quite as cut and dry as "Oh, Microsoft wants a bunch of people to use Netscape, therefor corporations are more evil than the government."
Well, I think this is kind of a straw man. You asked for an example of a corporation impeding the developement of the internet;

What a fallacy. The idea that corporations seek to restrict and hinder the internet is ridiculous. Name one instance in which they've tried to do this, aside from the RIAA who are just pricks.

I gave you one. That's all. So I don't know what kind of flaw in my logic you're seeing here, given that my point was not to show that corporations are greedy (which of course we all acknowledge) merely that they're not been as cruicial to the developemnt of the internet as you intially portrayed them. Realistically, public institutions like the military and universities have done far and away more to develope the internet than any corporation, in my mind at least.

I think corporations are going to become increasingly against the internet, as file sharing continues to grow in popularity.

True. But I'm thinking bigger picture here. Besides, corporations lack the power to dictate how we use the internet; I'll be damned if Microsoft's tactics forced me to use Nutscrape.

Besides, claiming that "corporations have not been as cruicial to the developemnt of the internet as you intially portrayed them" is still ridiculous. What the hell has the government done for the internet? and Universities? Sure, you might have a computer lab in a school or a campus website, but what do people do when they get on those computers? They go to ebay, or to NS or to yahoo or something; they don't freaking stick around or go to government sites. Claiming that e-commerce is irrelevant in the face of government internet policy is like claiming Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone.

Granted, the internet was intitally conceived as a medium for other things; that is to say it wasnt orginally intended for private use. In its earliest conception, it was a tool used primarily by the government and by the scientific community . It was [i]nothing.

With the advent of the PC [again, corporate interest] the internet became available everywhere, and a completely new market was created. I don't understand how you can possibly say that corporations hardly contributed to the proliferation of the internet, especially considering that this practice spawned a new word in our language. I used it once already, it's called 'e-commerce.'

If you want to ignore that influence, you're just being too selective.

Well now. Many things that corporations do are in cahoots with the government. A free market is not necessarily in the best interest of any given one corporation. It's the government's support that allows corporations to run amok in the first place. Also, don't bunch every last corporation into one big company. That would be completely unfair, and you should not discount the idea of a big company, since size is one measure of success.

Also, market share does not denote a monopoly. There is certain behavior associated with a monopoly that excludes market share, like price fixing and reduction of production output.(which are really the same thing in an economic sense)

Many libertarians dislike the current system of monopoly control because it punishes corporations unfairly based solely on the criterion of size, as the laws permitted the government to do at the inception of the Sherman Act. Many a big corporation was busted up(standard oil being a notorious case) for no real reason other then size. The government also subsidized many of the corporations(through direct subsidy or using eminent domain to seize privately held land) so that with subsidy they were able to reach the size they did.

There were cases, as with the US's only completely privately funded railroad where the competition sponsored the anti-trust lawsuits simply because they were being creamed so badly.

What's been missing from this present discussion is the libertarian definition of property rights, which is fundamental to free market, classical liberal, and libertarian philosophy.

For instance, a company builds a factory away from civilization and pollutes the land within a mile radius of it, and then people build homes within the radius.

If the residents complain about the pollution and demand reparations, do they get them?

No

The residents were or should have been informed of their proximity to the factory and the risks involved. The company bought the factory and placed it there first.

Homesteading and strict adherence to the rights of property are an important and often-overlooked aspect of libertarianism.

Libertarians have nothing to do with anarchy and everything to do with order. All the laws and legislations and pork bills and tax increases in the world have done nothing to cure (or even soften the blow) some of the greatest problems facing our country.

As Michael Badnarik said the other day:

"The government declared a war on poverty, and now there is more poverty. The government declared a war on drugs, and now there are more drugs. Now your government wants to declare a war on terrorism?"

The Libertarian Party is on the move. Just the fact that the LP is being talked about is indicative of how greatly they are advancing year after year.

While it is not at all likely that Michael Badnarik will win the Presidency in 2004, everyone should keep in mind that the hundreds of thousands of people voting for him (or perhaps more than a million?) are also voting Libertarian in their local and state offices. And Libertarians are starting to win elections.

There's a lot of diversity in my party, and some Libertarians I prefer more than others; but the message of a more responsible government, less beholden to interests beyond the people, and more focused on allowing communities to develop the permanent means to provide for everyone just a bit better sounds a heck of a lot more viable than what the Demopublicans are hashing out right now.

I'd also like to point out that there's a lot of misinformation available about my party. This is BECAUSE the LP is now becoming a threat to the establishment parties at the grassroots of the United States, (and also partially due to the inexperience and lack of tact found in some party icons, admittedly).

Above all, I see Libertarians accused of turning everything over to "Corporate Rule", which offends me, since I am absolutely opposed to the subsidized big-business, Corporate-Person-Hood government that Democrats and Republicans have hung over our heads. For every Wal-Mart that gets put up on the public dime, or every "special" tax cut given to a big box store, or even pork bill with a big corporate name attached, I wonder how our government can explain to small business people and regular folks who want to join the owning-class how they are having them pay to fund their competitiors in the market.

I think if our government understood a thing about justice it wouldn't be so hung up on creating regulations (that big business can easily defeat while small businesses can't) and become more focused on enforcing laws against fraud and force that big companies use on little guys all the time.

