Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |  [ show all ]
Libertarians?
    #8596172 -

I like the social policies they support...like the elimination of most every drug laws, lol.

But I can't stand their laissez faire economic positions which enable the rich to take it all.  I guess it is based on a theory that capitalism if left alone will solve many of society's ills.  It is the "If the rich do well we all benefit" economic theory.  Sorry, I disagree with that.  When the rich do well all it means is...the rich do better than the rest of us, and nothing more.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8596669 -

Libertine said:
I like the social policies they support...like the elimination of most every drug laws, lol.

But I can't stand their laissez faire economic positions which enable the rich to take it all.  I guess it is based on a theory that capitalism if left alone will solve many of society's ills.  It is the "If the rich do well we all benefit" economic theory.  Sorry, I disagree with that.  When the rich do well all it means is...the rich do better than the rest of us, and nothing more.


The first thing you need to understand is why libertarians support laissez faire. The central principle underpinning libertarian thought is that individuals should, and of right ought to, be allowed to do whatever they'd like so long as they do not initiate force against another or his property. Virtually everyone agrees with this principle; you were taught at an early age not to steal from your classmates, not to hit them, etc. Libertarianism, as a political philosophy, just takes this axiom and says that it is universal: that it should apply to everyone, be he a poor man on the street, an important CEO, or a group of people styling itself 'the government'.

You understand this in part. Why do libertarians believe what they do about drugs? It is because no one, neither your neighbor nor the government, has the right to tell you what you can do with your body or your property. A law against the ingestion of some drug is a law that effectively says the government has a higher claim on your body than you do. Libertarians believe this to be patently false. A law against the sale of drugs effectively says the government has a higher claim on your property than you do. Libertarians believe this, too, to be patently false.

If you agree with that last statement, you're ready to understand why libertarians believe what they do as it relates to the economy. Libertarians, again, believe people of right ought to be free to buy and sell as they wish. This is nothing more than an extension of the above principle: your property is yours, and you can do with it what you will, be that use it, destroy it, or sell it. Laissez Faire capitalism is just the extension of freedom into the marketplace; it is not some evil system in which the poor are ipso facto kept poor and the rich are ipso facto elevated.

I have to this point spoken mainly of ethics and rights, and for most self-described libertarians those are the main motivators of our political belief system. But libertarians also have another luxury: not only is the freedom described above the most ethical belief system, it is also the one that is far and away most conducive to prosperity. Note, that is prosperity for everyone; rich and 'poor' alike.

Think about it: The 'poor' in America today live better than the richest monarchs of ages past. They have cell phones, they have TVs; many have a car or at least access to relatively cheap transportation; finding food is, for all but the most impoverished, not a daily worry. And that is just today's poor. Today's working and middle-class live a life of abundance hitherto unprecedented in world history. All this is because people, left free to engage in buying and selling, in entrepreneurial creation and destruction, create an enormous amount of prosperity.

I could go on further, but I think this will be more beneficial if you read this over and then ask what questions you have. I'll be more than glad to field them as best I can.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Ancalagon]
    #8597371 -

I'd also ask why you don't support laisez faire capitalism?


What does socialist controls over economy accomplish?


What are the evile you are trying to legislate away? Specific examples, please.


All the people I know that bitch about capitalism always mention hugely regulated industries: banking, oil, et cet, but never stop to think that these companies make their profits at the blessing of the government.


All government intrusion does is allow the government and beurocrats to play favorites.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: johnm214]
    #8597859 -

I just got done with an intense Comparative Political & Economic systems class at Georgetown the past month ( 3 nights a week, 3hrs a night). 

It was taught by Rustici of GMU, and was hardly "comparative" as we were just taught libertarian economic policy for the 'semester'.

And the books assigned to us:
-Ayn Rand:  Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal
-P.T Bauer:  Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion
-Hayek:  The Road to Serfdom
-Norberg;  In Defense of GLobal Capitalism
-De Soto:  The Mystery of Capital

Can you see the 'leanings' of the course based off those 5 books we had to read? (in 3 weeks).

------------------------------------------

All that aside - it was an interesting course, and I have either been convinced or brainwashed into believing most of the stuff... not sure which it was though

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8598021 -

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

hands off works.


--------------------
:gc:
Madtowntripper said:Or just give her a cloroform soaked rag and tell her it's ether!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: MistaUNGA]
    #8598271 -

I'm not sure I would call Chile a libritarian miracle and I doubt many people would associate what went on in Chile under Pinochet with notions freedom or liberty. Naomi Klein called it one of the first applications of Milton Friedman's neo-conservativism under a "shock doctrine."

