Why is libertarianism so infallible?

It is due to it being the application of political science. It does not permit failed policies to be continued fruitlessly year after year with idealistic fervour, it is next to impossible for anyone surrounded by fierce libertarian critics to continue clinging on to lies. It is a purely functional machine, lubricated with justice and fueled by free speech.

Now if we could only put the brakes on the entitlement culture in our publicized police and fire forces, we'd really get somewhere, #280.  Knowledge of the depth of their entitlements is a great way to convert a person over to advocating market solutions.

>>279
Libertarianism wouldn't privatise the police or the courts. Fire department would be contracted by insurance companies to patrol an area so they never have to pay out. Privatised road companies would construct roads and motorways based on supply and demand rather than populism and politics and pay people who own property they need instead of bullying them out of the way.

>>282
And areas populated by poor people just get worse or no roads since demand in this case means realized demand? And this is not an injustice?

>>282
You seriously expect insurance companies to pay for things?   You're a fucking retard.


Private companies would build roads wherever, and then charge tolls for them.  Goodbye city planning, hello complete traffic mess!


Courts would be contracted out to private companies, as would the police.  We would have mercenaries walking the streets, aka police for hire.  Of course, corporations would be able to pay them more, so they wouldn't bother protecting poor people.



LIBERTARIANISM:  I'M RICH I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT I WANT, INCLUDING HIRE MERCENARIES TO KILL MY ENEMIES.

I must have fallen asleep there during your explanation, #282.  How is a fire department not privatized if it is paid for by an insurance company?  The insurance company is private, right?

Also, from your model, privatized road companies would build roads around cities and nowhere else.  In order to deliver the mail, how would the mail company get out to the boonies?  Or, do you imagine Americans cramming themselves into cities, thus leaving most of the land in the hands of what are effectively landed nobility?

Don't get me wrong.  Market solutions should always be considered, as long as they save money and serve functions.  But privatizing everything (or important things) like that just leaves us all at the (usually lacking) mercy of the Hypercapitalists.

>>284
If their roads are a total traffic mess, then people won't use them, thus they'll use something other than tolls to make a profit.

thus they'll use something other than tolls to make a profit
Until there's a monopoly lollerskates.

What's that?

I'm sure they will make it up somehow, #286.  Sadly, it's likely they'll petition the local, state and federal governments for "relief" and then as the first cent of public funds crosses into their sweaty palms -- BANG!  We're back to public funding ... except worse, since the profit motive will create endless demands for funds to increase without bound.

Look at the current model of transferring turnpikes over to private companies.  You just know the publics going to make those fuckers "whole" in case anything bad happens, like the CEOs take more Barbados trips, or the public uses the pikes less.

I like how libertarians view the world as this magically self-correcting system. The environment is the most obvious example: if a company pollutes too much, people will boycott their product, or their factories will close because the environment's too hostile! Back in the real world, there are no mass boycotts, and all the people dying of cancer downstream doesn't really affect the operation of the factory.

The real reason libertarianism is infallible, though, is that its definition can be changed as soon as someone challenges it. Let's face it, though, libertarians all want a few of the same things: no more EPA, no more FDA, no more Social Security (which wouldn't really matter since nobody would live over 65 in such a place anyways), across-the-board deregulation (so you can buy a car at a 70% interest rate to drive on a toll road) and regressive taxation. There's nowhere to hide, libertarians. Your philosophy is shit and we all know it.

>>289
I think you've said it all.

That was a good outline of what's wrong with strict Libertarianism today, #289.  At least in today's model, the people dying downstream have a recourse to the law, although such recourses don't seem to change much these days.

>>289
Libertarianism has a national police, courts and military so your argument is strawman.

>>292
National means publicly funded through taxes yes?
And what about the injustice of poor people not having roads since their demand is not enough to warrant building nor fixing roads for them? National roads too? If so, then i think i spotted a trend in libertarian thought.

>>293
People would be charged for their role in congestion and road damage, most of this comes from haulage and heavy vehicles. People who don't drive 45 ton articulated lorries near continuously on major roads would be charged less for road usage and would be able to afford it.

>>292
Libertarianism has no room for publicly funded services, because it is a science not an ideology!