Unfortunately, the two forces are in cahoots. It's like the Manchurian Candidate (the original) where the Communist Conspirators use the fear of Communism to hide their plot. Big Government and Big Business are obvious bedfellows. And I'm not afraid to say that a small government, while fair to all businesses for the chance to progress, would definitely favor the affairs of small business and individual investors.

It's going to take some time, but the Libertarian Party is hitting the mainstream as more and more people from ALL parties are flocking to the core principals of better government and a more fair and free market.

http://www.lp.org

How do you know when you're posting to a forum full of young people?

When the poll has "Libertarianism" winning.. ;)

True. But I'm thinking bigger picture here. Besides, corporations lack the power to dictate how we use the internet; I'll be damned if Microsoft's tactics forced me to use Nutscrape.

Besides, claiming that "corporations have not been as cruicial to the developemnt of the internet as you intially portrayed them" is still ridiculous. What the hell has the government done for the internet?
You mean aside from inventing both it, the base component hardware and software?
and Universities?
Universities formed the communities the internet grew out of.

Sure, you might have a computer lab in a school or a campus website, but what do people do when they get on those computers? They go to ebay, or to NS or to yahoo or something; they don't freaking stick around or go to government sites. Claiming that e-commerce is irrelevant in the face of government internet policy is like claiming Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone.

I guess the question is whether you think the internet is better now or ten years ago (before corporate involvement was commonplace). While certainly technically speaking it was worse, in terms of content I think it was similar or better. Most of the most important internet developements were not created by corporations, but by private users- for example, the first browsers were not corporately developed, but were created through the National Science Foundation. While e-commerce is an important element, it is not, as you first seemed to indicate, the most significant factor in the developement of the internet, nor should this new medium of communication be laid at the feet of corporations.

With the advent of the PC [again, corporate interest] the internet became available everywhere, and a completely new market was created. I don't understand how you can possibly say that corporations hardly contributed to the proliferation of the internet, especially considering that this practice spawned a new word in our language. I used it once already, it's called 'e-commerce.'

If you want to ignore that influence, you're just being too selective.
I'm not ignoring that influence, I simply think you're giving far too much credit to corporations, that's all.

Good arguments, Vics Soul and UN jurisdiction. I tip my hat to you. Oh, that's right.. I'm not wearing one. *goes to get his hat, tips it*

GMP, I think we're thinking of different points in the internet's history. I'm largely looking over its early states, where I'll admit the government probably had much more of a stake in its inception and initial growth, but it would not be what it is today if it were not for corporate interests. I'm not giving too much credit, I'm giving exactly as much credit as they deserve.

I think at least a few of us can agree on one thing: it's a helluva lot better than anything else! :p At least now you can fuck yourself up any way you want to (providing you don't fuck up anyone else who doesn't want that to happen to them) without worrying about those "vice cops."

"Most of the most important internet developements were not created by corporations, but by private users"

Exactly! Private people are truly the keystones of our economy and development. While it's true that government in this past century has been the creator of some things that are so newfangled that nobody else can touch it, the technology getting off the ground is ultimately dependent on everybody else.

NASA and USAF had a stronghold on Aerospace for decades. Now, in order for the program to move forward, regular folks and the companies they start are going to have to pick up the slack if we want space travel and exploration to really hit home in this century.

So, yeah, government gives us a jumpstart. They send out Lewis and Clark to make an expedition, but after that, it's up to a whole new crew of pioneers.

This is what Libertarians mean when they say services should be largely privatized. New trends in the market make people go out and do stuff, make innovations and creations that government types probably never would have thought of. It's important to remember that while Corporations are not people, Corporations are MADE UP of people.

I can create a legally chartered Corporation out of my basement for $20.
This is why I don't agree with "hating" companies as some people have decided to do in their policies. I bought a DVD today at the store for a couple bucks. It was made by some guy in New Jersey who sold them to the store chains. He must have hired a couple of people to help produce and burn them and probably saved a few bucks for himself and his family.

As a Libertarian, I don't think he deserves to be put out on the street because he is associated with a company. He IS the company! He shouldn't have to pay the government an arm and leg for services he doesn't use, because he is quite occupied helping himself and many others out with his trade.

Some would call his actions greed. I call them sharing the wealth. The redistribution of wealth is far inferior to the free distribution of wealth, and need for welfare will be greatly minimized when the real motive in the government and economy is faring well.

If its sick why is it private schools are better than public ones, almost across the board? I don't trust the government to educate me or my children. It's all indoctrination, essentially. They teach us what they want us to know, and leave out the stuff that might lead us to question the larger issues and think for ourselves. The public school system as it exists now is a joke. At the very least, it needs to be drastically overhauled. Our current system rewards failure--wildly.

But I digress. Libertarianism, as a whole, does not espouse anarchy, but it's pretty close in a lot of ways. It centers itself around the idea that a government should be small but efficient; not large and ponderous. I'm about as Libertarian as it gets, and yet I still recognize the need for things like.. you know... a police force. And a fire department and stuff. When you get right down to it, it's just a matter of priorities. Libertarianism doesn't lead to anarchy if you're smart about it.

