NationStates Jolt Archive

Laissez-faire capitalism:

Great idea, but just like Communism, has yet to be proven to actually work. There are also issues that all libertarians are sketchy about. Monopolies. Some Libs. say they should be broken up as they are an afront to competition. Other Libs. say that the gov. should stay away, insisting that monopolies remain competitive. I've also heard no solid answer regarding natural monopolies, either.

Cutting Government Programs:

The platform of the Lib. Party claims that it wants to cut many government programs. Most notably welfare, social security, and Medicare. They display no real plan as to how to achieve this; am I to assume that as soon as Libertarians achieved a Libertarian-dominated Congress, Supreme Court, and White House they would instantly abolish these programs? Would they be phased out slowly? What exactly would happen? Let's also not forget that elderly citizens constitute a large part of the voting base -- reduce their benefits and the Lib. party will have a fat chance of ever succeeding.

Legalization of drugs:

Just like above, the party claims that it wants to allow all drugs. Will it make them all legal at once? Legalize soft-drugs first, followed by harder drugs years later? What? They claim that if drugs were legalized, the crime rate would drop (no business for organized crime) like it did after alcohol was made legal again. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that times are different and that Americans are irresponsible. The legalized drugs would be widely abused and the cost to society (lost work, insurance costs, etc.) would be far greater than the crime "caused" by prohibition. Liberal proponents of drug legalization claim that these costs would be covered by taxing drug sales; Libertarians have no excuse as they hold onto their laissez-faire markets where the gov. would not be able to tax the drugs.

Privatized everything:

Have you looked at the Lib. platform? They want to privatize roads, utilities, schools, and even the central bank! What happens when you have a community that can't afford to pay for a privatized road? Now they can't get to work, can't pay their bills, can't get food. Why would a road company build a road out to this small community? The costs would be huge and the pay-off minimal. Unlike now, representatives will add road projects to bills so they can get more constitutents to vote for them (Bridge to nowhere actually serves a purpose!). As for utilities -- I can't wait to live in a society where there are four different water lines, three different sets of power lines, five different cable lines, etc. running through my neighborhood. Schools -- what about those poor families who couldn't afford good education? Do they just get sent to the discount private school? The one where the teachers are bums hired off the street? At least now, the school districting allows poor children to go to decent schools. Central bank -- a plethora of different types of currency? No thanks.

More later.

I'd have to agree on this one. Plus, the legalization of hard drugs would be a disaster and would increase crime; hard drugs actually have proven physiological effects that increase aggression and blur the ability of the user to think logically, leading to crime.

In addition, their addictive nature would still cause crime because the demand for the product increases over time, which would drive up cost as demand and supply remain precariously balanced. Sure, it would eliminate organized crime on a production/distribution level but would simply translocate it to the corporate level of the industry.

The central bank is a necessity for economic stability; it's a fact that in the United States the severity and frequency of recessions is far less than it was before the creation of a central bank.

That sounds more classic than even classic liberalism. I push at times to classic liberalism but regulated Banks, Roads and Education to more good for the Economy than the actual tax it takes to do it. I would argue the same with heathcare (in that illness can't spread, people go back to work quicker ect.. but lost cause for America I often think).

As for drugs a thread I saw a couple weeks back had a figure around 20 billion a year to keep drug users in jail, with a tax free rehab and education over time I think its blatent it will do more good for society that an anti civil liberty "war on drugs" battle.

I suppose I'd agree with you then, I just think picking on something that has policies more radical even the Republicans is too easy and try something less fixed to one side.

That sounds more classic than even classic liberalism. I push at times to classic liberalism but regulated Banks, Roads and Education to more good for the Economy than the actual tax it takes to do it. I would argue the same with heathcare (in that illness can't spread, people go back to work quicker ect.. but lost cause for America I often think).

As for drugs a thread I saw a couple weeks back had a figure around 20 billion a year to keep drug users in jail, with a tax free rehab and education over time I think its blatent it will do more good for society that an anti civil liberty "war on drugs" battle.

I suppose I'd agree with you then, I just think picking on something that has policies more radical even the Republicans is too easy and try something less fixed to one side.

libertarianism is tempting for me but I still have many questions for it.

