Libertarianism

Let's talk about the libertarianism!

I'm not ignoring the flaws of the other countries. I'm all too aware of them as well. Frankly, I like the text in >>80, even if it's counter to my position, because it's mostly based on reality.

Government, while it may not seem like it, is a much more uncontrollable and dangerous force than any conceivable private endeavor.

This I disagree with though. Why is government more uncontrollable? It's supposed (we hope) to be accountable to the people. Business is only accountable to shareholders.

If you think about this a while, you'll note their structures have a fair bit in common. Governments are run by an elected legislative branch, with an employed executive branch. Private enterprises have an elected board of directors, with employed executive officers and managers. Citizens and shareholders are analogous. The only real difference between the two is that governments have a judiciary.

If you watch the macroscale behavior of a state, which is essentially controlled by the government, as interacts with other states, you'll note the behaviour is very much like private enterprises in a market.

Governments and private companies are the same thing. The only significant difference is in scale. The rest is incidental.

Because government ISN'T always accountable to the people, and it has direct control over them.

>>82

This is the logic problem with a lot of Libertarian thinking I see.  They see government screwing stuff up, and suddenly declare that all government is inherently bad.  When your TV is broken, you don't decide that all TV's are inherently bad and broken and rid yourself of TV; you fucking fix your TV!  If government isn't accountable to the people, then make it accountable to the people, the way it's supposed to be!  If government officials are fucking things up, kick them out and elect people who will do it right!

>>83
But the problem is that people are not informed enough to decide whether to kick out a government official or not. They could be the most evil person and still have a good reputation. Nobody KNOWS what the government is doing at a particular time. The government is not transparent and it would be very difficult to make it transparent.

Therefore it would be a much simpler solution to not give that much power to the government so that the power would not be abused.

To repeat, solving corruption or overuse of power is  a very difficult task and it would be much easier and safer for all concerned to not give the government that much power in the first place. The people do not know what officials are doing and most of the time. Corruption could be rife and no one would know. Taking the power out of their hands so that abuse will not happen is a better choice.

So how is giving private interests a free hand any better? If government isn't accountable, a company sure isn't.

In >>84 I was also talking about private companies. I don't think that **any** organization should have too much power. Power corrupts.

>>87
Unfortunately, without a government, I fail to see how you'll achieve that. Anything that can enforce such a thing has enough power, by definition, to be a government.

how do you expect people to change their government when they control the military, the police, and not on an election year?

Guess you've never

Whoops. For >>86.

how do you expect people to change their government when they control the military, the police, and not on an election year?

There's a reason why most democratic governments come with three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. You're making the mistake of lumping them all together. I'd hardly call the US a good example either, although it does display problems that could face any similar system.

Okay, throw it out. You'll just end up with a similar set of problems. How do you intend to prevent a non-representative private interest from taking over the market and then deciding it can do better by becoming a defacto dictatorship? If I were that private interest, you can be sure I'd try.

At it's height, the worst it did was employ some child labor and break a few ethical conventions

Only because they weren't powerful enough to do more. Why not? Because there was a government more powerful than they were. If there weren't, they'd have taking its place and done as they pleased. Why shouldn't I employ a private army to destroy my competitor? You can be sure I'd try that too.

Government, on the other hand, has been responsible for some of the worst mass killings of our time.

As well as building infrastructure, sending people to space, funding universities and basic science, funding the arts, giving us universal health-care and security of the person, ensuring the market is regulated, providing a forum for the law, ad nauseum.

**weak** government
not **no** government
**weak** government

Too weak and it'll be eaten alive. Can weak government really scale?

| Only because they weren't powerful enough to do more. Why not? Because there was a government more powerful than they were

The point isn't tomake corporations stronger than government, or to make government weak.   The point is ***LIMITED*** government.  A government that has strict rules imposed upon it, that not even a democratic vote can revoke.  (Tyranny of the majority is a problem in democratic systems, the rape of the minority.  Say 90% of the population is shiite.  They vote to kill the 10% that's sunni.  Too bad sunni?

Say ten people are in an elevator, and there's one woman.  They all want to have sex with the woman.  Democracy says put it to a vote.  Oh well!

Problem of Democracy is that people are stupid, and will vote for their stupid shit.

