NationStates Jolt Archive

(Spawned from the liberalsm vs conservative debate)
Personally, I'm libertarian, because a libertarian society is the only society which can realistically maximize individual liberty while minimizing the role of the state. And to all of you who say that libertarian capitalism creates massive inequality: you forget that in a libertarian society that there still is charity and welfare, but it is NOT funded via gov't.

Authoritarianism creates inequality, too, and in a far worse proportion than in libertarianism. The key difference is that, in a libertarian system, you can rise up based on your own merit. In an authoritarian system, if you're not a member of the party, you're scum.

(Spawned from the liberalsm vs conservative debate)
Personally, I'm libertarian, because a libertarian society is the only society which can realistically maximize individual liberty while minimizing the role of the state.

Like most ideological arguments, extreme views on either ends cause massive problems. That's just the way it is.

And to all of you who say that libertarian capitalism creates massive inequality: you forget that in a libertarian society that there still is charity and welfare, but it is NOT funded via gov't.

I admire, yet do not share, your insistence that human beings will not continue to be selfish.

Are you insinuating that people don't donate to charity as is?

Are you insinuating that people don't donate to charity as is?

Precious few do - and even then generally only around holidays.

Are you insinuating that people don't donate to charity as is?
People donate to charity.
But I'm quite sure there are more poor living off government welfare than off charity.

People donate to charity.
But I'm quite sure there are more poor living off government welfare than off charity.

Because welfare is more readily available. Charities competing with the government, the government is going to win.

Because welfare is more readily available. Charities competing with the government, the government is going to win.

You can't apply that type of economics to charities - they are non-profit organizations. It has nothing to do with competing. Even with both in place, there are those who get nothing.

Personally, I'm libertarian, because a libertarian society is the only society which can realistically maximize individual liberty while minimizing the role of the state.
When you say something like this, you have to explain why maximum individual liberty and small government are desirable. I agree with you, but you should not rely on "small government" as a justification in itself.

(Spawned from the liberalsm vs conservative debate)
Personally, I'm libertarian, because a libertarian society is the only society which can realistically maximize individual liberty while minimizing the role of the state. And to all of you who say that libertarian capitalism creates massive inequality: you forget that in a libertarian society that there still is charity and welfare, but it is NOT funded via gov't.

Meh.

Many like to brag about being "libertarian." But liberty is a spectrum. And government is not the only threat to freedom. Simply saying "libertarianism good, authoritarianism bad" says little.

I am assuming you are deliberately referring to little "l" libertarianism rather than the Libertarian Party -- the latter is more specific, but open to criticism of its positions for that very reason.

Among the reasons government is instituted among men is to protect our liberties. Government is not necessarily inherently bad. And not all liberties are equal. Liberties can clash. One thing we do through instruments like our Constitution is prioritize certain liberties over others.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion you need to define what you mean by freedom and then what are proper reasons for limiting freedom. In the abstract most sensible people will agree that freedom should be maximized. What freedoms and how much are the sticking points.

Smaller government = less taxes
Less taxes = more money in your pocket

Smaller government = less power
Less power of government = easier to preserve individual liberties

Individual liberties = freedom.

And after that it's subjective.

Smaller government = less taxes

Not necessarily.

Less taxes = more money in your pocket

Not necessarily.

And after that it's subjective.

It is *all* subjective. Everyone has their own idea of how big is too big, how many taxes are too many, what taxes should and shouldn't be used for, etc.

How, exactly, is small gov't not less taxes? the gov't spends less and thus requires less from the people to pay for it. you don't spend 500 dollars on taxes, you're 500 dollars richer.

The thing libertarians usually fail to realize is that people's freedom can be inhibited by other things than other individuals. That's why a certain guaranteed level of income is needed, and charity simply isn't reliable enough.

It's an argument against libertarianism, but not for authoritarianism, of course.

Smaller government = less taxes
Less taxes = more money in your pocket

Smaller government = less power
Less power of government = easier to preserve individual liberties

Individual liberties = freedom.

And after that it's subjective.

Great.

I assume this small goverment won't interfere with my liberty to:

a) log the forests

b) build dams

c) burn coal for electricity

d) rape

e) pillage

f) buy small children to use for my amusement

g) sell wonder drugs and herbal remedies

i) create my own tolls on roads

......