Laissez-faire capitalism:

Great idea, but just like Communism, has yet to be proven to actually work. There are also issues that all libertarians are sketchy about. Monopolies. Some Libs. say they should be broken up as they are an afront to competition. Other Libs. say that the gov. should stay away, insisting that monopolies remain competitive. I've also heard no solid answer regarding natural monopolies, either.

Give me an example of a natural monopoly.

And you're right, some libertarians disagree on this subject. I guess that makes them entirely different from any other party, where every single individual is of 100% agreement on every issue. :rolleyes:

Cutting Government Programs:

The platform of the Lib. Party claims that it wants to cut many government programs. Most notably welfare, social security, and Medicare. They display no real plan as to how to achieve this; am I to assume that as soon as Libertarians achieved a Libertarian-dominated Congress, Supreme Court, and White House they would instantly abolish these programs? Would they be phased out slowly? What exactly would happen? Let's also not forget that elderly citizens constitute a large part of the voting base -- reduce their benefits and the Lib. party will have a fat chance of ever succeeding.

In practical terms they would most likely be phased out slowly. Of course, in practical terms, the libertarians have basically no chance of getting the kind of control you describe anyway. I'm not sure why any of this is a reason to *detest* the libertarian party, though.

Legalization of drugs:

Just like above, the party claims that it wants to allow all drugs. Will it make them all legal at once? Legalize soft-drugs first, followed by harder drugs years later?

Probably the former.

What? They claim that if drugs were legalized, the crime rate would drop (no business for organized crime) like it did after alcohol was made legal again. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that times are different and that Americans are irresponsible. The legalized drugs would be widely abused and the cost to society (lost work, insurance costs, etc.) would be far greater than the crime "caused" by prohibition.

I'm not sure why you "quote" "caused" as if prohibition had nothing to do with the problems of organized crime which stemmed from it. Poor history comprehension perhaps, or feigned ignorance?

And in case you hadn't noticed, drugs ARE widely abused.

Your argument, "Americans are irresponsible" doesn't exactly sound like a good platform for whatever party it is that you supposedly DON'T detest.

Liberal proponents of drug legalization claim that these costs would be covered by taxing drug sales; Libertarians have no excuse as they hold onto their laissez-faire markets where the gov. would not be able to tax the drugs.

Laissez-faire doesn't mean "no taxes ever." Income tax is frowned on, sales tax less so.


Privatized everything:

Have you looked at the Lib. platform? They want to privatize roads, utilities, schools, and even the central bank! What happens when you have a community that can't afford to pay for a privatized road? Now they can't get to work, can't pay their bills, can't get food.

Ah yes... people not being able to get to work, pay for food, pay bills. I can hardly imagine a situation where there are such people in the country! Obviously such terror can only be caused by privatization.

Why would a road company build a road out to this small community? The costs would be huge and the pay-off minimal. Unlike now, representatives will add road projects to bills so they can get more constitutents to vote for them (Bridge to nowhere actually serves a purpose!).

Oh, yeah. What a great purpose - getting some guy elected.

And I doubt you've looked into the road business so to speak. Maybe if you give me some specific cost/rate of return scenarios for different types of roads we can discuss the economics of it in greater detail.

As for utilities -- I can't wait to live in a society where there are four different water lines, three different sets of power lines, five different cable lines, etc. running through my neighborhood.

Yeah, this is similar to how when the post office was privatized, there are 5 different types of mail trucks running through your neighborhood. Oh wait there aren't.

Schools -- what about those poor families who couldn't afford good education? Do they just get sent to the discount private school? The one where the teachers are bums hired off the street? At least now, the school districting allows poor children to go to decent schools.

Yeah, poor children can go to decent schools. Where they fail because they can't afford the government price-jacked books. Maybe that's why our education system is failing so miserably? Hardly a problem of the libertarians.

Central bank -- a plethora of different types of currency? No thanks.

Why not?


I admire your criticism, but finding flaws with a platform doesn't really make for a good reason to *detest* a party. I don't detest the democrat party just because their solutions are impractical and their stance on issues waver. Nor do I detest the republican party just because their solutions are impractical and their stance on issues waver. Nor do I detest you just because you have no solutions and your stance on any issue is most likely derived from "Americans are irresponsible." :)

Really, getting so angry because of politics is unwarranted.

libertarianism is tempting for me but I still have many questions for it.