How weak can a government be and still be able to control companies?

It doesn't even need to the federal government who should control companies and split up monopolies. It could be the state or even county/city government.

The less people who are affected by a decision from a government, the better.

>>94 was addressing >>91

Who should have the power to limit the power of coorporations anyway?

A government that has strict rules imposed upon it, that not even a democratic vote can revoke.

There is no such thing. There can be no such thing. I recommend you take some law courses that discuss constitutional law as to why it's impossible. Almost by default, such a society would not be a democracy. Further, it's utterly inflexible.

This is really just the debate over the concept of living constitution all over again.

It's regrettable that apparently Civics is no longer taught in US highschools.

It could be the state or even county/city government.

You can't be serious. May I point you to Italy before it was unified? Wasn't exactly a peaceful place now was it? What makes you think it'll be any different if you replace princes with presidents? And what about Florence during its heyday?

Pay a bit more attention to history please.

The local government isn't going to be breaking up any monopolies, they'll just be restrcting what a corporate entity can do on land under their control.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that under the US system at least, corporations have no liability for their actions, while having all the rights associated with being an individual.  Libertarian doctrine seeks to bring that under control, not by limiting corporations, but by holding them accuntable for their actions, or by revoking some of their rights. 

And OF course you can vote to change the constitution, but the idea is that even by democratic process, if there is an action that opposes constitutional law, it can't be upheld.  Should have clarified that.  The constitution BTW is fucked up currently.  The act that lets them take income tax needs to be reworked.  Thsi may sound radical, and maybe it is, but most libertarians oppose tax on incomes, but instead want to institue a national 10% sales tax, including a rebate that would occure every month equal to the tax that would be paid out on bare neccesities (Food, water, the amount of electricity that would be used if you only ran the refrigerator and some lights, the lowest fair rent that many poor people woudl be paying ETC).  It'd be a more fair tax, it'd be a consumption tax, and not a punishment for standing out in a group as occurs under democracy. 

Whether you like it or not, the US is I think about to have a libertarian revolution, not like the russian revolution or anything, but a huge reformation of the political parties that currently exist, I think over maybe four decades.  If the experiment fails, then hey, we'll be no worse off than you. 


BTW, earlier one of you, I can't tell how many of you there are, called libertarians dangerous.  I assert that you statist government control freaks are more dangerous.

Covertly got 100

hundred and first post

if there is an action that opposes constitutional law, it can't be upheld.

I agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, if you take a look at US history, presidents have been sodomizing the constitution left, right, and centre. The presidents who did obey the constitution were all called weak. A constitution is little protection against anything.

I was about to go on regarding your statements of corporations being legally treated as people, however I think I'll just point the following out: if you look at the writings of some of the founding fathers, you'll note that many of their sentiments were exactly like your own. Yet where are corporations today? They're even treated like people. What a coup!

Having them held responsible for their actions only works if they aren't more powerful than the government. They appear to have done a fine job of taking over larger governments, so I think a small one will suffer a similar fate (just faster).

most libertarians oppose tax on incomes, but instead want to institue a national 10% sales tax

That's one tiny government you'll have there. That aside, who is going to maintain the roads? Pay the police? Firemen? Judges? Employ the people who'll hold those corporations accountable?

If you pay for them seperately, how is that any different from a tax?

Well, all that's true.  But the threat of corporations is still miniscule compared to the threat of powerful government.  Corporations lack the infrastructure and know-how to set up their own micro-governments that actually controls anyone.  And what do you mean different from a tax?  I never opposed a tax.

BTW, it was the emancipation proclaimation that was used to make sure corporations could be treated as people.  They used some weird loophole, and made it work.

They did the calculations, BTW, and found that under our current amount of goods being moved, we'd get approximately the same amount of tax revenue.  Because, consider, that all those corporations who you give your money to must also pay a tax in order to buy most of their supplies ETC... so the effect isn't just 10% like it seems.  Of course, most corporations will be trying to cut their supply chains to reduce their tax burden... And of course, that might also reduce thier power...

And that's just the tax on the federal level.  There will still be local and state taxes.  The beauty of this is that if you hate the system where you live, you can just leave without going through all the tricky mess of citizenship.

