J'accuse le libertarians

20Cent

Putting my cards on the table I really dislike libertarianism. I think it is a selfish ideology that doesn't take reality into account and is a detrimental influence on society. It would be fine if kept as a theory but the libertarians are influencing society in the form of disaster capitalism and particularly the republican party in the us. Also I see posts in almost every thread telling us how if only we understood it we would see what a great idea it is.

The other problem is that all libertarians I have come across all have different ideas about what it means. Now of course any ideology has branches and factions but it seems to me that a lot of that espoused by libertarians is contradictory. Free market for example, or that a government should have nothing to do with the healthcare of a human being but the copyright of a multinational should be protected!

What I'm asking for is for a libertarian to describe what the society they would like to see. I don't mean wishy washy stuff like well we would be free to do whatever we want so long as it does not harm others, but a bit of detail . Pretty much everything we do affects others what is meant by harm? Smoking in public harms others so would that be allowed? If someone gets sick or injured in a libertarian society and they don't have insurance what happens to them?

Stuff like that.

So there's the challenge.

preempting some expected replies no I have not read the complete works of the Austrian school of economics and assorted pamphlets or atlas shrugged. If you could give a brief description of an imaginary libertarian country or what Ireland would be like if it was libertarian would be fine. Shouldn't be too hard to do and yes it will be picked full of holes but isn't that what a discussion is?

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

I think it is a selfish ideology that doesn't take reality into account...

I think the latter is a sine qua non of any ideology, almost by definition.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

So no description of a libertarian society yet.

later12

20Cent wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are just throwing out a broad, vague condemnation of libertarianism (apparently without having read much on the thing) and saying 'Discuss the specifics'. Except it isn't enough to ask for specific defences of libertarianism if you're only going to give non-specific criticism. Why not just pick one thing in particular?

You're also ignoring the fact that there is a broad spectrum within libertarianism. I consider myself to have libertarian views on a variety of topics, but I'm guessing I would disagree with many - if not, perhaps - most libertarians. So again I don't see the point in answering criticism of libertarianism if it's something which I too am opposed to.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

J'accuse... ta connaissance de la langue, Libertaire!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

This is Libertarian philosophy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTQqvDtPzY0

Give me an example of what you mean by Libertarian disaster capitalism?

preempting some expected replies no I have not read the complete works of the Austrian school of economics and assorted pamphlets or atlas shrugged.

I seriously doubt you have read any economics book, let alone one of an Austrian View. Let me know what books you have read and what you disagree with.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Libertarianism sounds like its as bad for 'splitters' as left-wing politics.

20Cent

SupaNova wrote: »

This is Libertarian philosophy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTQqvDtPzY0

Give me an example of what you mean by Libertarian disaster capitalism?

That video looks like a recruitment campaign for a cult!

Disaster capitalism is when a crisis is used to implement policies which would not normally be implementable. For example in New Orleans after the flood many people who left their homes returned to find that their public schools were now private. The 2004 tsunami enabled the government of Sri Lanka to force the fishermen off beachfront property so it could be sold to hotel developers.
In Ireland at the moment the poorest and the most vulnerable are being hit hardest by the economic crisis. Low wage workers and carers etc are being hit. Privatisation and the removal of govenment benefits are features of libertarianism.

SupaNova wrote: »

I seriously doubt you have read any economics book, let alone one of an Austrian View. Let me know what books you have read and what you disagree with.

That would be untrue.

20Cent

The two arguments that come up in every thread about libertarianism are that anyone with questions should educate themselves because they obviously do not understand it. The second is that libertarianism is a broad church with a wide range of views and conflicts so it is difficult to pin down.

Well to make it easier can the libertarians describe what THEY see a libertarian society looking like. ie their branch/faction?

The make it even easier say a child born is born into a poor family in a libertarian state. Describe how they would live. Would they be educated? What happens if they get sick or injured?

SupaNova

That video looks like a recruitment campaign for a cult!

Lol ignore the music, do you disagree with the philosophy?

I'm not surprised, rather than focus or debate any point, you resort to slander.