I'd call myself Libertarian as well but who seriously campains against public roads or a federal bank. You offer criticisms only the most extreme libetarian would support.

Give me an example of a natural monopoly.

And you're right, some libertarians disagree on this subject. I guess that makes them entirely different from any other party, where every single individual is of 100% agreement on every issue. :rolleyes:

Natural monopoly: Sanitation, power, etc.


In practical terms they would most likely be phased out slowly. Of course, in practical terms, the libertarians have basically no chance of getting the kind of control you describe anyway. I'm not sure why any of this is a reason to *detest* the libertarian party, though.

Perhaps they won't get that kind of control because of their extreme, half-assed platform?

Probably the former.

:(

I'm not sure why you "quote" "caused" as if prohibition had nothing to do with the problems of organized crime which stemmed from it. Poor history comprehension perhaps, or feigned ignorance?

And in case you hadn't noticed, drugs ARE widely abused.

A little bit of both actually. Sorry, master. :(

Laissez-faire doesn't mean "no taxes ever." Income tax is frowned on, sales tax less so.

thanks

Ah yes... people not being able to get to work, pay for food, pay bills. I can hardly imagine a situation where there are such people in the country! Obviously such terror can only be caused by privatization.

Not only, just more so.

Oh, yeah. What a great purpose - getting some guy elected.

And I doubt you've looked into the road business so to speak. Maybe if you give me some specific cost/rate of return scenarios for different types of roads we can discuss the economics of it in greater detail.

I couldn't do that because it's never been tried before... because the profit is non-existant -- companies have no reason to build a road to a small community that wouldn't be able to pay off the construction and use of the road.

Yeah, this is similar to how when the post office was privatized, there are 5 different types of mail trucks running through your neighborhood. Oh wait there aren't.

So, would utility companies share power lines/water mains/etc. with each other or what?

Yeah, poor children can go to decent schools. Where they fail because they can't afford the government price-jacked books. Maybe that's why our education system is failing so miserably? Hardly a problem of the libertarians.

Last time I checked children didn't have to pay for their text books. Not until they get to college at least.

Why not?

:(


I admire your criticism, but finding flaws with a platform doesn't really make for a good reason to *detest* a party. I don't detest the democrat party just because their solutions are impractical and their stance on issues waver. Nor do I detest the republican party just because their solutions are impractical and their stance on issues waver. Nor do I detest you just because you have no solutions and your stance on any issue is most likely derived from "Americans are irresponsible." :)

Really, getting so angry because of politics is unwarranted.

Mmm... poopy.

I have to agree with Santa Barbara. Near capitalism is clearly the most efficient form of economics (note, not pure capitalism).
With drugs, they would probably leagalize them as soon as they could, all at once. It makes no sence to wait. And while it would have bad affects on America, people have (or should have) the right to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't affect other peopel's rights. It is oppressive not to let them do drugs.
Keep in mind libertarians are not anarchists, most are still ok with minimal taxation and control. This goes along with very few libertarians are for privitizing roads. That is only the more extreme.
Utilities and school would be much more effective privitized. However, I would still be for a voucher system so the poor kids could get educated. Government funded schooling, but not government run.
As for currency, we do need the government. the US had privitized currency several times in its history...it never worked out.

How would utilities be better privatized?

Natural monopoly: Sanitation, power, etc.

Neither of these markets is controlled by a single corporation. And if one or two (or more ;) ) seem to be dominant, what makes you think that's "natural" anyway?


Perhaps they won't get that kind of control because of their extreme, half-assed platform?

Wait, is it extreme or half-assed? Democrats are half-assed. Neocons are extreme. You can't have it both ways, even if that does sound like an incredibly witty tort to you.

And maybe you could tell me just what kind of platform one would need to break the monopoly the Republicans and Democrats have over American politics then? Let's hear it!


A little bit of both actually. Sorry, master. :(

That's okay, it's not *my* intellectual honesty at stake here.


Not only, just more so.

How do you know this? Have you ever been unable to pay your bills due to the privatization of the mail?


I couldn't do that because it's never been tried before... because the profit is non-existant -- companies have no reason to build a road to a small community that wouldn't be able to pay off the construction and use of the road.

If you can't do that how would you know? You don't even know how much it cost to build a road, let alone how much profit would be required to pay it off over time.