I agree. With a private school system, though, there has to be some government regulation, and some power to shut down schools that are promoting Naziism or things like that. The private industry would handle this much better than our public schools. Further, it should be noted that it really depends on what town you live in - if your town has rather high taxes, the school system is usually pretty good. If it has low taxes, then it usually...isn't. Those that live in low-tax, smaller towns generally can't afford more quality schools anyways.

I don't neccessarily trust corporations teaching children either. Besides, private schools cost money. That's denying someone a right to education if they can't afford it.

What's so bad about corporations? True, they need regulations in the area of schooling - corporations shouldn't get free reign there - but you know, corporations aren't as evil as they're often portrayed.

And you think public schools don't cost money? Federal taxes, town taxes, state taxes. Remove a large portion of the public school funding from these taxes and it's not quite so bad. There would inevitably be private schools of different levels, but the same with public schools. Charter schools probably would still be in effect. I don't know if a nationwide privatized school system would be a good idea, but it could be made to work, I suppose...


A common theme I have listened to Liberts is that people basically need to get off the govmerment teet and get a job. They need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps blah blah blah.


Yes. I believe some welfare is needed, but come on! If you don't work hard and make an effort, then why do you deserve to live at the level of those who do? People like Robert Owen and Charles Fourier came to the US to set up utopian socialist societies, which ultimately failed because some people did less work than others, and those that worked harder began to question why they got the same payoff as those that didn't. A good life isn't handed to you on a silver platter, and it definitely shouldn't by the government. People need to stop complaining about the lack of welfare...

Melkor, is the LP really the third largest? I heard they are, but that was preceded by a 'self-proclaimed' ... if they are, it's a shame they don't get as much media coverage as the Green party.

What's Generation Y? Today's teenagers? Sorry, I'm ignorant in these matters.


True. But I'm thinking bigger picture here. Besides, corporations lack the power to dictate how we use the internet; I'll be damned if Microsoft's tactics forced me to use Nutscrape.



O_o You mean Internet Explorer? I like Microsoft, although I use Mozilla Firefox myself.

Many don't know that you pay for Unemployment Insurance out of every paycheck, and that it's not quite welfare.

Yep I remember when I had to use it, I had paid over 17g's into it. No wonder why I was broke.

If its sick why is it private schools are better than public ones, almost across the board? I don't trust the government to educate me or my children. It's all indoctrination, essentially. They teach us what they want us to know, and leave out the stuff that might lead us to question the larger issues and think for ourselves. The public school system as it exists now is a joke. At the very least, it needs to be drastically overhauled. Our current system rewards failure--wildly.




You must not have had very good teachers. I had some brilliant teachers, of course, I live in Portland, Oregon. Probably the most Progressive city in the entire United States. I suggest, if any of you want to move to a sort of Utopia, Portland is the place to go to.

But anyways, the idea of public education is so that everyone in the country has an equal opportunity to succeed (Ha! Using your own beliefs against you!) Though the effectiveness is fair at best, it has still managed to educate the vast majority of our workforce, including those ambitious enough to make use of it.

Disclaimer: Obviously can't speak for all. Just the ones I have met or conversed.

Speaking of the ones I have personally met; there isn't one that I haven't found to be an arrogant jackass......


And there also wasn't a single one that I couldn't defeat in a debate. And I am a communist, which is supposed to be the most "illogical system known to mankind"

My favorite thing to do is proving that a Libertarian country would experience an inevitable revolt and become a communist country. If you want me to do this for you, please just say so. It will not take long, and I deliver it in a way that everyone can understand, and everyone realizes is true.

My favorite thing to do is proving that a Libertarian country would experience an inevitable revolt and become a communist country. If you want me to do this for you, please just say so. It will not take long, and I deliver it in a way that everyone can understand, and everyone realizes is true.

Then do.

"My favorite thing to do is proving that a Libertarian country would experience an inevitable revolt and become a communist country."

What? No modern country becomes communist overnight. The path of Socialism is a long process that requires people to become dependent and indoctrinated in the government mission and control. (We're on that path in the U.S. by the way, but it ain't over yet) The United States, essentially, IS a Libertarian country with some proto-Socialist and Fascist leanings. The aim of Libertarians is to contain those leanings by introducing market elements that can take their place in as many possible situations.

The problem is that firebrands and extremists are most often acknowledged (like you and the Libertarians you seem to know), when it is the realists who generally shape and execute the policy.

I can't help but find your confidence a little embarassing, since the party associated with your beliefs hasn't struck a major presidential turnout since the depression.

My favorite thing to do is proving that a Libertarian country would experience an inevitable revolt and become a communist country.

well, there is also a possibility that they will just take another run at the welfare state to appease their working class to try to hold off the revolution again.

JUst right.

Alright, let's examine corporate motives relative to government motives, since they're the only two widley recognized viable options.

On one hand, you've got the corporations, driven by greed and the desire to make money.

On the other hand, you've got the government, driven by the desire to "protect the people" and foster it's own ideals at home and abroad.