The two arguments that come up in every thread about libertarianism are that anyone with questions should educate themselves because they obviously do not understand it. The second is that libertarianism is a broad church with a wide range of views and conflicts so it is difficult to pin down.

Well to make it easier can the libertarians describe what THEY see a libertarian society looking like. ie their branch/faction?

That video covers the philosophy of the wide spectrum of Libertarian's.

Disaster capitalism is when a crisis is used to implement policies which would not normally be implementable. For example in New Orleans after the flood many people who left their homes returned to find that their public schools were now private. The 2004 tsunami enabled the government of Sri Lanka to force the fishermen off beachfront property so it could be sold to hotel developers.
In Ireland at the moment the poorest and the most vulnerable are being hit hardest by the economic crisis. Low wage workers and carers etc are being hit. Privatisation and the removal of govenment benefits are features of libertarianism.

What you have done is made up a new term 'disaster capitalism' rather than use the word privatisation, whilst also using the words government force in your condemnation.

That would be untrue.

Lol care to put my doubts to rest. Do you know anything about the Austrian view of the economic crisis or Business Cycle theory. Why some evil libertarian's were even warning of an impending crisis, and are warning of a much bigger one if we continue down the route of running deficits and printing money.

oscarBravo

SupaNova wrote: »

What you have done is made up a new term 'disaster capitalism' rather than use the word privatisation...

To be fair, Naomi Klein has written a book with that title; it's not as if it's just been coined.

SupaNova

To be fair, Naomi Klein has written a book with that title; it's not as if it's just been coined.

Unaware of the book, but from reading the reviews it seems that privatization during a crisis is a fair definition of her term 'disaster capitalism'.

Scofflaw

SupaNova, try to remember to attack the posts, not the posters.

SupaNova wrote: »

I seriously doubt you have read any economics book, let alone one of an Austrian View. Let me know what books you have read and what you disagree with.

Try to refrain from this kind of comment. You're essentially just saying "hey, I think you're ignorant".

SupaNova wrote:

I'm not surprised, rather than focus or debate any point, you resort to slander.

See point above. Again, you've jumped immediately and without justification to the personal.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Soldie

20Cent wrote: »

preempting some expected replies no I have not read the complete works of the Austrian school of economics and assorted pamphlets or atlas shrugged. If you could give a brief description of an imaginary libertarian country or what Ireland would be like if it was libertarian would be fine. Shouldn't be too hard to do and yes it will be picked full of holes but isn't that what a discussion is?

In your opening sentence you point out that you "really dislike libertarianism"; in the following paragraphs you then proceed to display your complete ignorance of that which you claim to dislike. You then disingenuously invite others to "discuss" libertarianism, even though it's patently obvious that you're only interested in swatting at straw men. So, in answer to your question, no, that's not what a discussion is, at all. In fact, it couldn't be much further from what a discussion is. If you were genuinely interested in discussing libertarianism then you would have the courtesy to familiarise yourself with the basics of the ideology at the very least. It's clear that you have not done so, nor do you have any intention of doing so.

20Cent

SupaNova wrote: »

Unaware of the book, but from reading the reviews it seems that privatization during a crisis is a fair definition of her term 'disaster capitalism'.

I think that is a fair definition of the term Klein defined. For example if the parents were still in their homes and didn't have to be evacuated then they would have been in a position to campaign and fight against the privatisation of the schools so the crisis/disaster was taken advantage of in order to implement a right wing policy which would not normally happen in a democratic society.


re the video thanks for posting it but that is the wishy washy stuff I mentioned in the op. Freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not harm others. Sounds great but there are lots of practical issues with that. Most things a person does will affect others in some way. If my neighbour likes to take drugs and owns an assault rifle in the comfort of his home that is his business. But what about my right to be able to sleep at night without worrying he's going to get all paranoid and start firing through the walls?

If someone gets seriously ill in a libertarian society and they don't have insurance what happens to them?

Also still waiting for a description of what life would be like in a libertarian society. Since there are so many branches/factions just answer as to what you think it would be like.