So, would utility companies share power lines/water mains/etc. with each other or what?

Well, a key thing about the idea of privatization is that government is not in a "command economy" where it tells everyone, you do X, you do Y, etc etc. So I can't say for certain. But I would guess that one company gets a hold of power lines here, another there, probably also based on who owns the electricity production to begin with. The idea of practicality doesn't get just thrown out the window just cuz privatization happens. It's obvious to most people, including comapnies, that having 20 different power lines instead of 2 or 3 is not desirable, or profitable, or practical.


Last time I checked children didn't have to pay for their text books. Not until they get to college at least.

Well no, their parents do. Same with lunch and stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, but even so, college DOES count as "education", and with college the fact of it's being public doesn't in any way make it better for poor people.

I can give you a whole list of things Americans do irresponsibly.

Hang gliding
Sex
Bungee jumping
Consuming Alcohol
Suicide

Should the Government really have a say in something just because it might harm you?

I don't believe in doing drugs, but nor do I believe in putting people in jail for things that I think are foolish.

Neither of these markets is controlled by a single corporation. And if one or two (or more ;) ) seem to be dominant, what makes you think that's "natural" anyway?



Wait, is it extreme or half-assed? Democrats are half-assed. Neocons are extreme. You can't have it both ways, even if that does sound like an incredibly witty tort to you.

And maybe you could tell me just what kind of platform one would need to break the monopoly the Republicans and Democrats have over American politics then? Let's hear it!




That's okay, it's not *my* intellectual honesty at stake here.




How do you know this? Have you ever been unable to pay your bills due to the privatization of the mail?



If you can't do that how would you know? You don't even know how much it cost to build a road, let alone how much profit would be required to pay it off over time.



Well, a key thing about the idea of privatization is that government is not in a "command economy" where it tells everyone, you do X, you do Y, etc etc. So I can't say for certain. But I would guess that one company gets a hold of power lines here, another there, probably also based on who owns the electricity production to begin with. The idea of practicality doesn't get just thrown out the window just cuz privatization happens. It's obvious to most people, including comapnies, that having 20 different power lines instead of 2 or 3 is not desirable, or profitable, or practical.



Well no, their parents do. Same with lunch and stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, but even so, college DOES count as "education", and with college the fact of it's being public doesn't in any way make it better for poor people.

I didn't mean to be a 'tard! :(

A natural monopoly is one that forms by its de facto control of the market, like a formerly state owned power corporation entering the private sector. Given that it at one time controlled all facilities and was the main provider of power, it has a natural advantage, making it a natural monopoly. Governments need to apply price control formulas to ensure that it eventually ceases being one.

I can give you a whole list of things Americans do irresponsibly.

Hang gliding
Sex
Bungee jumping
Consuming Alcohol
Suicide

Should the Government really have a say in something just because it might harm you?

I don't believe in doing drugs, but nor do I believe in putting people in jail for things that I think are foolish.

Just think how "irresponsible" Americans would be if they had to make their own Bungee's and mix their own alcohol because it was illigal :o
I think suicide is illigal anyway (in principle) and well I'll let your imagination think of some good stuff for how people would have sex if it was illigal.

Just think how "irresponsible" Americans would be if they had to make their own Bungee's and mix their own alcohol because it was illigal :o
I think suicide is illigal anyway (in principle) and well I'll let your imagination think of some good stuff for how people would have sex if it was illigal.

Well they used to have the death penalty for it :--P So at least they helped you out there.

I'd call myself Libertarian as well but who seriously campains against public roads or a federal bank. You offer criticisms only the most extreme libetarian would support.
Wait, so you're a Libertarian? Or a libertarian? And yes there's a difference :D

All things in moderation. Not too much capitalism. Not too much so-called socialism. I prefer "regulation." Keep competion, but control unfair competition and practices that threaten our freedoms and our selves.

For example, there's no way to privatise the air. We all share it, we all need it. Industry does not have the right to do with it as they want. We all have a say. More money shouldn't mean more power, it should just mean more money.

What many libertarians forget is that there are many governemnt programs that are designed to limit the power of the government. Limit power. Create balance.

When buying power is pooled, it often can do more than the sum of it's parts. That's when government is at it's best, when it can push and lead for everyone's benefit, rich and poor alike.