Government still runs the police. Sorry, you can't sell slaves, rape, or pillage as much as you want to.

Logging? so what.
Build dams? so what.
Burn coal? so what.

You don't own the tolls. If you do, then it's your property.

How, exactly, is small gov't not less taxes? the gov't spends less and thus requires less from the people to pay for it.

Requires less, yes. But asks for less? Maybe.

you don't spend 500 dollars on taxes, you're 500 dollars richer.

You assume that pay would remain the same if taxes were lowered. This is a pretty silly assumption.

People don't give to charities very much anymore because they feel they're already giving to charities... whether they want to or not. The government snatches money from you and gives it to others.

I've always been a very charitable person, but not of the tax-deductible kind. Other than research foundations, I am of the personal opinion that private charities fail to meet the needs of the people they are attempting to help as spectacularly as the government does, primarily because each person's needs are different, and cannot be resolved by a dispassionate bureaucrat.

I help the people I know. Sometimes that involves physical assistance, sometimes problem solving skills, and sometimes it involves money. Usually there is some sort of combination. Personal involvement brings real results. I can prove I've helped at least one person live a better life, which is one more than the government can.

Great.

I assume this small goverment won't interfere with my liberty to:

a) log the forests

b) build dams

c) burn coal for electricity

d) rape

e) pillage

f) buy small children to use for my amusement

g) sell wonder drugs and herbal remedies

i) create my own tolls on roads

......

Straw man.

Government still runs the police. Sorry, you can't sell slaves, rape, or pillage as much as you want to.

So you keep law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

What about my liberties?

How come these aren't liberties?

Logging? so what.

Do I have to own them?

What happens to the public land?

What about species?

What about preserving the environment?

Build dams? so what.

What about people downstream?

What about upstream?

What about flooding?

Burn coal? so what.

What about pollution?

What about the health effects?

You don't own the tolls. If you do, then it's your property.

Who does own the roads?

Can I build a road wherever I like?

EDIT: You didn't answer about my special wonder drugs I whip up in my garage.

Straw man.

Nope.

Where do you draw the line.

Easy to say "small government, more liberty."

Easy little dogma.

Bit harder to be specific.

These are among the many, many reasons we justly have government.

So you keep law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

What about my liberties?

How come these aren't liberties?

Your liberties end at te nose of others.

Who does own the roads?

Can I build a road wherever I like?

Don't be an idiot. If you own the land, then go ahead and build a mini road. See where it gets you.

And I really don't give a shit about the environment so there's no need to preach about it to me, mmkay?

People don't give to charities very much anymore because they feel they're already giving to charities... whether they want to or not. The government snatches money from you and gives it to others.

Most people never gave to charity much. And very few who will refuse to do so because they already think they are doing so involuntarily. In truth, that is just an excuse.

I can prove I've helped at least one person live a better life, which is one more than the government can.

That is the silliest thing I have ever heard.

And I really don't give a shit about the environment so there's no need to preach about it to me, mmkay?

The world only matters as long as you're on it, eh?

Isn't it fun baiting non-capitalist liberals on these boards? The more time they spend on here spewing their rantings, the less time they have in the real world to cause damage.

The world only matters as long as you're on it, eh?

The world isn't going to die if I throw a soda can on the street. sorry.

Then I assume you're prepared to do these things so you don't have to pay taxes to "the beast":
- Go on interstate highways
- Send your kids to public school
- Use public water
- Use the public sewer system
- Not have police protecting you
- Let the poor starve
- Not be protected from natural disasters

And a hell of a lot more things the government does with "your" money. Let me put it in terms a libertarian conservative like you would understand. America is like a country club. You pay dues (taxes) so the pool, tenis court, clubhouse, excersize room, and resturant don't go to waste and become crackhouses. You pay these taxes so the facilities can be maintained and upgraded.

Neither is good. Libertarianism is stupid, stupid, stupid. Authoritarianism is stupid, stupid, stupid. Both are radical and irrational governments, BOTH relying on deceit and false claims.

//You pay dues (taxes) so the pool, tenis court, clubhouse, excersize room, and //resturant don't go to waste and become crackhouses. You pay these taxes so //the facilities can be maintained and upgraded.

