NationStates Jolt Archive

1. Minimal Government? No taxes? But we still given the right to vote. Then how do we pay for poll workers and voting equipment? Don't some of our basic freedoms (like voting) necessitate government, publicly funded services?

2. Shouldn't Capitalism also recognize non-material values, such as personal experiences, personal health & well being? Wouldn't a perfect market, be one that recognized accurately ALL that is valuable to humans? Isn't the lack of market interest a sign that the free markets are NOT completely aligned with what is good for people?

I think that's it for now... help me out conservatives/libertarians!

I think that's it for now... help me out conservatives/libertarians!

1. Minimal Government? No taxes? But we still given the right to vote. Then how do we pay for poll workers and voting equipment? Don't some of our basic freedoms (like voting) necessitate government, publicly funded services? Yes. And those functions are implicitly included in the term "Limited". (edit: d'oh! you said "how"... Flat or VAT. "progressive taxation" is an expensive crock.)
2. Shouldn't Capitalism also recognize non-material values, such as personal experiences, personal health & well being?No. Those are subjective realities that cannot be quantified. Capitalisim is the tool that allows one to achive those subjective realities. Wouldn't a perfect market, be one that recognized accurately ALL that is valuable to humans?Capitalisim does that by making available the materiel necessary to achieve those things. Isn't the lack of market interest a sign that the free markets are NOT completely aligned with what is good for people?
The problem here is that you are assuming that there is "A" "good". "Good" is a subjective term. The market IS interested in providing for the individual "good" by making available those things that the individual believes is necessary to achieve that state. But just as, in general, food, clothing and shelter do not just fall from the sky, neither is it the purpose of Capitalisim to provide these things, just provide access to them through a means of exchange, either work, barter or "money".

Next question?

1. Minimal Government? No taxes? But we still given the right to vote. Then how do we pay for poll workers and voting equipment? Don't some of our basic freedoms (like voting) necessitate government, publicly funded services?

Most libertarians don't oppose all forms of taxes, just the income tax, death tax, and a few others. When we talk about poll workers, most are volunteer workers anyway, so they don't get paid. However, you make a valid point. There are some basic functions of a democratic state that require funds to operate. However, these require only a fraction of what the current budget spends. They could easily be paid through sales tax and such.

Libertarianism, w00t!

2. Shouldn't Capitalism also recognize non-material values, such as personal experiences, personal health & well being? Wouldn't a perfect market, be one that recognized accurately ALL that is valuable to humans? Isn't the lack of market interest a sign that the free markets are NOT completely aligned with what is good for people?

I am not sure what you are getting at here. In a capitalistic market, the values of goods and services are determined by the people, so any factors that they deem important would be recognized.

I am not completely sure what you mean with the last two sentences.

Well, you see Amanaplan...something something, your first sentence seems contradictory, how can you have a minimal government and then have no taxes? Is it all volunteer?

1. Minimal Government? No taxes? But we still given the right to vote. Then how do we pay for poll workers and voting equipment? Don't some of our basic freedoms (like voting) necessitate government, publicly funded services?

2. Shouldn't Capitalism also recognize non-material values, such as personal experiences, personal health & well being? Wouldn't a perfect market, be one that recognized accurately ALL that is valuable to humans? Isn't the lack of market interest a sign that the free markets are NOT completely aligned with what is good for people?

I think that's it for now... help me out conservatives/libertarians!
1.Ahem, all political donations would go into a giant fund. The first thing this fund would be used for is to set up all of the polling necessities. The remaining money would be divided up as follows. 80% would be split evenly among the top 5 political parties as ranked by registries. 5% would go to various independent fact checking organizations that would post information about the parties' claims. The remaining 15% would go to any political parties that are not part of the top five parties but have at least half a percentage point of the population in total as supporters. The money must be legitimately used in the campaign and anything left goes into the next round of election's fund.


2. The market is not a social thing, it is a way of brokering tangible goods, as what you list is not truly tangible, it does not have a place in the market as a tradable commodity. Besides, would you really want what you listed to be a tradable commodity?