I couldn't do that because it's never been tried before... because the profit is non-existant -- companies have no reason to build a road to a small community that wouldn't be able to pay off the construction and use of the road.

How did this community come into existence without a road in the first place? Who would build a community in the middle of nowhere, and if they did, I would think the road would be their problem. I would think that a simple road, would not be too expensive...

Perhaps the community is so small that it doesn't really need much in the way of roads. (Chicken, Alaska Pop: approx. 17)

There have actually been private roads. Look to early American history.

Wait, so you're a Libertarian? Or a libertarian? And yes there's a difference :D

"ideologically" speaking in Britain we have the conservatives getting more socially liberal (or so we're told to believe) and the Liberal Democrats with a chance to mabey push to the right if they pick their new leader right. This is why these attacks seem odd to me, getting rid of free healthcare would be seen as stupid talk, I'd love to hear what people would say about get rid of public roads ect..
But mabey I might have missed to whole point if I'm defending an ideology rather than a party thats being attacked. In which case if a party exists with the beleifs that the OP mentioned then lets please never vote for it.

How did this community come into existence without a road in the first place? Who would build a community in the middle of nowhere, and if they did, I would think the road would be their problem. I would think that a simple road, would not be too expensive...

Perhaps the community is so small that it doesn't really need much in the way of roads. (Chicken, Alaska Pop: approx. 17)

There have actually been private roads. Look to early American history.

Do any of you know the libertarian stance on monopolies?

How about bank insurance (if the bank goes bankrupt, you are up to $100,000 insured by the fed. gov.)?

What about recessions and expansions?

"ideologically" speaking in Britain we have the conservatives getting more socially liberal (or so we're told to believe) and the Liberal Democrats with a chance to mabey push to the right if they pick their new leader right. This is why these attacks seem odd to me, getting rid of free healthcare would be seen as stupid talk, I'd love to hear what people would say about get rid of public roads ect..
But mabey I might have missed to whole point if I'm defending an ideology rather than a party thats being attacked. In which case if a party exists with the beleifs that the OP mentioned then lets please never vote for it.
Don't the Lib Dems support a liberal economic and social agenda? I am sure the Tories are hardly what one would call socially liberal :p Maybe more so than Labour though.

Laissez-faire capitalism:

Great idea, but just like Communism, has yet to be proven to actually work. There are also issues that all libertarians are sketchy about. Monopolies. Some Libs. say they should be broken up as they are an afront to competition. Other Libs. say that the gov. should stay away, insisting that monopolies remain competitive. I've also heard no solid answer regarding natural monopolies, either.

Well, here's what I think. (an actual libertarian, my mother happens to be a card-carrying Libertarian) Monopolies are bad because they work away from competetion, so a monopoly should get busted into several companies.

But I think we can greatly reduce some of the crap laws about buisness, and especially simplify tax laws. If they are too complicated, people get pissed. If they are too simple (like a poll tax), people feel ripped off. Right now we're waaaaaaaaay too complex. For the good of Society, we should re-work the tax system from the ground-up.

Cutting Government Programs:

The platform of the Lib. Party claims that it wants to cut many government programs. Most notably welfare, social security, and Medicare. They display no real plan as to how to achieve this; am I to assume that as soon as Libertarians achieved a Libertarian-dominated Congress, Supreme Court, and White House they would instantly abolish these programs? Would they be phased out slowly? What exactly would happen? Let's also not forget that elderly citizens constitute a large part of the voting base -- reduce their benefits and the Lib. party will have a fat chance of ever succeeding.

I'm not going to touch Welfare, that one can stand for itself. When someone can make two thousand more dollars a year NOT working than they can actually working... (Welfare and its benefits are about 12K a year, yes? Minimum wage brings in 10K.)

As for the others, most efforts would be to simplify the system (as in fire half of the people currently working in those departments, burning the current laws, and restarting fresh)

Legalization of drugs:

Just like above, the party claims that it wants to allow all drugs. Will it make them all legal at once? Legalize soft-drugs first, followed by harder drugs years later? What? They claim that if drugs were legalized, the crime rate would drop (no business for organized crime) like it did after alcohol was made legal again. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that times are different and that Americans are irresponsible. The legalized drugs would be widely abused and the cost to society (lost work, insurance costs, etc.) would be far greater than the crime "caused" by prohibition. Liberal proponents of drug legalization claim that these costs would be covered by taxing drug sales; Libertarians have no excuse as they hold onto their laissez-faire markets where the gov. would not be able to tax the drugs.