The military, police, and courts would all be much better and more efficient if they were privatized. 

Justice that's efficient just isn't justice, #295.  To use the extreme to show what I mean most effectively:  The most efficient justice is to execute people on the spot when they are caught in a felonious crime.

The system of justice should be excruciating since the standard of proof is so high.  We've already seen Libertarianized justice systems in action, in Texas, Illinois and other states.  The jails there are filled with poor people who were unable to mount an adequate defense from the "efficiency" of the justice system that essentially attacked them.

All this doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at wasteful practices in the justice system.  Libertarian thought is instructive and can be used to bring us back from the brink of too much Socialism in whatever cultural function we examine.  But outrightly privatizing the police and courts?  No, that's just another extreme, and the poor -- and petty criminals -- will be routinely denied their Constitutional rights.

>>The most efficient justice is to execute people on the spot when they are caught in a felonious crime.

If that's what the majority of people wanted, and were willing to pay for, that's what they'd get.

>> We've already seen Libertarianized justice systems in action, in Texas, Illinois and other states. The jails there are filled with poor people who were unable to mount an adequate defense from the "efficiency" of the justice system that essentially attacked them.

This is down to elected prosecutors herding people into jail like some kind of production line. They do this to make it look like they're doing their jobs properly. Under a market system, everyone has a strong incentive to maximise profits by reducing crime, rather than just throwing poor people in jail.

>> But outrightly privatizing the police and courts?  No, that's just another extreme, and the poor -- and petty criminals -- will be routinely denied their Constitutional rights.

As you rightly pointed out, the poor already are denied their constitutional rights. It would seem that the fastest way to reform the courts would be to force them into competition on an open market.

#297, there's a difference between "routinely" and "routinely always".  However, your last point is the best; maybe if courts and cops had to compete, they'd clean up the more appalling of their circus acts.

Libertarianism isn't about privatising the law system.

>>299
Then what is it about? If you privatize and deregulate roads and mail, people in rural areas won't have any service because it will NEVER be profitable. Do you want to get rid of environmental, health, and workplace regulations, with the absurd idea that somehow it will all work out well for the individual? Do you want to get rid of the minimum wage so that businesses can pay people $2 an hour, thus creating an underclass that adds nothing to the economy and is basically forced into a life of crime?

Really, name one attribute of libertarianism that you can't just back out of later on, and that would somehow benefit society as a whole without relying on magical thinking or an absurd interpretation of economics.

Libertarianism has one large flaw: Its naive faith in economic incentives and cold matemathical reason being the only driving forces of mankind. This is, in my humble opinion, a very superficial analysis of the human being.
In addition, I think that politics should not be only about human beings and human society, but about how we interact with (and essentialy, how we are just a small part of) nature, with the power to destroy it completely.

But hell, who am I? Just another ecologist moron...

>>297
>>300
You people are under the wrong impression that Libertarianism amounts to an abrogation of the Constitution, which isn't the case. If anything, it's an affirmation of it. Libertarianism isn't entirely about getting rid of all government involvement in our lives, but instead it focuses on intrusive (largely) Federal meddling.

1. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power (read: duty) to regulate interstate commerce and that includes building and maintaining infrastructure, such as railroads and highways. Congress can't just shrug off one of its powers. We Libertarians have an issue with the Federal abuse of the Commerce Clause which modern legal scholars have interpreted to allow the Federal government a huge range of abusive powers -- such as criminalizing marijuana. In any case, though, Libertarianism can't legally take away Congressional power to build highways.

2. The on-the-spot execution of criminals is an unconstitutional act. Only government can deprive us of life and liberty, and the sole purpose of our government is to protect our liberties. What you are thinking of is the stench-ridden idea of democracy.

3. For me, there is no such ability to privatize things like the police and fire departments. 

>>289

As far as the EPA goes, I don't count on the market to self-regulate itself entirely, nor I have loads of faith in exploitative corporations. But what it comes down to, for me, is that if a factory up river is sending waste my way and it damages myself or my property then I have been injured and I thus seek a just recourse. I follow a similar notion with the FDA. If you've noticed, many cases of recent food-recalls have been issued by the manufacturer. If they know negligent business practices will result in hefty, injurious punishments then they won't be as negligent (notice: I didn't say they'd be perfect, just less imperfect.)