Edit - Also, not all libertarians advocate the abolishment of taxes. The abolishment of income taxes and corporate taxes, as corporate taxes end up being just a hidden sales tax. Rather, a 5% tax on food and other living necessities and a 15-30% tax on other finished goods.

look at the word inside libertarian...liberty
we believe everyone should have the right
to do what he wishes as long as it doesn't
affect anothers rights

we have formed states that make decisions
based on this philosophy and the people
acting as the government

are you a nudist? good. i don't like looking
at naked people. do what you want, just
don't do it around me.

1. Minimal Government? No taxes? But we still given the right to vote. Then how do we pay for poll workers and voting equipment? Don't some of our basic freedoms (like voting) necessitate government, publicly funded services?

2. Shouldn't Capitalism also recognize non-material values, such as personal experiences, personal health & well being? Wouldn't a perfect market, be one that recognized accurately ALL that is valuable to humans? Isn't the lack of market interest a sign that the free markets are NOT completely aligned with what is good for people?

I think that's it for now... help me out conservatives/libertarians!

I agree, though those are primarily the views coming out of CATO.

Do handle it:
1. I do believe in minimal government (but not no government); that is the government should be as small as possible to handle its very specific duties.

2. I do not believe that there should be "income tax" and would rather see tax levied by tariff and other means upon goods.

3. I recognize that small communities should operate their economy as best they see fit. If a "anarcho-communist" wants to operate their own "commune" that should be allowed. They can compete equally with private business, if they so wish.

4. In the free-market, consumers are supposed to determine the course of the market by their purchasing power... That being said, if business wants to operate; it will only be able to do such by the will of the people (consumers) which use it... Putting pressure upon corporations which do not work to their liking. That being said; I oppose Corporate Welfare; business should have equal rights with individuals.... One should not be given precedence over the other... Which is why the "free-market" often fails; simply because it is far from "free": either the business becomes pawns of the state: or the state becomes pawns of business...

Hmm, I like Tekania's flexibility on the issue. However, the main issue I have with libertarian capitalism (which is, I assume, what you mean when you say libertarian - I'm libertarian, but not capitalist) is that it effectively leaves the non-quantifiables in the lurch. Minority views (art, aesthetics, non-profitable scientific research, etc, etc) get stranded. 'Special interests' are regarded with nowt but disdain.

Badness.

Hmm, I like Tekania's flexibility on the issue. However, the main issue I have with libertarian capitalism (which is, I assume, what you mean when you say libertarian - I'm libertarian, but not capitalist) is that it effectively leaves the non-quantifiables in the lurch. Minority views (art, aesthetics, non-profitable scientific research, etc, etc) get stranded. 'Special interests' are regarded with nowt but disdain.

Badness.

What you say is true. According to Hayek (whom I may regard as one of the greatest libertarian writers), the foundation of governmnet abuse of power is the fact that it endorses special interests. Libertarian capitalism would allow the market to dictate what is and what is not of monetary value. To say that art, aesthetics, and non-profitable scientific research would get "stranded" is to say that they are not capeable of surviving without arificial support by the governent. In other words, they cannot live on their own in the free market. Assuming this observation is correct, it becomes clear that the reason they cannot survive on the free market is because the average person doesn't value them highly enough to support them. Thus, they really serve no purpose to society as a whole, and what should their fate matter?

What you say is true. According to Hayek (whom I may regard as one of the greatest libertarian writers), the foundation of governmnet abuse of power is the fact that it endorses special interests. Libertarian capitalism would allow the market to dictate what is and what is not of monetary value. To say that art, aesthetics, and non-profitable scientific research would get "stranded" is to say that they are not capeable of surviving without arificial support by the governent. In other words, they cannot live on their own in the free market. Assuming this observation is correct, it becomes clear that the reason they cannot survive on the free market is because the average person doesn't value them highly enough to support them. Thus, they really serve no purpose to society as a whole, and what should their fate matter?

Indeed, the consumer defines value for the product, through purchase. An Artist either has a "market" or they do not....

Art most certainly survives in a free-market; their are countless examples of such: not all survive; but then again, not every single "business" survives... Work only survives in a market which values that work, and does not in markets which do not.... Much like any other business, an artist must settle and market in those areas where the people have attached a "want" for his product...... The old motto stands, "Location is everything"...