But...what if I don't use the exercise room? Do I have to pay for it anyway?
Why don't we let people pay for the services they want...and not tax them for the others? Wow, free choice? That's like, Capitalism!

Your liberties end at te nose of others.

And that means what?

Can I blow things up on my property at 2 a.m. -- keeping you up?

Can I buy all the airports and only let planes from my airline to land?

Can I keep a lion and let it roam the neighborhood?

Can I shoot a dog if it comes on my property?

If your spouse consents, can we have an affair?

Can I buy a kidney?



Don't be an idiot. If you own the land, then go ahead and build a mini road. See where it gets you.

And I really don't give a shit about the environment so there's no need to preach about it to me, mmkay?

Hmm, fine.

So, the environment is screwed. That'll be nice. Fishermen, hunters, tourist industries, etc. will be thrilled in this liberatarian paradise.

But that does not solve the problem about the dams. If I build a dam on my property, what about drinking water and irrigation water downstream? What about fishermen?

And what about my wonder drugs?

//You pay dues (taxes) so the pool, tenis court, clubhouse, excersize room, and //resturant don't go to waste and become crackhouses. You pay these taxes so //the facilities can be maintained and upgraded.

But...what if I don't use the exercise room? Do I have to pay for it anyway?
Why don't we let people pay for the services they want...and not tax them for the others? Wow, free choice? That's like, Capitalism!

Choice is bad and therefore needs to be regulated by a government agency... no make that 15 gov't agencies

The world isn't going to die if I throw a soda can on the street. sorry.

There is a rather large distinction between a single can on the street (which is much more aesthetic than environmental anyways) and allowing companies to rampantly pollute the air and destroy ecosystems.

Neither is good. Libertarianism is stupid, stupid, stupid. Authoritarianism is stupid, stupid, stupid. Both are radical and irrational governments, BOTH relying on deceit and false claims.

i agree with you on the libertarian part, but not on authoritarian. it's better to make it best for the majority then to make it fair for everyone. that's why i support democratic totalitarianism

There is a rather large distinction between a single can on the street (which is much more aesthetic than environmental anyways) and allowing companies to rampantly pollute the air and destroy ecosystems.

I still don't care. We have people like you to complain about it.

I really don't give a shit about the environment so there's no need to preach about it to me, mmkay?
The world isn't going to die if I throw a soda can on the street. sorry.
Whoever said anything about that? OK, so we can tolerate cans on the street. How about eradication of 90% of the world's trees? Destruction of ancient natural habitats for a year's supply of oil? Get over your ideology. The environment does matter and it needs to be protected.

This is the world that will need to sustain humanity for the future. We need to preserve it to sustain our quality of life.

Smaller government = less power
Less power of government = easier to preserve individual liberties

Individual liberties = freedom.

And after that it's subjective.
It's not that simple. We need government to protect us from those who would take away our civil liberties. Yes, I am referring to some overreaching corporate excesses that we see in the world today.

I still don't care. We have people like you to complain about it.
How mature of you.

I'm not a mod, but you must be flamebaiting.

As the thread goes on, one must ask the necessary question. I am that one.

What's the use?

Can I blow things up on my property at 2 a.m. -- keeping you up?

Can I buy all the airports and only let planes from my airline to land?

Can I keep a lion and let it roam the neighborhood?

Can I shoot a dog if it comes on my property?

If your spouse consents, can we have an affair?

Can I buy a kidney?

1. no
2. no, i think that a true free market requires protections against monpolies
3. no, that infringes on the rights of others
4. no, someone owns that dog
5. yes, this sort of thing shouldn't be prohibited by the government
6. yes, if someone wants to sell it

1. no

Why not? Who is going to make and enforce the rules against what a private individual does on their own property?

2. no, i think that a true free market requires protections against monpolies

Ah, not an economic libertarian I see.


4. no, someone owns that dog

Interesting. What if the dog seems threatening?

6. yes, if someone wants to sell it

Bad idea, very, very, very bad idea.

How mature of you.

I'm not a mod, but you must be flamebaiting.