Even if Libertarianism were implemented in the US it would take decades to undergo the transitions in the economy likely with the government removing regulation in layers and setting transition legislation to ease the change.

What would be the consequences if the DEA were disbanded tomorrow and a committee were called on revising the drug scheduling legislation in a bid to make new laws governing quality control and taxation of narcotics? Just such a simple thing would be so difficult it could drag out for a year or more. Additionally what would keep gangsters from reclaiming the drug trade in the US?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: MistaUNGA]
    #8598382 -

MistaUNGA said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_chile

hands off works.


pinochet was a libertarian :rotfl:...and genghis khan was a moderate republican...

OTOH..i strongly suspect that friedman and pinochet are two wings on the same vulture and whenever theres one..there will always be the other...pinochet brought in friedman in chile.. while in amerikkka..the pinochet-oid bush administration is simply the result of 30 years of friedmanomics...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: johnm214]
    #8598826 -

johnm214 said:
I'd also ask why you don't support laisez faire capitalism?


What does socialist controls over economy accomplish?


Fortunately, there are more than two types of economic policies.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8599752 -

Equal liberty = All can do what they want - up to infringing on the equal right of others to do what they want.  Person/property, association/disassociation are the boundaries of liberty.

All positions are derived using this underlying principle.

Liberty should not be defended on the basis of utility (it works), it should be defended on the basis of justness.  Even if a libertarian society produced undesirable effects, this would still be no reason to nullify the principle of liberty and the resulting libertarian society.

The alternative to the principle of liberty is the principle of force.  I would like to see a person philosophically justify that some men should have the right to deprive others of person and property.  And how does this special group of men obtain this right?  The bottom line is "collectivist rights" vs. individualist rights.

I firmly believe all rights are individual. Groups of individuals can create agreements, but these agreements can not be binding on those who have not agreed to them.  Groups can only delegate things that are in the scope of what they are permitted to do as individuals.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8600343 -

MushmanTheManic said:
johnm214 said:
I'd also ask why you don't support laisez faire capitalism?


What does socialist controls over economy accomplish?


Fortunately, there are more than two types of economic policies.


not in this country there arent ..your either a loyalist free-enterpriser or else your a marxist radical islamofascist...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Annapurna1]
    #8601712 -

here's an interesting question for you libertarians since someone brought up the mater of collective vs individual rights. How do you in a libertarian society avoid the "tragedy of the commons" the destruction of a resource base from over use or over exploitation? The answer of regulation may not be so cut and dry unless I am mistaken this implys wilderness and resource policing and taxation of even public goods like water. And then the definition of what exactly is a common resource comes into play, is the internet or the airwaves a common resource? The streets, public parking, your mom's bedroom(zing). How do libertarians balance this out and when you consider it other than in an economic sense and with regard to drug policy the US as well as many democratic nations are for the most part libertarian.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8601829 -

ScavengerType said:
here's an interesting question for you libertarians since someone brought up the mater of collective vs individual rights. How do you in a libertarian society avoid the "tragedy of the commons" the destruction of a resource base from over use or over exploitation? The answer of regulation may not be so cut and dry unless I am mistaken this implys wilderness and resource policing and taxation of even public goods like water.


In a 'pure' libertarian society, if that's what you're referring to, virtually all land and even water would be privately owned. Ipso facto, then, there would be no more tragedy of the commons as it applies to land and water. Before you shriek in alarm, sit for a second and think: Imagine a forest owned by the government. Rights are granted to a company to cut down trees for use in making furniture. What incentives does this company face? It has been granted carte blanche to use the forest for a temporary amount of time; after that, it may never be granted such rights again. It is in the company's interest to cut down as many trees as possible, and it makes no sense for the company to make attempts at conservation, or to think long-term. Now imagine the company had owned the land from the start. Sure, it COULD do exactly as it did in the first example. But it would be far more sensible from even a profit standpoint to attempt to conserve, to replant and regrow. Do farmers just kill all their cows and sell the meat? No, they think in terms of the future: they have their cows reproduce and they use many of them to produce milk. Private property, far from being an evil thing to be shunned, is an unbelievably good and beneficial thing -- in fact, it is the cornerstone of civilization, without which we would descend into barbarism.