Honestly, if someone cannot support themselves in an area; they should either think of changing careers; or moving to a different area where there is a market for their product.

What you say is true. According to Hayek (whom I may regard as one of the greatest libertarian writers), the foundation of governmnet abuse of power is the fact that it endorses special interests. Libertarian capitalism would allow the market to dictate what is and what is not of monetary value. To say that art, aesthetics, and non-profitable scientific research would get "stranded" is to say that they are not capeable of surviving without arificial support by the governent. In other words, they cannot live on their own in the free market. Assuming this observation is correct, it becomes clear that the reason they cannot survive on the free market is because the average person doesn't value them highly enough to support them. Thus, they really serve no purpose to society as a whole, and what should their fate matter?
Bull. Shit. So minority views don't matter? Fuck me, I never realised free market libertarianism was fascism in disguise. Christ on a bike, think about what you're saying!

Further... a libertarian referring to society? Now that's something new...

Yeah, why is it that "not commercially viable" equates to "no value to society"? If you look at political libertarianism that's basically the tyranny of the majority. If society as a whole decides that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake then that must be the best outcome.

There's little difference in economics. Scientific research is a good example. The market just doesn't place any on value large areas of science, but that doesn't mean they have no value.

Yeah, why is it that "not commercially viable" equates to "no value to society"? If you look at political libertarianism that's basically the tyranny of the majority. If society as a whole decides that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake then that must be the best outcome.

No. Libertarianism in most forms contains the idea that people's actions should not damage or destroy another person's life or property. What you're talking about is plain old democracy, and that could be libertarian or authoritarian.

There's little difference in economics. Scientific research is a good example. The market just doesn't place any on value large areas of science, but that doesn't mean they have no value.

Ok, let's assume that most people are unable to fully comprehend the real value of certain goods, services or acts (that seems to be what you're proposing). Now, government is made of people. If people on the whole don't understand value, and the people in government have to power to subsidize or close down businesses based on their idea of how valuable they are, or even has the power to discriminate between certain businesses in terms of value (a cancer research facility vs. a strip club, for example), how do we know that those people won't make bad value-related judgements? After all, the majority of people don't understand value, right?

Bull. Shit. So minority views don't matter? Fuck me, I never realised free market libertarianism was fascism in disguise. Christ on a bike, think about what you're saying!

Further... a libertarian referring to society? Now that's something new...

You're appearantly mis-construing something.

Facism stamps out "undesirable art" with controls...

Libertarism simply does not support "special interest" markets.... All compete freely, allowing the consumers determine the value of things by their want of those things and willingness to pay for it.

IOW: We're not going to provide a $50,000 grant for someone to drive a car over a canvas, and consider it "art"... If people want that; they'll pay for it... If they don't; they won't....

Yeah, why is it that "not commercially viable" equates to "no value to society"? If you look at political libertarianism that's basically the tyranny of the majority. If society as a whole decides that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake then that must be the best outcome.

There's little difference in economics. Scientific research is a good example. The market just doesn't place any on value large areas of science, but that doesn't mean they have no value.

You're confusing economic policy with civil policy.... Libertarian Civil policy opposes majority views used to squelsh the freedom of an individual.

People are free to engage in any act which does not harm another; and all is legal which is agreed upon by those involved in the act.

That being said, we would never support the idea of democratic consensus to burn anyone at the stake for their choice of lifestyle.

Some of you seem to be under the misunderstanding that art does not exist in market economies, which it quite blatantly does. Classical liberals oppoe funding for special interests because, as good as it sounds, superficially, the artist just begin to pander to whatever body decides who gets the funds.
Also, someone mentioned Hayek. One of the things he was most critical of was the destruction of human initiative to set up charities or suchlike to deal with a problem in society. This hasn;t been destroyed in the US by a welfare state as in the UK, so private individuals fund art galleries and donate to universities and give money to whoever. Also the commerical appeal of art just means that it is lliked by a number of people that doesn;'t taint it surely. When has art ever not been commercial, either deliberately or inadvertently?