And about the politicians being called weak, yeah, I know.  But a constitution is still not "little protection." It has kept our politicians basically in line for the most part for 200 years.  The constitution isn't weak, it's the judicial branch, who seems to have forgotten it's job as of late...

Corporations lack the infrastructure and know-how to set up their own micro-governments that actually controls anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India

And there are a bunch of other companies too.

it's the judicial branch, who seems to have forgotten it's job as of late...

Judicial is always subject to the legislature. It has nothing to do with forgotten. Imagine what would happen if the judicial branch was not subject. There's a reason why, until recently, judges have tiptoes and pretended that judicial activism doesn't exist.

I appreciate all your arguments, and some of them seem, prima facie, compelling, but most of what I've read thus far displays a fundamental lack of understanding how most modern governments work, and why they work that way. They didn't evolve this way by accident.

What the hell?  STFU

During the Great Depression, when all those lazy fuck workers should have been screened out of the genepool, that fuckhead Roosevelt enacted the New Deal to help those worthless fucks live. Nonesense. So the large corporations at the time did the only sensible thing and tried to stage a coup. Unfortunately they hired US Marine Corp Smedley Butler for the job, who should have been a sure thing as he was a general and helped expand business abroad through military action, but instead he ratted them out and said he was tired of being a "gangster for capitolism". What a pussy. We'd be so much better off today if we could have gotten rid of all those worthless fucks who couldn't contribute to society.

Last time I checked, it was the workers who actually worked (which is why they are called WORKERS), so how can they be lazy?

I think the humour just went over your head.

I loled.

"I appreciate all your arguments, and some of them seem, prima facie, compelling, but most of what I've read thus far displays a fundamental lack of understanding how most modern governments work, and why they work that way. They didn't evolve this way by accident."

Translation:  You're making some good points, but I'm going to decide I'm winning the argument anyway. 

Am I supposed to assume that every change that has been effected in the past was a good thing?  Am I supposed to assume that our society is perfect as it is?

Earlier you said that presidents who upheld the constitution were "weak".  What's the relevance of a president being "Strong"?  Just because he gets something done doesn't mean he did good things.  Lincoln, as I said earlier, paved the way for corporations to gain the power and influence they currently enjoy. 

Why do you think the government needs power over everything in our lives to be able to protect people?  Or do you just feel more comfortable putting your future in somebody else's hands?  Not having to worry about health insurance...  Why should we strive to put everyone in the nation in the same category?  I don't say that we should let people die (just that we maybe... prevent them from reproducing, maybe, but that's more sci-fi than real world right now)... But why should we equalize everything?  Because people are not... You pour money into a ghettow in the USA, and people don't get any better off, they become dependent.  You talk about people being greedy, but in truth, the only way to get anything done, to effect any real change in the world is to concentrate the capital under an independant person.  While there'd need to be many laws to prevent problems, and a "big" government, why you think it needs to be a *provider* and not a *protector* is beyond me...

Are you a college professor or a high level college student?  Because it sounds that way.  I don't know, I'm just a low-level highschool mook, but I'd be really interested to know a little about yourself.  I don't have all the research background that you obviously do, but whenever I've reasearched your claims myself, I found them to be very exaggerated.  You've proven earlier with your defense of marxism your bias, (and your disdain for American student's who think "they're so smart").

I realize most of the world is going in your direction, and this discussion and millions like it will have no effect on the real world.  But I believe that before it's over the US will surpass the world at large again, in politics, industry, and technology because of it's lean and efficient system. Of course, you'll deny it, and claim that the US is going to fall to obscurity soon, but only time will tell, eh?  The experiment hasn't failed yet.  When I see the McDonald's gulag "disappearing" thousands to die in remote corporate gulags, then I'll agree with you.

Translation: you're making some good points, but I'm going to decide I'm winning the argument anyway.

No, the correct translation is I don't have time to educate you on the basics. You think a lawyer argues with every opinionated couch-potato who has watched too many law shows?

I must be an idiot for joining this.

WOOO!

Libertarianism wins!

>>114
Only in theory!

ok, not even then...

I believe in Social Libertarianism, a term I made up. Essentially, I agree with Democrats on social services/welfare, NRA-conservatives on gun rights (because I do *NOT* trust our government, such as on the eminent domain ruling), and citizens of Amsterdam on drug laws and gay rights （＾ヮ＾*）

>>116
is that Social Liberalism, or something...