Thanks

southsiderosie

20Cent wrote: »

Disaster capitalism is when a crisis is used to implement policies which would not normally be implementable. For example in New Orleans after the flood many people who left their homes returned to find that their public schools were now private. The 2004 tsunami enabled the government of Sri Lanka to force the fishermen off beachfront property so it could be sold to hotel developers.

But disaster politics works both ways. The Great Depression allowed for the emergence of the welfare state in the US; previously given the dominance of classical liberal economic policy, programs like unemployment insurance and social security would have been unthinkable.

I think the more accurate way to think about crisis moments isn't that one ideology always dominates, but rather it is a critical juncture which presents an opportunity for a Kuhnian 'paradigm shift'. Since the 1980s, neoliberalism has dominated the way that we think about political economy. It remains to be seen what, if anything will emerge from the current crisis.

I would also note that what often gets dubbed 'disaster capitalism' or a fetishization of the free market is anything but. More often than not, these kinds of actions are really about crony capitalism, and a commitment to protecting a certain sector of the market for the well-connected. By constantly shrieking about libertarianism and/or neoliberalism, I think a lot of activists are taking their eye off of the ball.

20Cent wrote: »

In Ireland at the moment the poorest and the most vulnerable are being hit hardest by the economic crisis. Low wage workers and carers etc are being hit. Privatisation and the removal of govenment benefits are features of libertarianism.

But the changes in Ireland aren't being forced by any great ideological shift, they are a result of simple mathematics: Ireland cannot afford to maintain its current level of public services, given its revenues. I would consider myself more of a social democrat than a libertarian, but I will freely acknowledge that the current crisis would not have happened if Ireland was committed to libertarian/neoliberal principles because 1) the state would have not intervened with the bank guarantee and 2) the levels of public spending reached in 2006 would never have occurred in the first place.

I do not think that privatization automatically means more efficiency. I do not think that markets work perfectly. But I think that those who are traditionally put into the libertarian "box", most notably Hayek and Friedman, offer a valuable alternative perspective in thinking about the role of government in society, and in particular when it comes to Hayek, the importance of thinking about the limits of human knowledge and foresight when it comes to policy-making.

SupaNova

preempting some expected replies no I have not read the complete works of the Austrian school of economics and assorted pamphlets or atlas shrugged. If you could give a brief description of an imaginary libertarian country or what Ireland would be like if it was libertarian would be fine. Shouldn't be too hard to do and yes it will be picked full of holes but isn't that what a discussion is?

This implies you have at least some knowledge of Austrian economics.

I seriously doubt you have read any economics book, let alone one of an Austrian View. Let me know what books you have read and what you disagree with.

This was not meant to be a "hey i think your ignorant", but a "hey i think your lying, prove me wrong". I would be genuinely curious if you had actually read some Austrian economics, and what you disagree with even if i think its unlikely you have.

SupaNova

re the video thanks for posting it but that is the wishy washy stuff I mentioned in the op. Freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not harm others. Sounds great but there are lots of practical issues with that. Most things a person does will affect others in some way. If my neighbour likes to take drugs and owns an assault rifle in the comfort of his home that is his business. But what about my right to be able to sleep at night without worrying he's going to get all paranoid and start firing through the walls?

Self ownership and the non initiation of force are the core principles. In the video it said that you have the right to protect yourself from the initiation of force, with the help of others. Libertarian's believe a governments function should be to protect citizens from the initiation of force and uphold the principle of self ownership and property rights.

SupaNova

Also still waiting for a description of what life would be like in a libertarian society. Since there are so many branches/factions just answer as to what you think it would be like.

We can't even guess what our current society will look like in 5 years, let alone some imaginary ideological one, and you are asking someone to describe every facet of how a Libertarian society would look.

20Cent

SupaNova wrote: »

We can't even guess what our current society will look like in 5 years, let alone some imaginary ideological one, and you are asking someone to describe every facet of how a Libertarian society would look.