I'm not flamebaiting, I'm making a statement that there's no need for me to care about it. There are other people to keep the balance or whatever. Not that I'd care ANYWAY if they weren't there. And looking at the posts, it seems Dempublicents is concerned about the environment, thus she's included in that group. That's my apathetic stance.

An authoritarian government is doomed to collapse by a people that will demand freedom as time goes on.
Besides, civil society is usually maximized when a population feels it is contributing, which usually occurs under a democracy. And a civil society is, generally, a productive society.


Libertarian government? Not my cup of tea.
Maintaing that civil society is neccessary to keep the country strong. Markets don't do that. Public education, the church, community service...those things do that.
Plus, the free market will eventually destroy itself. All it does is try to find many balance points. That balance point could be total destruction...corporations do not care about lasting growth, or growth of a country, only the temporary growth of a bottom line.
Plus, free markets benefit when competition is introduced (the economy was doing much better when TR and Taft started to smash the Trusts, and, it is on more precarious ground with radical mergers every week under the Bush administration.) This will also require a government.
And, governments can actually manipulate the values of certain goods (like education) in order to increase production capacities in other goods (like internet search engines)


So, I'm a mixed type of guy. Both extremes seem faulty to me.

To swimmingpool since I don't feel like quoting:

90% of the world's trees is pushing it. Obviously if we do that, then we'll have to adapt.

And of course it isn't that simple. This whole damn thread probably misses 1000 points that none of us even know.

In the end, my opinion doesn't even matter. I keep it to myself - and this is a political forum so no one really will care anyway. So I don't see the need to care. By the time civilization ends, anyone I'd known in my lifetime will be gone and honestly I don't care about my great-great-great-great-great grandson.

Authoritarianism creates inequality, too, and in a far worse proportion than in libertarianism. The key difference is that, in a libertarian system, you can rise up based on your own merit. In an authoritarian system, if you're not a member of the party, you're scum.
no comrade, you are wrong. everyone in mother russia is equal. lock him up in the gulag comrades!

libertarianism is simple. Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely. You give a government power, it becomes more corrupt.

All this talk can be simplified.

Let the individual decide what is right for him/herself, as long as he is not hurting any other individual in a physical or existing-property manner. (aka, kill and steal)

In economic matters, it's Free-Market.
Businesses are interesting. Many people believe that the government is the ONLY thing that is able to control businesses, because it's the only thing bigger than them. But this is simply not true. The Businesses worst nightmare is... the consumer. You don't like what a business is doing, boycott them. The power is in the hands of the people.

A Monopoly? Even they are able to be shut down with the right use of consumer prowess.

The unemployed/poverty-stricken:
This is bringing up an interesting point. NO society has EVER been able to eradicate poverty, unemployment, and the homeless. When everyone was equal in Russia, everyone was equally poor. With European countries (aka, Belgium) becoming more socialist, their economies are slowly collapsing.

The point is, for a free-market and free society, there must exist a gradient. There must always be poor, and there must always be filthy rich. But of course, any individual can go from rag to riches, it's entirely possible.

libertarianism is simple. *snip*

Too simple.

It tends to be completely vague or borderline absurd.

Actions of individuals affect and harm other individuals in a myriad of ways. Merely keeping my fist from your nose does little to control the copious impacts my choices can have on you and your rights.

I always find it interesting that libertarians are gungo-ho about small government, but would maintain big corporations. Corporations don't exist. They are created and protected by government.

There are many concerns that a simplistic libertarian approach ignores --

*health (not just the unfairness of health care inequity, but what about plagues and other social effects of poor health)

*water - drinking water, irrigation, dams -- how distributed, how protected?

*sanitation -- garbage, sewage, etc -- again effects us all

*pollution -- you can say you don't care about the environment. If I build a coal plant next to your house -- you care.

*education -- without widespread education where are your shiny corporations going to get workers? how is our democractic system going to function?

*civil rights -- any protections for equal opportunity? or are we back to the '50s?

I can go on and on and on.

Libertarianism is a nice principle to keep in mind. It ain't a way to run a society.

Libertarianism has a gaping flaw when it comes to international economy; simply that without government; it cannot compete with other countries. A country under "Libertarianism" has no way to compete in trade wars when other countries increase tariffs on imports/exports; which would ravage a 'libertarian' market.