Now, the internet, for example [which I'll remind you all that we're using right now] has proliferated largely due to corporate interest; that is to say that the collective greed of the American corporate society has driven them to further this medium; and in so doing they've revitalized and revolutionized a wholel bunch of different markets, they've brought to the world a new communications medium that has insofar proven unparalleled in its ability to allow people from across the globe to share their views and opinions [like here]. Likewise, we have the cell phone; a wonderful invention that has helped countless people worldwide keep in touch with their loved ones and business contacts. Both of these phenomenons came about essentially because someone wanted to make a buck. When you get right down to it, their motivations are simply a means to an end. Same thing with schools; if they give your kids a shitty education or otherwise do something that you the consumer does not like, you yank the kid and they lose money.

Now what has the government, with their "desire to protect the people" given us in the last fifty years? The hydrogen bomb? Yeah, that's a wonderful comparison.


*Sigh*

Methinks someone needs to put down the Rand and start reading something else.

1) Egoism is not just morally evil, it isn't even effective at getting you what you ultimately want. Forgetting for the moment the whole "altruism is a doctrine of hatred for mankind" by means of enslaving humanity bit that Rand derived from what I can only assume is having her vodka spiked with a generous amount of mercury, trying to act purely out of self-interest is a self-destructive impulse. Why? Well, in any given situation, the egoist's ultimate goal is self-survival. The problem with this impulse is that it interferes with taking risk, namely that in the name of the first, you avoid the second. Unfortunately, risk is also a necessary part of life and business. The altruist, on the other hand, whose goal is not self-survival but the betterment of all humanity, has no such problems with braving risky situations.

Now, granted I probably explained it badly to you, but I'm sure you can think of a few situations where egoists tend to do very badly (for example, in combat, a true egoist will only run out to save a comrade if it's in his interest, which is to say, absent an extremely large incentive, is never. An altruist has no such compunctions. It stands to reason, therefore, that an army of altruists will tend to do much better and have a much greater esprit de corps than will an army of egoists). For a philosophical discussion on the matter, I refer you to the opening sections of Plato's Republic. Thrasymachus offered the very same position that Rand did later on--and promptly got his philosophical arse kicked six ways to Sunday by Socrates.

2) The hydrogen bomb is the only thing you can think of that the government has contributed in the last 50 years? Well silly me, I was thinking about all the antibiotics, vaccines, and medications that they've paid most of the research money for (which is what keeps the consuming public alive), as well as continued construction and maintenance of our highway system (which is what allows commerce to take place), cheap food through subsidization (which is what allows the consumers to worry about which artist they want to buy as opposed to, say, how they are going to put food on the table), disaster relief (which is what keeps places like Florida or Topeka inhabited), health and safety standards (which is what keeps consumers from relying on Caveat Emptor to keep their Ravioli E. Coli free), minimum safety standards (which is what keeps workers from, for example, dying in their twenties from black lung disease or from being blinded when their defective hammer shatters and fragments get in their eyes), minimum wage laws (which is what allows workers to actually buy the goods they are producing), The Marshall Plan (which is what allows Europeans to buy their goods instead of grow them on those pinko collective farms), enforcement of desegregation (which allows both whites and blacks to buy consumer goods), just to name a few. But of course, all these beneficial government programs interfere with the Libertarian view that government has an at best indifferent effect on the market, if not (far more probably) deleterious. I can see why you would ignore them.

Corporations have more of a drive to succeed, and personal interests aside if they've got a good business sense, they should know how important it is to keep the consumer happy. If they don't, they'll go out of business. The government doesnt have any competition, and that allows them to act pretty much however they want. I trust the government far, far less than the private sector in just about everything.

Then you apparently don't know much about the private sector. The main, legally obligated, interest the corporation has is not to the consumer. It's to the shareholder. And the shareholder desires one and only one thing: increased profit margin. If squeezing the workers is the only way to fulfill their contract, then that is what they will do. If cutting safety standards is the only way to fulfill their obligations, then that is what they will do. There are numerous examples, even in the modern day, where companies were quite willing to make substandard products simply because it was more profitable to lose some customers and kill others than it would have been to make safe and effective products. The Ford Pinto or Firestone Tires, for example.

You must not have had very good teachers. I had some brilliant teachers, of course, I live in Portland, Oregon. Probably the most Progressive city in the entire United States. I suggest, if any of you want to move to a sort of Utopia, Portland is the place to go to.


Just curious - what is your definition of a progressive city?

Just curious - what is your definition of a progressive city?

Progressive in tax burden.


It keeps

growing

and growing

and growing

and growing

and growing

and growing

Oh did I mention? And growing

*boils*

I don't suppose you'd believe my if I told you I've never read a single word of Rand. Don't have the patience. I took one look at Atlas Shrugged and said "fuck that." Too long.

But I have to say I find the majority of your points to be excessively naive in their ideals. The 'altruist' as you say strikes me as a somewhat idealistic notion; that is to say I don't really know if there's a significant portion of the human race that fits the mold that you describe. I'm no philospher, but I would guess that most people that have chosen to study the nuances of the human race [Machiavelli comes to mind], especially in politics, will probably tell you that self-preservation is tantamount to the single greatest instinctive perogative of the human race. Hell, it's probably foremost in the thinking of just about every creature in creation. If it's such a wretched concept, then why is it that we're more or less programmed to think that way? Why is it that people who excel at it do nothing but succeed and flourish in today's world? Like it or not, we [or at least I, I dont know what country you're in] live in a society where it's easier to succeed or fail on your own merits than based on those of others.