Not asking for a description of every facet. Just a brief description of what it would be like. Someone born into a poor family in a libertarian society, do they get education? what happens if they get sick?

20Cent

SupaNova wrote: »

Self ownership and the non initiation of force are the core principles. In the video it said that you have the right to protect yourself from the initiation of force, with the help of others. Libertarian's believe a governments function should be to protect citizens from the initiation of force and uphold the principle of self ownership and property rights.

So what would happen in my example re the neighbour?

southsiderosie

20Cent wrote: »

Not asking for a description of every facet. Just a brief description of what it would be like. Someone born into a poor family in a libertarian society, do they get education? what happens if they get sick?

What do YOU think would happen? What happens now in Ireland? Nothing great from what I read on boards.

SupaNova

So what would happen in my example re the neighbour?

If a drugged up guy with a gun decided to shoot you and you had no way to avoid the situation you would die, the same as what would happen in any other society, are you implying that this scenario is more likely to happen in a Libertarian society?

Not asking for a description of every facet. Just a brief description of what it would be like. Someone born into a poor family in a libertarian society, do they get education? what happens if they get sick?

Education would be a lot cheaper, people of all income brackets would be able to afford education, and in general people would be a lot wealthier. We would have a free market education radically different to that of state monopoly control. Has any industry improved less over the last few centuries. Teachers still have long summer holidays which has roots in freeing children in summer to help harvest crops, we herd 30 or so individuals sit them in front of a whiteboard(instead of a blackboard) as a group with a blanket curriculum. Teach compulsory Irish and Religion, No ICT, has it improved? Kids today would be better off learning by themselves, ever hear of the Khanacademy? check out a TedTalk regarding self education in India's slums? Education for all is a worthy goal, but anything resembling state education is not a worthy goal.

Healthcare would be similar story, under free market competition, a lot cheaper, and of faster improving quality. People would be able to afford a lot more. For those that cannot afford treatment they would be dependent on their extended family and community and charity to help in times of need.

20Cent

SupaNova wrote: »

If a drugged up guy with a gun decided to shoot you and you had no way to avoid the situation you would die, the same as what would happen in any other society, are you implying that this scenario is more likely to happen in a Libertarian society?

It would be more likely. In a libertarian society it would be perfectly legal to sit in your house doing drugs with a loaded gun. So long as the guy does not start shooting he'd be fine. Still aren't my rights are being infringed because of the stress?

SupaNova wrote: »

Education would be a lot cheaper, people of all income brackets would be able to afford education, and in general people would be a lot wealthier. We would have a free market education radically different to that of state monopoly control. Has any industry improved less over the last few centuries. Teachers still have long summer holidays which has roots in freeing children in summer to help harvest crops, we herd 30 or so individuals sit them in front of a whiteboard(instead of a blackboard) as a group with a blanket curriculum. Teach compulsory Irish and Religion, No ICT, has it improved? Kids today would be better off learning by themselves, ever hear of the Khanacademy? check out a TedTalk regarding self education in India's slums? Education for all is a worthy goal, but anything resembling state education is not a worthy goal.

Healthcare would be similar story, under free market competition, a lot cheaper, and of faster improving quality. People would be able to afford a lot more. For those that cannot afford treatment they would be dependent on their extended family and community and charity to help in times of need.

Heard of Khanacademy think its very good but wouldn't think it is a replacement for attending a school. So there would be no public schools? The poor parents will have to pay for education (presuming there is some available which they can afford) or rely on a charity. Would education be compulsory?

re Health. Those that cannot afford treatment would have to rely on extended family and community and charity. So what happens if that does not work out?

20Cent

southsiderosie wrote: »

What do YOU think would happen? What happens now in Ireland? Nothing great from what I read on boards.

Well since there would be no public health system then I would hope the parents can afford some form of health care or have the child at home, hopefully there would be no complications. There would be no midwife visits so presuming the parents know how to look after the child properly and aren't using the legal drugs. If the kid survives that then when it comes to school since there is no public schooling they will have to find some education for the child somehow. Maybe go to a charity school or something.
If the kid gets seriously ill then the parents will need to raise money from friends and family to get them treated or that some charity takes pity on them. Otherwise what happens?
This sounds like a horrible system to me.