Quote:
And then the definition of what exactly is a common resource comes into play, is the internet or the airwaves a common resource?


I would argue neither is a common resource.
Quote:
The streets, public parking, your mom's bedroom(zing).


The streets/public parking are today owned and managed by the government. That need not be the case, however. Why would my mom's bedroom be common property?

Quote:
How do libertarians balance this out and when you consider it other than in an economic sense and with regard to drug policy the US as well as many democratic nations are for the most part libertarian.


How can you POSSIBLY think that the US operates under a 'libertarian' drug policy? Read my earlier post in this thread.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Ancalagon]
    #8602021 -

Who decides what "over exploitation" is?  Who is to say?  What is the "proper level" of resource use?  These questions can not be answered.  Private ownership will always tend to be very protective of resource use as the owner has a vested interest in not squandering his own resources.  State ownership tends to resource depletion and waste since the bureaucrats have no vested interest in the long-term value of the resources they oversee.

Libertarian property theory lays down the principle of homesteading as the basis for ownership of previously unowned resources.  When radio was first invented many stations sprang up.  If a principle of homesteading were applied to broadcasting these first stations would acquire broadcasting rights.  No need for the FCC, any interference disputes can be handled by the courts.

As for the streets I am sure many would be cooperatively owned by surrounding property owners.  And other roads would be for profit toll roads.

I really don't know how anyone can say that current drug laws are for the most part libertarian.  There would be no drug laws at all in a libertarian society.  Drugs are property and everyone has a right of free exchange of property.  The possessing / trading of various drugs violates no rights.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Ancalagon]
    #8602049 -

Re your opening paragraph:
Then you are endorsing sole corporate ownership of a resource base? Or parcels divided into different cooperations that own the resource base ad infinium? Lets keep with the example of forests for a second. If the corporation is a responsible one (unlikely) then they will be concerned with maintaining the resource base ad infinium and maximizing profitability. This sounds good in an economic sense, but who keeps the corporation from over exploiting the resource if the price is high? Many of the CEOs/CFOs of companies consider economic bottom lines before vague sustainability concerns that will not effect the bottom line for years. Arguably this doesn't sound much worse than government regulation if the corporation is composed of incorruptible individuals, however if you are booted from a government position for corrupt practices you cannot get back into the government easily. In the corporate world this kind of thing is common. So where's the oversight in your example?

Quote:
Quote:
And then the definition of what exactly is a common resource comes into play, is the internet or the airwaves a common resource?


I would argue neither is a common resource.


Yes but some might, in fact this is arguably the purpose of current legislation and attempts at legislation with regard to the internet.

Quote:
Why would my mom's bedroom be common property?


lol

Quote:
How can you POSSIBLY think that the US operates under a 'libertarian' drug policy? Read my earlier post in this thread.


I said except with regards to the economy and drug policy.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8602144 -

Regulations restricting the use of property are a violation of the rights of the property owner and would not exist in a libertarian society.  Just because some people are upset that Mr. X has clear cut and strip mined his own forest, this is no grounds for them to restrict Mr. X in doing so.  The initiation of force to achieve a "public good" has its philosophical groundwork in destruction of individual rights and liberty and would not be tolerated in a libertarian society.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8602174 -

ScavengerType said:
Re your opening paragraph:
Then you are endorsing sole corporate ownership of a resource base?


I'm not endorsing anything, merely responding to your post and explaining what a 'pure' libertarian 'nation' might look like. Furthermore, PRIVATE ownership, not 'corporate' ownership, would be the hallmark of such a society. The example I used to instantiate my point happened to involve a company, but that need not be the case. Furthermore, corporations today are granted a great number of legal protections and immunities that they would not have absent large and intrusive government.

Quote:
Or parcels divided into different cooperations that own the resource base ad infinium?


Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but there would be no prescribed or preferred way of taking care of ownership. There would be homesteading and there would be an unlimited right to contract. Anything else is the domain of the parties to a contract.

Quote:
Lets keep with the example of forests for a second. If the corporation is a responsible one (unlikely) then they will be concerned with maintaining the resource base ad infinium and maximizing profitability. This sounds good in an economic sense, but who keeps the corporation from over exploiting the resource if the price is high? Many of the CEOs/CFOs of companies consider economic bottom lines before vague sustainability concerns that will not effect the bottom line for years. Arguably this doesn't sound much worse than government regulation if the corporation is composed of incorruptible individuals, however if you are booted from a government position for corrupt practices you cannot get back into the government easily. In the corporate world this kind of thing is common. So where's the oversight in your example?