I also don't see how 'egoists' have problems taking risks. By this logic, we would have no creative businessmen at all. We wouldn't have doctors and scientists that have made such magnanimous strides in their fields by having taken a contrary position to conventional wisdom. On the contrary, I think if the incentive is juicy enough, it's at least as easy for an 'egoist' to take risks as it is for an 'altruist.'

Now I'm not knocking altruism. I think that a compassion for your fellow man is a virtue, but by the same token I think self preservation is at least as important. However I don't think its wise in most cases to legislate altruism, mainly because everyone's vision for doing so is subjective. Laws based on self preservation, on the other hand, are commonplace because they're so closely intertwined with human nature. Laws preventing murder and theft, essentially, are rooted in the vein of self preservation. Laws like Social Security and welfare, on the other hand, are based on altruism and are complete wastes of money.

Now, if I may nitpick this:


2) The hydrogen bomb is the only thing you can think of that the government has contributed in the last 50 years? Well silly me, I was thinking about all the antibiotics, vaccines, and medications that they've paid most of the research money for (which is what keeps the consuming public alive), as well as continued construction and maintenance of our highway system (which is what allows commerce to take place), cheap food through subsidization (which is what allows the consumers to worry about which artist they want to buy as opposed to, say, how they are going to put food on the table), disaster relief (which is what keeps places like Florida or Topeka inhabited), health and safety standards (which is what keeps consumers from relying on Caveat Emptor to keep their Ravioli E. Coli free), minimum safety standards (which is what keeps workers from, for example, dying in their twenties from black lung disease or from being blinded when their defective hammer shatters and fragments get in their eyes), minimum wage laws (which is what allows workers to actually buy the goods they are producing), The Marshall Plan (which is what allows Europeans to buy their goods instead of grow them on those pinko collective farms), enforcement of desegregation (which allows both whites and blacks to buy consumer goods), just to name a few. But of course, all these beneficial government programs interfere with the Libertarian view that government has an at best indifferent effect on the market, if not (far more probably) deleterious. I can see why you would ignore them.


Antibiotics and vaccines: OK, sure. So the government funded some studies to fund and furter these things. But who actually did the work? That's right, the private sector. Disease is one of those things that society is likely to deal with on its own; I don't see why anyone [again, out of a sense of self preservation] in the private sector would be opposed to studying these things on their own. Such as it is, this wasn't the way it happened. The government in essence probably just beat the private sector to the punch. Claiming that the government is solely responsible for progress in this area is a misnomer anyway, on virtue of the fact that funding a study != doing the work.

Construction and Maintenance of our highway system: Point. But I'll note that such a system might quite possibly exist today regardless of government standards and practices. I'll give you an example. Back in the '90s, at some point in that decade [you'll forgive me for the vagueness; its been a while since I heard this story], San Fransisco had a moderately powerful earthquake, and the roads were royally fucked up. There was one stretch of road, we'll call it Highway 10 , that was particularly screwed up. For one reason or another, the city had decided to hire private workers to maintain a section of Highway 10, but the state government for some damn odd reason wanted to be the ones to fix a particular exit ramp. The City council offered to the private company an incentive if the project was completed in a certain time. I think the projection was ten months, IIRC. The private company got the road back up to par in three months, while the government crews still toiled endlessly on theat one goddamn exit ramp, which stayed closed for years. That's why I don't like the Democrats: they want to turn the whole country into that one exit ramp. Suffice to say I think this is an endictment of how poorly the government handles big programs like this, by and large. Corporate interests, like I said earlier, have much more of a drive to succeed, as they more directly depend on the contentment of the people to stay in power. Politicians, as someone argued earlier, want to get re-elected, but I'll be quick to point out that this has never stopped them from introducing fucking stupid legislation like the Patriot Act or the War on Drugs.

[b]Cheap Food through subsidization: I don't count that as a good thing. Wastes too much tax money. IMHO, if they did away with a lot of their existing policies and got rid of the income tax, the at-risk earners in our society would have more money to buy food themselves. We're creating an environment where people are becoming too dependant on the government to do everything for them, and it's bollocks.

Disaster relief: No argument here. There should be some sort of program to allocate funds for the rebuilding of infrastructure. This is one of those things that we should hold onto. I'm not sure if this is as big of a thing as the internet, though, or the cellular phone. Or, say, the PC.

Health and Safety Standards: Most of these health and safety standards are common sense. It's stuff like "dont sell bad meat" and "put your seatbelt on when you drive." Certainly not as significant as the points I mentioned earlier, since if you lack this fundamental common sense, you're probably not going to get very far anyway. I'd venture to guess that the agencies that investigate these standards are probably more important than the standards themselves.

Minimum Safety Standards: I'll note that for the first 150 years or so, our government really didnt do that much in the way of labor laws; aside form abolishing slavery which is such a slam dunk that it's only worth extolling in a moral--not a practical--sense. Safety standards came about largely as the result of unions, not government interest.

The Marshall Plan: I'll skip this one because I fell asleep that day in history class.

And incidentally, I'm not really ignoring them, as evidenced by my efforts above. I just think that most are more of a response to the changing social and political climates in our nation, rather than a genuine desire on the behalf of the government to protect us.