The current system is not great but it is still better than nothing. I wouldn't want to rely on being able to afford private healthcare or education.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can see how it might look like that I meant that I would not want to have to rely on charity if I couldn't afford it.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you agree with a minimal level of welfare (are you sure you are a libertarian?), we would just disagree regarding to level of support given.

My experience of the public healthcare system has been excellent, thankfully its only been very brief and twice but the service I got was great. There are a lot of areas for improvement obviously but don't think privatisation is the answer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A la cart Catholicism is fine by me I'm one myself. But a catholic who extols the superiority of his faith while not believing in the Resurrection is suspect imo.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We could post up examples of failures in public healthcare all day, also examples from private healthcare it is pointless. I just don't think that healthcare should be left in private hands, a mixture of public and private is best.

20Cent

So I check out this Hayek guy and it comes as no surprise that he was a Pinochet supporter as so many right wing hero's including Friedman, Reagan and Thatcher. This reinforces my view that when the libertarian talks about freedom etc they are not talking about individual freedom but actually the removal of safeguards to protect people from exploitation.

RockinRolla

20Cent wrote: »

So I check out this Hayek guy and it comes as no surprise that he was a Pinochet supporter as so many right wing hero's including Friedman, Reagan and Thatcher. This reinforces my view that when the libertarian talks about freedom etc they are not talking about individual freedom but actually the removal of safeguards to protect people from exploitation.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Libertarianism is about repealing laws that have created barriers to entry. If this is your idea of exploitation then I'm not sure if we're all on the same page or not. If by "removing safeguards to protect people" means destroying monopoly privileges government has given special interests groups over the last number of decades, then yes..I'd be all for that.

I believe you have a very strange view of the ideology at large - perhaps, you should do some reading on the subject as your contributions have shown nothing but ignorance towards the topic thus far.

20Cent

RockinRolla wrote: »

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Libertarianism is about repealing laws that have created barriers to entry. If this is your idea of exploitation then I'm not sure if we're all on the same page or not. If by "removing safeguards to protect people" means destroying monopoly privileges government has given special interests groups over the last number of decades, then yes..I'd be all for that.

I believe you have a very strange view of the ideology at large - perhaps, you should do some reading on the subject as your contributions have shown nothing but ignorance towards the topic thus far.

Perhaps you could help then.
In the op I asked for a libertarian to give a description of how you would see a libertarian society, not much success so far.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SeanW

I'll take on the OPs challenge, though I myself am something of a "Left Leaning" Libertarian, e.g. I focus on social issues and to a lesser extent financial ones. e.g. I think that having no labour rights laws or no welfare could work IF there were constantly some scarcity of labour (thus the market would dictate that all workers should have a decent quality of life and reasonable capacity for career improvement) but I'm skeptical about this to a degree (e.g how could the poor advance without help with education?)

In my Libertarian society, the following would be a given, at minimum:

1. The principle of the legal system would be "Liberty and Law" i.e. your rights (Liberty) are recognised and Law exists to enforce those rights and punish transgressors. Most other objectives would be rescinded from Law.
2. E.g. you would be free to consume whichever drugs you wished, but if one's habit required a transgression of anothers rights (i.e. robbing someone to pay for a fix) severe action would be taken.
3. Gambling (subject to local statutes and planning law on casinos etc) would be permitted, as would prostitution. There would be no "morality" laws against homosexuality etc.
4. Citizens with clean criminal records, or otherwise if they could show themselves to be of good character, would be permitted to hold firearms for their defense of life and property.
5. ALL laws remaining, e.g. ones relating to the protection of the rights of individuals (and to a lesser extent corporations) would be enforced to the fullest extent possible and violators (murderers, rapists, thieves, vandals etc) could expect little mercy. There would be very little of the "extenuating circumstances" rubbish prevalent in our courts, the aforementioned phrase being used and twisted so much as to be virtually meaningless.
6. No State would assume responsibility for the failure of any bank or other business beyond perhaps compensating retail depositors.
7. All government issued currency would be backed by gold, either Specie Gold Backing or a credible Gold Reserve & Redepmtion Standard. "Legal Tender" laws mandating the use of any currency in transactions would be abolished.