I didn't say anything would of necessity happen, but rather drew up an example which illustrated that it NEED NOT BE THE CASE that private ownership is inherently more wasteful, exploitative, inimical then public ownership. Entrepreneurs are, on the whole, relatively good at forecasting, so your concern that a spike in prices will lead company owners to go nuts and totally rape what they own to make a quick windfall profit is a bit puerile. Furthermore, there would still be a great many private institutions (including legal services), even in the purest of libertarian societies, that could address perceived abuses. The media could still report on contemptible acts by companies, which might lead to boycotts and thus reduced profitability. Think tanks and policy institutes could still publish papers on resource management, environmental issues, etc. Again, people could still take legal action if their property had been aggressed against.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And then the definition of what exactly is a common resource comes into play, is the internet or the airwaves a common resource?


I would argue neither is a common resource.


Yes but some might, in fact this is arguably the purpose of current legislation and attempts at legislation with regard to the internet.


Um, yes, I realize that some might, but you asked me about libertarianism and a libertarian society. We do not currently live in a libertarian society, and thus what occurs today is largely immaterial to this discussion.


Quote:
Quote:
How can you POSSIBLY think that the US operates under a 'libertarian' drug policy? Read my earlier post in this thread.


I said except with regards to the economy and drug policy.



If the term libertarian has ANY meaning whatsoever, one cannot describe American society today as particularly libertarian in any sense. America's economy is not libertarian, its drug laws are not libertarian, its political institutions are not libertarian, its social policies are not libertarian, its civil liberties-related issues are not libertarian, and its foreign policy is sure as hell not libertarian. Compared to North Korea, sure, America is comparatively 'libertarian'. But that's not saying much.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Ancalagon]
    #8602205 -

There is nothing stopping groups of people from buying up "resource sensitive" areas and preserving them themselves if they are so concerned about it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: fivepointer]
    #8602226 -

fivepointer said:
There is nothing stopping groups of people from buying up "resource sensitive" areas and preserving them themselves if they are so concerned about it.


That too. I used to make a point, when talking about the sale of what is now government-owned property, that the Sierra Club can buy up as much of that as it and its members would like. And once they own it, they can do whatever that would like with it, however economically inefficient that might be. It must be stressed: libertarianism is not a philosophy undergirded by utilitarianism. Private property is an absolute, and the owner of that property is beholden to no one.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Ancalagon]
    #8602279 -

I'm sure they will start to say that much needed resources are being hoarded and this shouldn't be allowed.  ha..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarians? [Re: johnm214]
    #8602750 -

johnm214 said:
I'd also ask why you don't support laisez faire capitalism?


What does socialist controls over economy accomplish?


What are the evile you are trying to legislate away? Specific examples, please.


All the people I know that bitch about capitalism always mention hugely regulated industries: banking, oil, et cet, but never stop to think that these companies make their profits at the blessing of the government.


All government intrusion does is allow the government and beurocrats to play favorites.



I'd like to notice that nobody has answered these questions, as usual.

The premise always stated is that we need government regulation to restrain companies or whatever, but this is always unsupported.

What are these evils and what are examples of them?  How could government regulation help and what specifically are examples of this working?


I like that folks against libertarian principles hoist nameless evils as justification for their ideals, but can never substantiate them.

Instead they carry on on a tirade against corporatism without explaining what specifically liberal economic policies accomplish and how they're better than libertarian policies or our current scheme.

Stop presuming everyone identifies what vague notions your campaigning against and for.  Identify them.  Support your premise.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,656 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* A Libertarian's Message Phred 1,276 12 11/03/08 12:50 PM
by buckwheat
* Libertarians & War
( 1 2 all )		 silversoul7 3,760 25 10/13/04 01:21 AM
by hound
* Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? JesusChrist 2,522 14 09/10/04 01:20 PM
by Ancalagon
* I cant stand Libertarians....
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 vader34 9,397 160 12/27/12 11:49 AM
by Gilgamesh18
* Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 lonestar2004 6,807 68 08/12/08 10:48 PM
by MrSinister
* Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 46 and 2 6,424 96 11/19/12 07:48 PM
by 46 and 2
* Libertarian: Ron Paul
( 1 2 all )		 Bridgeburner 4,033 32 11/29/07 12:37 AM
by pooppoop

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
15,497 topic views. 0 members, 71 guests and 26 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.