Why not get rid of Social Security? It's going bankrupt. So is Medicare. By the time I'd be old enough to benefit from either, they won't exist. Why then should I be asked to pay into a program that will never benefit me? Because it benefits the collective good? Nope, don't think so. But what really boggles me is that people can look at Katrina+FEMA and the Bridge to Nowhere and still insist on a bloated, abusive and intolerably wasteful federal government.

Have a good'n.

>>302
See, this is what I love about libertarianism. If someone can show that it's shit, it can just be changed at whim to suit whatever position you want to take. Now, you've gone and confused anti-federalism with libertarianism. Good job. Let's sum up what we have for your libertarian utopia so far:

1. Power goes to the states, which means that in Florida an abortion doctor will go to jail for ten years, while in California tax dollars are used to give free abortions to illegal immigrants. Marijuana possession earns you a death penalty in Kentucky, while in Washington you can get it for free (that is, paid for by taxpayers) if you get a doctor's note.

2. The federal government still has most of it's regulatory bodies, such as the EPA and FDA. Roads are still maintained, by and large, by the government. Military and legal systems are unchanged. Basically the only significant reduction in government spending is on Social Security and other public-welfare programs. That means old people will be left to die of starvation if they don't have family or friends to take care of them, but since they aren't economically productive I guess it shouldn't matter to libertarians. You're obviously around 15, so for you it makes sense to not have to pay into Social Security when you enter the workforce ten years from now.

That's about all I could get from your incoherent post. It's the typical point of view for a teenager: you don't want to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit yourself. Then why should the government exist at all? Of course, you think it shouldn't, but you know that nobody will take you seriously as an anarchist. Try developing your viewpoint a little more, give some consideration to how such a system would affect everyone else, and give it another shot.

>>303
My particular view of Libertarianism has not changed. I don't speak for others, I speak for me. If there are discrepancies, deal with them on a case by case basis. If my views ever adapt, and they do make minor corrections, be glad. I'm not a dinosaur, a demagogue who is locked into a belief system that can't change. If a position becomes untenable, why should I stick to it? Mental five.

1. Yes, more power should go to the States. But even they should have less influence on people's personal lives. The hypothetical situations you list are too outrageous warrant a response. Now, I would make the case that anti-federalism and libertarianism aren't that far apart. 98 other Senators and 430 Representatives can't very well draft a law -- if draft they must -- that will do good for my state, or for yours. It has to be vague enough to please everyone, and most get shafted in the process. By taking power away from the Federal government on issues like marijuana -- an issue proudly abused via the commerce clause -- each state and the citizens can decide how much personal freedom is too much or not enough. And again, within the confines of the constitution.

2. I wasn't clear on this one. I don't want the EPA. I don't really want the FDA (I do enjoy a little risk.) No department of education, knock it down to a bureau or an agency. Same for energy. Hell, get rid of most of them. And again, mea columba, the Constitution delegates to Congress the duty to build and maintain roads. So let me sum it up: I'm all for letting Congress keep the powers that are vested in it by the Constitution. If it's not a power given to Congress no prohibited to the States, then it's for the States to decide.

Yes, that is very much a anti-federalism issue. Of course it seems you didn't realize that my original post was very much about federalism and libertarianism, but that's okay. I can be incoherent at times.

I pay for lots of things that don't benefit myself. I take my brother out to eat. I buy gifts for my friends. Hell, I've even been known to go over to my grandma's house and mow the yard for her. Point is, outside my immediate family and friends I really don't give a shit. If I see someone needing help, I'll do what I can. But I'm suck-as-fuck not going out of my way.

Why should the government exist at all? To wax idealistic, because its primary function is preserve liberty. Which it fails miserably at. More realistically, because people are not worth the log I drop in the morning and will go out of the way to injure others. So yes, darling, government must unfortunately exist. I do not fancy myself an anarchist, but I have been called an anarcho-capitalist. Kudos for me?

I have given it some consideration. Lots of it. People will get fucked over. People's lives will be ruined, some will flee in panic as the nanny state disappears and they are left to find jobs and pay bills and, cherish the thought, pay for the food they eat.