Other elements could be added as well if a case could be made.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hayek, Friedman, Reagan, Thatcher the whole Chicago School were/are Pinochet supporters, this is not slinging mud.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An out of context quote from a thread almost a year ago wow I feel like Noam Chomsky!! Still agree with what I wrote obviously not everyone with libertarian views would be a Pinochet supporter but the ones I named are/were.

20Cent

SeanW wrote: »

I'll take on the OPs challenge, though I myself am something of a "Left Leaning" Libertarian, e.g. I focus on social issues and to a lesser extent financial ones. e.g. I think that having no labour rights laws or no welfare could work IF there were constantly some scarcity of labour (thus the market would dictate that all workers should have a decent quality of life and reasonable capacity for career improvement) but I'm skeptical about this to a degree (e.g how could the poor advance without help with education?)

In my Libertarian society, the following would be a given, at minimum:

1. The principle of the legal system would be "Liberty and Law" i.e. your rights (Liberty) are recognised and Law exists to enforce those rights and punish transgressors. Most other objectives would be rescinded from Law.
2. E.g. you would be free to consume whichever drugs you wished, but if one's habit required a transgression of anothers rights (i.e. robbing someone to pay for a fix) severe action would be taken.
3. Gambling (subject to local statutes and planning law on casinos etc) would be permitted, as would prostitution. There would be no "morality" laws against homosexuality etc.
4. Citizens with clean criminal records, or otherwise if they could show themselves to be of good character, would be permitted to hold firearms for their defense of life and property.
5. ALL laws remaining, e.g. ones relating to the protection of the rights of individuals (and to a lesser extent corporations) would be enforced to the fullest extent possible and violators (murderers, rapists, thieves, vandals etc) could expect little mercy. There would be very little of the "extenuating circumstances" rubbish prevalent in our courts, the aforementioned phrase being used and twisted so much as to be virtually meaningless.
6. No State would assume responsibility for the failure of any bank or other business beyond perhaps compensating retail depositors.
7. All government issued currency would be backed by gold, either Specie Gold Backing or a credible Gold Reserve & Redepmtion Standard. "Legal Tender" laws mandating the use of any currency in transactions would be abolished.

Other elements could be added as well if a case could be made.

Thanks Sean. Still a bit wishy washy if you know what I mean.
Say a child born into a poor family in a libertarian society, what happens to the re education, health work etc?

SupaNova

It would be more likely. In a libertarian society it would be perfectly legal to sit in your house doing drugs with a loaded gun. So long as the guy does not start shooting he'd be fine. Still aren't my rights are being infringed because of the stress?

Has making things illegal decreased drug use and limited people who really want a gun getting one. The US's war on drugs has had the opposite effect of the desired. Violent criminal gangs in our own country have no problem getting either.

Heard of Khanacademy think its very good but wouldn't think it is a replacement for attending a school. So there would be no public schools? The poor parents will have to pay for education (presuming there is some available which they can afford) or rely on a charity. Would education be compulsory?

We are currently paying for our schools, far more than what they would cost under in a free market system. I wonder if they tested kids who only used the Khanacademy for a period of time vs kids in a public school who would score better. Did you watch the TED talk i linked to where kids learning by themselves in India's slums were able to outperform kids in public schools.

re Health. Those that cannot afford treatment would have to rely on extended family and community and charity. So what happens if that does not work out?

They would die. But that fault lies with the individual, his family, extended family and charity. The general wealth levels of the individual, his family, extended family and size of charity would be much greater in a Libertarian society. The poorest would be able to afford far better quality than is available to them for 'free' through the public health care system.

SeanW

20Cent wrote: »

... and particularly the republican party in the us.

