Quote:

Stating my goals and what I'd attempt to do is not the same as stating what would happen.

---

Quote:

I flirted with libertarianism when I was in college, but soon realized the fundamental problem with it: all success is predicated on people behaving a certain way, a way which 10,000 years of human experience shows is antithetical to human nature. (This by the way, is true of many ideologies - communism, facsim, etc.) As an example, the libertarian view on pollution (in a nutshell) is that government should not be involved. The marketplace will triumph because people collectively will boycott companies that pollute, and individually sue companies that pollute their specific air or land. But how does word get out that a specific company is polluting? Easy enough to make sure newspapers and television that do this kind of investigative reporting don't get ad dollars - under libertarianism there would be nothing to prevent corporations generating a blacklist of media outlets to kill. And if a multibillion dollar corporation says, "hey, my twenty highly paid scientific experts say that pollution didn't come from my drainpipe", how does a $30K/year individual marshall a lawsuit against them? Especially if it is legal for the corporation to call in favors from other corporations and have that individual fired, their mortgage forclosed, their health insurance dropped, and their kids kicked out of school. Public approbation? How does the individual talk to "The Public"? If a few people do get wind of it, the polluters will run some happiness-and-fluff commercials about how they really care about the environment and are working hard every day to protect it, and any tiny disturbance in their bottom line will be reversed (anyone else remember those bizarre 1970's era commercials that showed a thoughtful, intelligent Mom making sure her kids got only the nutritionally best snacks: Hostess Twinkies"?)

Bottom line of the libertarians: "Well, if people aren't willing to fight for something, then the market has decided, and they have to accept the consequences." The problem with that is the little guy did figure out a way to fight the big corporations without having to spend all day every day monitoring and coordinating. A strong representational government. But the first thing the libertarians want to see killed is that government.
-MarkedMan

---

Quote:

He didn't answer the question I most wanted answers: What happens to the losers in a Liberitarian society? What will happen to the people who, through no fault of their own, can't find a job or become productive members of society? Or those who become invalids?

Two examples: My fiancee worked hospice care for mentally disabled adults. One of them was a guy who got blindsided by an SUV while he was on his motorcycle. He went from being a well-paid metal worker to a grown man with the mental skills of a two-year old. Would the burden of his care be placed on his family, or the family of the person who hit him? Neither of them could support his care.

My future brother-in-law has muscular dystrophy, and has gone from walking around and caring for himself to a wheelchair and complete dependence on others in six months. He gets some help from MDA, but without government assistance my future mother-in-law could not afford treatments for him that could extend his life so he could be cured in the future. Does he deserve to die because he was born with a congenital disease? And I don't trust that a donations-funded organization could provide for him. What happens when they have a bad year? Would his medication be cut? Would his therapy and school aid be dropped because they can't afford it?
-PaulRothRock

---

cb9fl said:

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/04/09/20/1423219.shtml?tid=11&tid=219

Quote:

Stating my goals and what I'd attempt to do is not the same as stating what would happen.

---

---

cb9fl said:

Quote:

I flirted with libertarianism when I was in college, but soon realized the fundamental problem with it: all success is predicated on people behaving a certain way, a way which 10,000 years of human experience shows is antithetical to human nature. (This by the way, is true of many ideologies - communism, facsim, etc.) As an example, the libertarian view on pollution (in a nutshell) is that government should not be involved. The marketplace will triumph because people collectively will boycott companies that pollute, and individually sue companies that pollute their specific air or land. But how does word get out that a specific company is polluting? Easy enough to make sure newspapers and television that do this kind of investigative reporting don't get ad dollars - under libertarianism there would be nothing to prevent corporations generating a blacklist of media outlets to kill. And if a multibillion dollar corporation says, "hey, my twenty highly paid scientific experts say that pollution didn't come from my drainpipe", how does a $30K/year individual marshall a lawsuit against them? Especially if it is legal for the corporation to call in favors from other corporations and have that individual fired, their mortgage forclosed, their health insurance dropped, and their kids kicked out of school. Public approbation? How does the individual talk to "The Public"? If a few people do get wind of it, the polluters will run some happiness-and-fluff commercials about how they really care about the environment and are working hard every day to protect it, and any tiny disturbance in their bottom line will be reversed (anyone else remember those bizarre 1970's era commercials that showed a thoughtful, intelligent Mom making sure her kids got only the nutritionally best snacks: Hostess Twinkies"?)

Bottom line of the libertarians: "Well, if people aren't willing to fight for something, then the market has decided, and they have to accept the consequences." The problem with that is the little guy did figure out a way to fight the big corporations without having to spend all day every day monitoring and coordinating. A strong representational government. But the first thing the libertarians want to see killed is that government.
-MarkedMan

---

---

Quote:

Libertarianism is all about stopping the initiation of force.

---

cb9fl said:

Quote:

He didn't answer the question I most wanted answers: What happens to the losers in a Liberitarian society? What will happen to the people who, through no fault of their own, can't find a job or become productive members of society? Or those who become invalids?

Two examples: My fiancee worked hospice care for mentally disabled adults. One of them was a guy who got blindsided by an SUV while he was on his motorcycle. He went from being a well-paid metal worker to a grown man with the mental skills of a two-year old. Would the burden of his care be placed on his family, or the family of the person who hit him? Neither of them could support his care.

My future brother-in-law has muscular dystrophy, and has gone from walking around and caring for himself to a wheelchair and complete dependence on others in six months. He gets some help from MDA, but without government assistance my future mother-in-law could not afford treatments for him that could extend his life so he could be cured in the future. Does he deserve to die because he was born with a congenital disease? And I don't trust that a donations-funded organization could provide for him. What happens when they have a bad year? Would his medication be cut? Would his therapy and school aid be dropped because they can't afford it?
-PaulRothRock

---

---

cb9fl said:

Quote:

Libertarianism is all about stopping the initiation of force.

---

So how will Libertarians accomplish that? Since Libertarianism is a form of government I would have to believe through government intervention.

---

Quote:

The Libertarian Party has been pretty consistent in their position that the guilty party should reimburse the victim.

---

Quote:

As for medications, deregulation of the pharmaceutical industry would drive costs down, thus making it more affordable.

---

cb9fl said:

Quote:

The Libertarian Party has been pretty consistent in their position that the guilty party should reimburse the victim.

---

So is this once again another case where the Libertarian government should enforce such laws?

---

Quote:

Quote:

As for medications, deregulation of the pharmaceutical industry would drive costs down, thus making it more affordable.

---

As a truly ignorant question how would deregulation of the pharmaceutical industry stop or even decrease the risk of the pharmaceutical industry passing off substandard medication to the lower class to provide extreme increases in profit?

---

Quote:

WTF do you think? Of course they would. Libertarianism is not anarchism. Get that through your head.

---

cb9fl said:

Quote:

WTF do you think? Of course they would. Libertarianism is not anarchism. Get that through your head.

---

I don't consider Libertarianism anarchy but at least anarchist have a very strict view of government. ie Government is bad. Libertarians feel some government is required and so are open to interpretation of what "some government" means. In my opinion (opinion can't be stressed enough) that leads to a government that will grow beyond the original bounds of Libertarianism because as possibilities of increased government are questioned there will be wins in favor of larger government. To prove my ideas one only needs to look at the state of the US government after 200 years of existance.

Hmm well I guess that's where I differ in my opinion of humanity. I feel that the lowest common denominator will win as opposed to the greatest.

Are there examples of the greatest common denominator winning and holding a substantive position for a great period of time?

There most definately are examples of the lowest or at least lower common denominator holding substantive positions for great periods of time. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini

---