Cheap food through subsidation? ARE YOU NUTS! They subsidize farmers in the United States and pay farmers not to grow crops in order to keep prices high!

They are running out of caves to put surplus milk into because the price has gotten to a point that there is a huge surplus that no one will buy!

Then the government gets off looking like saints because they offer food stamps and programs like WIC to help alleviate the problems that they have created.

Direct farm subsidy to farmers keeps food prices high, creating a politically lucrative special interest group that gives politicians money and votes.

Just ask Bush and Kerry
They'll tell you

Also, perhaps the most glaring example of how communism is a dismall, horrible failure of a philosophy was the Soviet Union itself. Now a bunch of communists would come out and say "well that wasn't really communist" but that's beside the point. There was a five year period (I believe from 1916 to 1921) within the Soviet Union where Lenin abolished the price system completely, and at the end of that five years so many people have fled to the forests and participated in a barter economy, just as both Ludwig von Mises and his protege Freidrich Hayek predicted, that Lenin had to reinstate some sort of price system in order to save the Soviet Union.

Communisms and Socialism are not inevitable, and they are not the end of some sort of governmental or human evolution.

http://www.mises.org

Cheap food through subsidation? ARE YOU NUTS! They subsidize farmers in the United States and pay farmers not to grow crops in order to keep prices high!

They are running out of caves to put surplus milk into because the price has gotten to a point that there is a huge surplus that no one will buy!

Then the government gets off looking like saints because they offer food stamps and programs like WIC to help alleviate the problems that they have created.

Direct farm subsidy to farmers keeps food prices high, creating a politically lucrative special interest group that gives politicians money and votes.

Just ask Bush and Kerry
They'll tell you

Amen to that.

Even though I am libertarian, I see it enevitable that the world will go into slight socialism. We are on our way, but I think that the way socialism is in Europe works. Let's just not go into full socialism. After socialism we will head back towards Libertarianism. I dunno why. Just seems logical.

Okay, I am *not* that far a libertarian

I think this explains what is so evil concerning libertarianism. Life demands an objective law, that means a law based on what individuals need to live a life as a human being.

Upholding this objective law is the primary and only concern as far as the State is concerned. Upholding it through police, court and military, in other words protecting our individual rights.

This is not a matter of privatisation, justice should never be at the mercy of another human being - so to speak.

In short, libertarianism accepts moral ideas that if practiced totally and consequently it will lead to anarcho-capitalism - which is evil!

Hence, some idea within libertarianism is evil, since evil can never come out of good. I, being an objectivist, demand laissez-faire capitalism - however, not because I should be allowed to "do what ever I want no matter how crude or immoral it is" but rather 'caus I have a right to live my life for me. By myself, and for myself.

see I think you may have Libertinism and Libertarianism confused

Libertarian philosophy contains one big caveat.

You are allowed to do as you wish providing your actions do not infringe the liberty of others.

Perhaps many libertarians portray an image like that just to sort of shock people, to get attention.

Libertinism is the belief that everyone should do whatever they chose no matter the consequences.

Cheap food through subsidation? ARE YOU NUTS! They subsidize farmers in the United States and pay farmers not to grow crops in order to keep prices high!

They are running out of caves to put surplus milk into because the price has gotten to a point that there is a huge surplus that no one will buy!

Then the government gets off looking like saints because they offer food stamps and programs like WIC to help alleviate the problems that they have created.

Direct farm subsidy to farmers keeps food prices high, creating a politically lucrative special interest group that gives politicians money and votes.

Just ask Bush and Kerry
They'll tell you

Macro Econ 101 Quiz Question 1:

Farmer Bob in Mozambique recieves no price supports from his government. Because of this, he must sell his products at or above the price of the goods that go into it in order to turn a profit. In this case, the costs are $2/bushel. The minimum price he can therefore sell his goods while still remaining in business is:

A) $2/bushel or more
B) $1.99/bushel or less
C) As much as the market can bear
D) Why did I sleep through this part of class?

Quiz Question 2:

Farmer Steve in the U.S. recieves extensive price supports from the U.S. government. Because of this, he must sell his products at or above the price of the goods, minus the amount of subsidized supports, in order to turn a profit. In this case, his costs are also $2/bushel, but the government effectively pays for $.50/bushel. The minimum price he can therefore sell his goods while still remaining in business is:

A)$1.50/bushel or more
B)$1.49/bushel or less
C)Why bother when you can buy Farmer Bob's goods and fight the Man.
D)Chef Boyardee?

Quiz Question 3:

Using the enlightened self-interest model of market economics, and assuming that you correctly guessed the answers to 1 and 2, which of the following farmers will be more likely to have his goods bought?

A)Farmer Steve, because his prices are cheaper
B)Farmer Bob, because his prices are more expensive.
C)The cotton gin.

If you guessed A on all of the above, you would be correct. Government subsidization allows for people to sell their goods for a lower price than they otherwise would, because it provides money for necessary materials (labor, machinery, raw materials) that no longer have to be factored into the cost. Consequently, those governments that subsidize their industries are able to effectively undercut the price of their competitors. This is the reason why nations that subsidize their industries, like China with it's industrial sector or Japan with it's automotive plants, have traditionally been able to undercut the price of similar American designs, or why American agriculture can outsell anyone else in the world. The plans you mention (government payment to buy milk or keep land fallow) primarily exist as a stabilizing mechanism, preventing the bottom of the market from falling out, not as a means of artificially inflating the price.