>>39
Stop talking about anarchy, we're discussing libertarianism.

Why do you want the governement to manage your money? Well, most libertarians are minarchists. They want the state to manage justice and police, and nothing more. A small state.

As a libertarian I don't want ID cards, I don't want gun restrictions, public schools, and the likes. I want responsability. If you can't manage to pay for school for your children, don't have it. Don't make us pay for your errors. This is getting worrying in Europe, where I live.

We pay A LOT of money to subsidize the lazy and bad people of our society, and they laugh at us for doing it. The dumb people are still having 8 childrens per marriage while normal marrriages have one or two. This is getting very hard to sustain. How much time will this system last? I don't think much more... in my country the government is socialist, but they are imposing libertarian measures because if not, we are going to get out of money soon.

For example, in my country we pay with our taxes the culture. Our movies doesn't make money, they are sustained by taxes. Our poor people gets free housing while the median class pays 30 years for a mediocre basement.

We pay 8,5$ a galloon of gas thanks to taxes. We have to pay 1500$ and a lot of practice classes and a theory exam, and despite that, we have the same amount of accidents than the USA. The same car costs about 35% more in my country than in USA, thanks to taxes. And then, we pay a high tax every year for having a car. And another 500$ tax for putting an ID in our car.

We have an enourmous amount of public workers working at offices for the gov, people that earns a lot of money and can't be rid of. They become lazy because its very hard to throw the lazy workers out. If they want more salary, they paralize our country for months until they get more salary. The Postal Service is managed by the gov too, and it works like shit. It works like a 20 or 30 yeard old service, computers and electronics are not used by the customers. I usually wait for 30 minutes or more for receiving or sending a package. We can't do anything. Lazy workers and bad system... and they don't bother trying to fix it. They don't need to, they don't have competence, life is great.

It's very hard to open a business. You pay a lot of money for it, and have to wait weeks for the permission. You can't even build a new room in your house without the Government permission, I waited 3 months until I got the permission. It's usual.

If you are married and you become separate, if you had a child your wife gets your HOUSE for her and her children, EVEN if you paid your house before getting married. Then you have to pay a monthly fee for your children. Feminist lobbies have a lot of power in our country, they run a sector of the socialist party.

Our benefits? Two.

1- Our public schools, that work like shit because the bad students can't be gotten rid of. It's very hard to manage them. Where could you send it? Another public school? We have a lack of discipline, there are thousands of cases of professors being bullied, insulted...

2- Our public health care system, where you have to wait 10 months or more for an important operation. People with money pays for private healthcare tought.. even if they get A LOT of salary taken off to pay these systems. It's very hard to improve them... every public worker wants to earn A LOT of money for the minimun job... and they have a lot of power. They manage our hospitals, our schools, our postal service... we have to obey them.

Of course we get around the same number of killings per habitant than the US but we can't carry guns, etc. Only the cops and thieves do.
My country is Spain by the way.

We even pay 15€ per hard drive disc, 50 cents per DVD-R, 4€ per cell phone, 10€ per a scanner etc. bcause we COULD copy with it. If you copy is still ilegal... but the gov gets the money even if you don't. And if you do, then jail.

This is socialism. It's an anachronic ideology. I'd prefer a responsible society, I'd prefer more freelancers and less blue-collar workers. Sadly, socialism makes it hard to be a freelancer due to high taxes, papers, legislations... it's very hard. They create a society of workers. It's hard to create your business, is hard to try to get money because you are going to get it stealed by the gov due to HIGH taxes.

The biggest problem is our housing market. We pay 3 times the prive of a house in the US while we earn 40% less money... because the gov controls the ground.

My perfect society has fiscal pression of 10-11% instead of 40-50% like we have in Europe. It doesn't bother with your life. It let's you be free. People are responsible due to this, they can't get their things for free, and a lot of them are freeelancers. They are their own bosses. After all, you only need a computer to be your own boss.

It's amazing that my country hasen't gone to the shitter yet. But it is going. We get more poor people every day, our industries doesn't work, etc. Factories being closed every month. We are going backwards. Asia is going to fuck us badly... and I approve that. Natural selection applied to countries.