You appear to be under the impression that Libertarians are completly against ANY government whatsoever. We're not anarchists, not some boogey man that will come out and eat your children as your naieve mind sleeps.

All of the arguments above pertaining to legalizing drugs were used by conservatives during the old prohibition. To.the.letter. The morality issues, the lost profit issues, all of that. And look how it turned out.

Privatized everything:

Have you looked at the Lib. platform?

Yes indeed. http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

They want to privatize roads, utilities, schools, and even the central bank! What happens when you have a community that can't afford to pay for a privatized road? Now they can't get to work, can't pay their bills, can't get food. Why would a road company build a road out to this small community? The costs would be huge and the pay-off minimal. Unlike now, representatives will add road projects to bills so they can get more constitutents to vote for them (Bridge to nowhere actually serves a purpose!). As for utilities -- I can't wait to live in a society where there are four different water lines, three different sets of power lines, five different cable lines, etc. running through my neighborhood. Schools -- what about those poor families who couldn't afford good education? Do they just get sent to the discount private school? The one where the teachers are bums hired off the street? At least now, the school districting allows poor children to go to decent schools. Central bank -- a plethora of different types of currency? No thanks.

More later.

Utilities:
The Principle: The right to offer, on the market, such services as garbage collection, fire protection, electricity, natural gas, cable television, telephone, or water supplies should not be curtailed by law.
All that is is not having the government say no one but they could own utility companies. It's allowing private enterpirse, not abolishing government programs.

There are many points you bring up that are indeed valid, but many that ammount to mostly not doing your homework. In order for the LP to gain control in the senate, it will have to calm down a little. It is extreme right now because of its small size. (4th largest party I think, and it's challenges more seats than any other third party) However, if you read the GOP and Democrat platforms, they're pretty strong as well. Everyone's hard in words and soft in actions, it's the Politicial way in DC.

I hope that the LP gains at least some a few seats in the Senate, we need some sweeping reforms right now.

History has not been kind to conservatives. If only they could recognize this... Liberals mostly know the way, they've been at the head of every major social revolution, because they're the ones who naturally favor them.

(note: I'm using the actual definitions for Con and Lib here. Not the pathetic economy ones, the actual one. Liberal: embraces change. Conservative: resists change, wants to revert to the old way, and usually gets trampled by history)

Here is the basic belief of the LP:
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

When buying power is pooled, it often can do more than the sum of it's parts. That's when government is at it's best, when it can push and lead for everyone's benefit, rich and poor alike.

Exacly, ideas need to be flexible and addaptable to the society your in. If something can benefit everyone or the country then who cares if it goes against your set principles.

Don't the Lib Dems support a liberal economic and social agenda? I am sure the Tories are hardly what one would call socially liberal :p Maybe more so than Labour though.

Might be early to make some predictions but it looks likely for Lib Dems to mabey join the group the rest in the center right. And well Cameron has been saying some wild stuff like "social justice" but yeah nothing in my section of the political axis I suppose.

Might be early to make some predictions but it looks likely for Lib Dems to mabey join the group the rest in the center right. And well Cameron has been saying some wild stuff like "social justice" but yeah nothing in my section of the political axis I suppose.
Hmm odd I thought they supported ideas like no discrimination based on sexuality, gender etc, of the EU, of maintaining the Monarchy while at the same time allowing further Scottish and Welsh devolution, of welfare capitalism and so on. I guess the meaning of centre right changes a lot though. Its still a better party in my view than the Tories or despicable Labour.

Hmm odd I thought they supported ideas like no discrimination based on sexuality, gender etc, of the EU, of maintaining the Monarchy while at the same time allowing further Scottish and Welsh devolution, of welfare capitalism and so on. I guess the meaning of centre right changes a lot though. Its still a better party in my view than the Tories or despicable Labour.

Yeah in theory I like them the most, but they do seem abit unsure of what they want to do and vary from left to right in constituencys depending on who they're fighting with. If they get a good leader I'd like them more. I might just be unique in that Blair and Cameron both seem like intelligent nice people.