So here it is. I'll give you a nice overview of all my big political beliefs and you can print them off and tuck them into your pocket and they'll keep you warm at night.

1. More personal freedom = good.
2. Less government = good.
3. Adhering to the Constitution = good.

Just look at the libertarian manifesto. They don't want to cause a penis riot, just change a few things they believe are seriously wrong and prove that the country needs to lean towards libertarianism if not go all the way.

You people keep arguing about anarcho-capitalism all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the state is the cause of many of the problems you blame capitalism for.

it doesn't change the fact that the state is the cause of many of the problems you blame capitalism for.
The tired refrain of the libertarian. To a libertarian, industry is never to blame; it's always the meddling of the bumbling corrupt (by who? hah!) government that gets in the way of the self-correcting invisible hand.

Having some government is better than giving private interests free reign. Until I see a modern society that works like you claim, libertarianism is pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation. You're little different from the Marxists, with your head up your arse.

>>300

>>Then what is it about? If you privatize and deregulate roads and mail, people in rural areas won't have any service because it will NEVER be profitable.

People in cities should not have to subsidise people in the country. They can if they want, but they shouldn't have to.

>>Do you want to get rid of environmental, health, and workplace regulations, with the absurd idea that somehow it will all work out well for the individual?

Workplaces improve for the same reason that wages rise. When employment is high, workers may pick and choose between employers, and this forces employers into competition in the labour market.

Nobody wants worse working conditions, libertarians merely argue that working conditions have been improving anyway and that the government has been taking credit for those improvements, when really the state contributes nothing.

>>thus creating an underclass that adds nothing to the economy and is basically forced into a life of crime?

What crime would they commit? If drugs are legalised, drug gangs disappear; they can't steal anything because the rich can afford private protection agencies, and the same goes for hired murderers. If there were a major economic slowdown and an unemployed underclass did form, it is more likely that they would have to return to low-tech, low-status jobs like mining or farming. Your criminal-society scenario could only occur if a government were obstructing the normal course of the economy, so surely some form of radical libertarianism is better?

>>Really, name one attribute of libertarianism that you can't just back out of later on, and that would somehow benefit society as a whole without relying on magical thinking or an absurd interpretation of economics.

I'm using a tripcode so that you'll know if I try to take back something later on. If you or anyone can make a strong enough case, you'll have de-converted one libertarian. To be absolutely clear I'll try to summarise my viewpoint:

A market, as the medium of mutually-benficial service provision and goods exchange, free of murder, theft and fraud, is the normal state of a society of free and law-abiding human beings. Markets can do everything governments do, incluing the provision of law and defence. Governments are a legitimisation of murder, theft and fraud in the form of war, tax and political manoeuvering, respectively. Government therefore represents a perversion of normal human interaction. All laws and regulations passed by governments are merely posturing and political grandstanding, and either do harm, or would have been done by the market anyway.

>The hypothetical situations you list are too outrageous warrant a response.

No. If power is given to the states (where I agree it belongs), abortion will be made illegal in most states, and others will fund it with taxpayers dollars (as they are already doing). Similar things will happen with drugs. These are not outrageous situations at all.

At least you've gotten back to libertarian ideology. You want to get rid of the EPA, FDA, etc. Then what happens to the environment? Sure, we can still have all the laws that are in place, but nobody will enforce them. You say you "enjoy a little risk" with your food. Good for you. In China, there's so few controls on what goes into the food that 7 year old boys are growing beards from the hormones.

>People will get fucked over. People's lives will be ruined, some will flee in panic as the nanny state disappears and they are left to find jobs and pay bills and, cherish the thought, pay for the food they eat.

Yes, people will get fucked over, but you seem to think that Americans are all lazy welfare cases. Once the "nanny state" disappears, everyone's wages will go down because of a lack of corporate regulation. Kids will be sent to work in sweatshops instead of college so that they can have food to each (cherish the thought), not that they'll be able to go to college anyways without public universities and government grants.

A lot of lives will be ruined, but whose lives will actually improve? Am I wrong to think that this should be the point of a sweeping change of government's purpose? In your libertarian utopia, it looks like for every one CEO's son who gets to smoke pot while watching CP at his personal movie theater, there's thousands of already hard-working Americans who will see their lives degrade into that of a Chinese peasant.