I, being an objectivist, demand laissez-faire capitalism - however, not because I should be allowed to "do what ever I want no matter how crude or immoral it is" but rather 'caus I have a right to live my life for me. By myself, and for myself.

Could you share more info on Objectivism, please? I went to http://www.objectivistcenter.org but don't have a clear understanding of the practicality of it all.

I'm a moderate libertarian, meaning I don't believe in privatizing everything and letting things spiral out of control (although you wouldn't know it to look at my NS country since I haven't had the chance to fund police yet). I believe in being hands-off for individual issues but that the government should still protect the rights of its citizens.

So I'm interested in hearing more about your philosophy to see if it's a better fit for me.

*boils*

I don't suppose you'd believe my if I told you I've never read a single word of Rand. Don't have the patience. I took one look at Atlas Shrugged and said "fuck that." Too long.

But I have to say I find the majority of your points to be excessively naive in their ideals. The 'altruist' as you say strikes me as a somewhat idealistic notion; that is to say I don't really know if there's a significant portion of the human race that fits the mold that you describe. I'm no philospher, but I would guess that most people that have chosen to study the nuances of the human race [Machiavelli comes to mind], especially in politics, will probably tell you that self-preservation is tantamount to the single greatest instinctive perogative of the human race. Hell, it's probably foremost in the thinking of just about every creature in creation. If it's such a wretched concept, then why is it that we're more or less programmed to think that way? Why is it that people who excel at it do nothing but succeed and flourish in today's world? Like it or not, we [or at least I, I dont know what country you're in] live in a society where it's easier to succeed or fail on your own merits than based on those of others.

. . .Which is precisely the beauty of Socrates' argument in The Republic. Doing what is altruistic and doing what is in your self-interest are precisely one and the same thing. It is only your own ignorance and short-sightedness that keeps you from realizing it and acting upon it. Those who do act purely from an egoistic standpoint are the very cause of the insurmountable obstacles that bring them down (an argument, might I say, that Machiavelli's The Prince never answers, and whose Discourses on Livy seems to tacitly agree with). This is not naivette on my part. It's rational argumentation backed up by empirical data.

To give you an example, in the every-man-for-himself lassiez-faire society of the Gilded Age in the United States, capitalists were able to make a great deal of money. Unfortunately, this money was a) concentrated only in the hands of a few uber-wealthy people, and b) because of the first fact, said money was often lost in huge amounts as production rapidly overtook the squeezed lower-classes' ability to buy those goods, resulting in cyclical crashes, ultimately culminating in the Great Depression. Since the advent of government regulation of industry and a much more robust Federal Reserve, however, not only has such cycling been much reduced, but the amount of wealth generated has been leaps and bounds above and beyond what was produced in the Gilded Era. Ergo, you help others (by preventing them from being squeezed by companies), and you yourself also benefit. Don't help others, and ultimately it's your own throat you're cutting.

Additionally, you might want to seriously look at Rand. If you read what is supposed to be the cornerstone for objectivist libertarianism (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal), and see just how seriously goofy some of her inferences were, you might change your mind about Libertarianism as a philosophical position.


I also don't see how 'egoists' have problems taking risks. By this logic, we would have no creative businessmen at all. We wouldn't have doctors and scientists that have made such magnanimous strides in their fields by having taken a contrary position to conventional wisdom. On the contrary, I think if the incentive is juicy enough, it's at least as easy for an 'egoist' to take risks as it is for an 'altruist.'

I see. Then pray tell why in the last 30 years, when corporate conglomerates have introduced the egoistic incentive into the medical field, has the greatest advance to come out been. . .Viagra?

Now, of course, I'm exaggerating slightly, but the point as a whole is pretty obvious: since corporate medicine has taken over, what we have gotten is primarily incremental advances over and above existing treatments. There have been some new and useful drugs (protease inhibitors for the treatment of AIDS, for example), but most of these are 1) slight modifications of earlier drugs, 2) sold at an exhorbinant price that keeps it out of the hands of 98% of the people who need it, and 3) dwarfed by the number of drugs designed to do such wonderful things as cure toenail fungus or impotence. Radically new and powerful drugs, such as a cure for cancer or AIDS, (which would be the equivalent of Salk's polio vaccine or Pasteur's cowpox injections from an earlier altruist time) have been surprisingly unforthcoming, especially given the promise of huge amounts of money and expertise being invested in the search. Even worse, even supposing such a wonderdrug were made, it would be priced out of the hands of only those who could afford to pay whatever the price they decide to set. In the old days smallpox was eliminated for all people. Today it would simply be eliminated for the rich. You tell me which system is better.


Now I'm not knocking altruism. I think that a compassion for your fellow man is a virtue, but by the same token I think self preservation is at least as important. However I don't think its wise in most cases to legislate altruism, mainly because everyone's vision for doing so is subjective. Laws based on self preservation, on the other hand, are commonplace because they're so closely intertwined with human nature. Laws preventing murder and theft, essentially, are rooted in the vein of self preservation. Laws like Social Security and welfare, on the other hand, are based on altruism and are complete wastes of money.