Yeah in theory I like them the most, but they do seem abit unsure of what they want to do and vary from left to right in constituencys depending on who they're fighting with. If they get a good leader I'd like them more. I might just be unique in that Blair and Cameron both seem like intelligent nice people.

Are there any pol. parties in Europe that are similar to the Libertarian party?

That is: laissez-faire economy and maximum civil rights?

Yeah in theory I like them the most, but they do seem abit unsure of what they want to do and vary from left to right in constituencys depending on who they're fighting with. If they get a good leader I'd like them more. I might just be unique in that Blair and Cameron both seem like intelligent nice people.
Agreed. They are falling behind. They need a dedicated, powerful new leader with charisma and brains.

On a separate note, what is the Libertarian party and which country is it of?

Agreed. They are falling behind. They need a dedicated, powerful new leader with charisma and brains.

On a separate note, what is the Libertarian party and which country is it of?

Libertarian party is an American political party -- basically; minimal government interference -- restricted to protecting our basic rights of life, liberty, and property. Laissez-faire eco.; etc.

Libertarian party is an American political party -- basically; minimal government interference -- restricted to protecting our basic rights of life, liberty, and property. Laissez-faire eco.; etc.
There are parties other than the Democrats and Republicans? :eek:

There are parties other than the Democrats and Republicans? :eek:

Yes, but they don't ever really win the higher offices.

Yes, but they don't ever really win the higher offices.
I doubt they even garner over a million votes :p

I doubt they even garner over a million votes :p

Occasionally they do; Ross Perot ran some years ago for President and, I believe, was the most successful third party candidate with a good deal of votes (for a third party.)

But you are correct. Third-parties in America usually don't break a million.

Well, depends on where one sits on the libertarian spectrum; for me, I wouldn't go so far as to privatise the roads, but at the same time, I do believe that if a small section of society wants a road, and a private company is willing to provide the funds, then why not allow it to go ahead.

As for public services, my approach has always seen them as a privison of a 'safety net', but it a 'safety net' for social welfare or health care - the idea shouldn't be a lifestyle based on public provision, but provision of services for those in genuine need to get them back on their feet, but no more - or otherwise you end up encouraging socially negative behaviour.

Give me an example of a natural monopoly.


The legitimate use of violence: Police, military, etc.

Certain utilities that require massive, expensive, and exclusively owned infrastructure: (landline) phone, cable, electricity, water, gas, etc.

Certain transportation infrastructure that sufferes essentially the same problem as the utilities described above: freeways, subways, etc. (unless in Libertopia we build multiple freeways along side each other so that I can have market choice...extremely wasteful, not to mention an eminent domain dystopia)

I hate libertarians. My friend is a libertarian. All the "nerds" in my school are libertarians. My friend hates liberals and Marxists(communists, socialists, populists, ...).

Libertarians are morons and if we let them have their way, the world will...well I can't imagine it. Tommy Hobbes's ideas that humans are greedy applies more towards laissez-faire than socialism.

More to come...

I hate libertarians. My friend is a libertarian. All the "nerds" in my school are libertarians. My friend hates liberals and Marxists(communists, socialists, populists, ...).

Libertarians are morons and if we let them have their way, the world will...well I can't imagine it. Tommy Hobbes's ideas that humans are greedy applies more towards laissez-faire than socialism.

More to come...

You hate libertarians, yet one is your friend? :confused:

I hate libertarians. My friend is a libertarian. All the "nerds" in my school are libertarians. My friend hates liberals and Marxists(communists, socialists, populists, ...).
Yea because we should hate people because of their views. What ever happened to agreeing to disagree?

Libertarians are morons and if we let them have their way, the world will...well I can't imagine it. Tommy Hobbes's ideas that humans are greedy applies more towards laissez-faire than socialism.
Oh how nice. So instead of giving an actual reason you just insult people and make an obscure reference to hobbes. Yep this was a productive post.

More to come...
If its like this post please don't bother.

When a libertarian is just a person on the street or your not discussing politics, I don't hate them.

When a libertarian is just a person on the street or your not discussing politics, I don't hate them.

Doesn't matter, you still hate them when they bring up their beliefs. Any reason why you hate them?

When a libertarian is just a person on the street or your not discussing politics, I don't hate them.

Oh thats lovely. You know I used to have a similar attitude with communism when I was a little kid. I've grown out of it and I can only hope that you do.