People's lives will be ruined
Sounds like an excellent reason why it's a bad idea.

I so do love you sociopaths seeking social acceptance.

>>309
As long as Steve Forbes doesn't have to pay income taxes to the evil IRS, it's okay with us libertarians.

>>308
They are too outrageous to respond to because no state could ever get away with executing someone for smoking joint. So what if one state wants one thing, the next wants another? I simply hope that people will enjoy the freedom from excessive government found in states that -- and this will never happen -- adopt a more libertarian trend.

Laws can be enforced, without a government agency. If a manufacturer is poisoning my drinking water with outrageous amounts of lead, I have been injured. If you and/or your property is injured because of a negligent manufacturer, you can pursue legal action. I'll grant that this line of thought leads to some fuzzy areas, like what should one do if the damage is inflicted communally, such as smog? Don't know right now. Of course, one can always move to the country. As for China, their problem isn't a lack of regulations -- they have like seven bodies similar to the FDA -- it's a matter of corruption and bribery and government stupidity.

>Yes, people will get fucked over, but you seem to think that Americans are all lazy welfare cases.

I was only referring to people who so regularly and perpetually feed off a system that hands out cash like a drunken sailor. Wages may well drop. I make about 8 bucks an hour. If my employer wanted to drop that to four, I'm gone. And while it wouldn't happen immediately, if wages did fall then cost of living would also come down, though perhaps not across the board.

Whose lives would be improved? Pretty generally I'd say anyone who pays taxes. As it stands, I'm losing 15 or 20% of my paycheck to the government and all I can really show for that loss is the worst set of interstate highways in the nation and a post office I never use. If I had to pay only 5% in taxes, I'd be able to afford the medicine I need to function without pinching pennies. For me, that's the crux of it. People will be more able to supply themselves with what they need instead of relying on what amounts to government stipends. The government can go back to its original and intended job: more or less mediating between the states, maintaining infrastructure, ensuring the common defense, yada yada.

And were it all to happen, I would make exceptions for people who really are unable to provide for themselves, such as the mentally ill, the elderly and all that. I'd much rather that charity provided for them. But I know that not everyone around retirement age today has bothered or been able to save up. I'm not a complete monster, I guess.

But remember: how many lives were ruined by the first sweeping government change, the Revolution? 17,000 directly ruined out of a population of 3M. Lives are always ruined when massive change occurs. And about the Chinese peasant part, which is better, to live a high quality life that is governed by ideas like productivity and submission to unreasonable laws or to live a much more destitute life where you can put the emphasis where you want.

As for the CP, that won't fly. In making the CP, the adult subjected the child to a situation which most certainly would result in mental or behavioral disorders. Someone's been hurt, so that won't fly.

>>309
If I wanted social acceptance I'd be either a pot-smoking Democrat pundit or a bible-preaching Republican pundit. But if you want to give me a hug that'd be super swell! xoxo

#311, are you sure about how much of your yearly wealth gets sucked into the government via all levels of taxation?  You have to figure all income taxes (Fed, state and local), then all the other taxes on things you consume (fuels, sales, special local taxes, etc.), then certain government fees (licensing, etc.).  You'd find that about 40% gets swallowed up by the government.

The average US citizen is overtaxed.  There are certain levels of poor who "make out" on it due to EITC, but they also pay other taxes (consumption and licensing).  The wealthy are subject to rather heavy taxes (at least, those who don't indulge in many tax shelters, either legal, illegal or IRS-gray-era).  Overall, our levels of government form a 40% monster on our backs.  That well exceeds the Medieval tithes.

Jesus Christ, surrounded by retards, etc.

Here's the fucking Libertarian Field Manual.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=V7O9QXVY
or
http://rapidshare.com/files/46464047/Platform_of_the_Libertarian_Party.pdf.html

Read this, then if you STILL don't understand the premise of Libertarianism, or think its wrong, return.

.

>>312

lol, 40% monster.

That about covers it. Libertarianism is indeed infallible.

According to marxist theories, libertarianism is the way to go as it is a version of capitalism without social control.

argumentum ad absurdum

>>313

We have a winner.

The winner is the libertarian party.