1) How so is altruism a "relative" concept? Doing unto others seems like a pretty universal maxim if ever I heard one.

2) Welfare and Social Security are wastes of money? I see. So the money that I pay in taxes to welfare that a) allows surplus workers to stay alive until the economy can make use of them, b) in the interim keeps them from trying to survive by means of committing crime that might endager me as well as anyone else, and c) allows said workers to maintain at least a minimal positive impact upon the market (that money has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is usually to the grocery), instead of pricing them out of the market and possibly causing a deflationary spiral, really doesn't do anything. And Social Security, which a) taxes current workers so as to ensure that their parents, who cannot work, don't starve, or alternately b) taxes current workers so that my in-laws live in Florida instead of in my house down the hallway like in the old days, where I only have to deal with them once per year instead of every morning after they've spent the night listening to me try to wheedle sex out of their daughter. Silly me, I just thought it was one of the most insightful, and considering it keeps my in-laws out of my hair, most useful tax systems ever devised by mankind.


Antibiotics and vaccines: OK, sure. So the government funded some studies to fund and furter these things. But who actually did the work? That's right, the private sector. Disease is one of those things that society is likely to deal with on its own; I don't see why anyone [again, out of a sense of self preservation] in the private sector would be opposed to studying these things on their own. Such as it is, this wasn't the way it happened. The government in essence probably just beat the private sector to the punch. Claiming that the government is solely responsible for progress in this area is a misnomer anyway, on virtue of the fact that funding a study != doing the work.

Actually, they do quite a bit more than just the studies. They do most of the groundwork research that most drugs currently on the market are based upon. How it works now is that the government does the analysis of the disease, how best to attack it, and then does a great deal of the work finding out which chemicals would have the best effect. The company primarily does the finishing touches on the research, the clinical trials, and then sells the drug for a massive profit.


Construction and Maintenance of our highway system: Point. But I'll note that such a system might quite possibly exist today regardless of government standards and practices. I'll give you an example. Back in the '90s, at some point in that decade [you'll forgive me for the vagueness; its been a while since I heard this story], San Fransisco had a moderately powerful earthquake, and the roads were royally fucked up. There was one stretch of road, we'll call it Highway 10 [but I dont know if that's the real number], that was particularly screwed up. For one reason or another, the city had decided to hire private workers to maintain a section of Highway 10, but the state government for some damn odd reason wanted to be the ones to fix a particular exit ramp. The City council offered to the private company an incentive if the project was completed in a certain time. I think the projection was ten months, IIRC. The private company got the road back up to par in three months, while the government crews still toiled endlessly on theat one goddamn exit ramp, which stayed closed for years. That's why I don't like the Democrats: they want to turn the whole country into that one exit ramp. Suffice to say I think this is an endictment of how poorly the government handles big programs like this, by and large. Corporate interests, like I said earlier, have much more of a drive to succeed, as they more directly depend on the contentment of the people to stay in power. Politicians, as someone argued earlier, want to get re-elected, but I'll be quick to point out that this has never stopped them from introducing fucking stupid legislation like the Patriot Act or the War on Drugs.


Now, you see, this is the very kind of thing that leads you astray: basing your entire conception of reality upon a single example. You mention the overpass. Now, even assuming what you said is totally accurate (which I do), that proves what? That governments can contract out lazy workers? Okay, I'll concede that, but then again, I never once said that government employment necessarily and logically leads to superproductive workers. Does it mean that all government production necessarily is less efficient than private sector work? Not really, because in order to determine that, you'd need to consider not just one example, but the sum total of experience, and that tends to argue against your position. During the 30's, the government at low cost and fairly high safety, constructed the Interstate Highway system in far less time than it took to construct the private railway or waterway systems. The Interstate Highway system currently moves the majority of our consumer goods, because it's more cheap and effective a means of mass transportation than any other system (by water to slow and by air and train too expensive).

Now, this doesn't mean that all private sector work ought to be co-opted by the government. But it does mean that the claim by Reagan that government is a necessary blockage to effeciency is also complete baloney.

..... That went right over my head.

Sorry to get off topic, but...

I live in Portland, Oregon. Probably the most Progressive city in the entire United States. I suggest, if any of you want to move to a sort of Utopia, Portland is the place to go to.

Yeah, they said that Madison, WI was the best city to live in the US about 5 years ago and then all these FIBs from Chicago moved here.... Be careful what you tell people, my friend.

ok right, but farmer Bob's crop is still costing society on a whole 2 bucks. His farm subsidy comes out of MY pockets, which I disagree with.
And America's food crops are not really all that competitive. American shrimpers just got an excise tariff passed, because they only cornered 10% of the American market for shrimp. The outside world farmed shrimp by a different method that allows them to produce them for much cheaper then picking them up out of the ocean.

The subsidy system in the dairy industry in this country IS designed to prop prices up, not make the goods cheaper. No matter what econ 101 you look at, the laws make the milk more expensive, not less. If the milk really was cheaper, they wouldn't have to pay farmers to not make milk, and they wouldn't have to buy excess milk from farmers because they'd be selling most or all of it.

Any industry that requires subsidy to survive should fold. The presence of subsidy in an industry is a show of the true weakness and inability of an industry to provide a solid product or service.