Let's see - corporate welfare, international wars and imperialism, supports the War on Drugs, Guantanamo Bay, bank bailouts, extreme levels of Social Conservatism (i.e. heavily influenced by religion), the "Patriot" Act, insane runaway deficits started under Bush Jr. ... etc ...

Yeah, the Republican Party is really Libertarian ... I don't think so! In fact, as a Left-leaning Libertarian, I cannot imagine one good thing the Republicans have done, perhaps with the exception of opposing Obama-care.

20Cent wrote: »

Thanks Sean. Still a bit wishy washy if you know what I mean.
Say a child born into a poor family in a libertarian society, what happens to the re education, health work etc?

Perhaps so, but I did qualify my post by saying that I was a left-leaning Libertarian, primarily concerned with the societal aspects of personal freedom & responsibility.

Obviously, if it can be shown that under a Fully Libertarian (social and financial) society, the poor could have a plentiful supply of jobs, good healthcare and a decent education, I would support that. I'm just concerned the vision might be a bit Utopian.

whatstherush

SeanW wrote: »

[*]E.g. you would be free to consume whichever drugs you wished, but if one's habit required a transgression of anothers rights (i.e. robbing someone to pay for a fix) severe action would be taken.

Could you expand a little more on this. Besides the obvious moralistic and prohibitive laws you would get rid of, what other kinds of laws (if any) would Libertarians get rid of. i.e. Do environmental laws have a place in a Libertarian Society?

20Cent

SeanW wrote: »

Let's see - corporate welfare, international wars and imperialism, supports the War on Drugs, Guantanamo Bay, bank bailouts, extreme levels of Social Conservatism (i.e. heavily influenced by religion), the "Patriot" Act, insane runaway deficits started under Bush Jr. ... etc ...

Yeah, the Republican Party is really Libertarian ... I don't think so! In fact, as a Left-leaning Libertarian, I cannot imagine one good thing the Republicans have done, perhaps with the exception of opposing Obama-care.

The republicans are still the nearest thing to libertarians with power in the world. Ron and Rand Paul are republicans. It is the republicans who are trying to cut welfare and healthcare.

20Cent

SupaNova wrote: »

Has making things illegal decreased drug use and limited people who really want a gun getting one. The US's war on drugs has had the opposite effect of the desired. Violent criminal gangs in our own country have no problem getting either.

I agree with you to an extent. I to would be for the legalisation of some drugs. The war on drugs probably causes more harm than the drugs themselves. Still there are some drugs where the person loses control of themselves and can become paranoid and violent. Crack and Crystal Meth come to mind, in this case the safety of others would over ride the persons right to take these drugs imo. Still it would be perfectly legal to sit in your house doing drugs with a loaded gun. So long as the guy does not start shooting he'd be fine. Still aren't my rights are being infringed because of the stress?

Less laws doesn't automatically mean more freedom in many cases.

SupaNova wrote: »

We are currently paying for our schools, far more than what they would cost under in a free market system. I wonder if they tested kids who only used the Khanacademy for a period of time vs kids in a public school who would score better. Did you watch the TED talk i linked to where kids learning by themselves in India's slums were able to outperform kids in public schools.

Watched the TED (thanks for the link) talk and saw the Khan one before. In a free market system there would still be some without access to education if they can't afford anything for education. Tough luck I suppose. Freedom to me means that you have more options available to you. Education is the most important factor in having success. In a society with little social safety net or healthcare surely people will go for stable safe careers. Starting your own business would be very risky as there would be no second chance if something goes wrong.

SupaNova wrote: »

They would die. But that fault lies with the individual, his family, extended family and charity. The general wealth levels of the individual, his family, extended family and size of charity would be much greater in a Libertarian society. The poorest would be able to afford far better quality than is available to them for 'free' through the public health care system.

At last someone finally said it. You die! Sounds like a warped type of society where the Gov has no interest in the lives of human beings but the copyright on a dvd is protected!!
The US is the closest thing to a free market health system and it is the most expensive in the world. People go bankrupt in the US because of an accident or illness. The fear of losing health cover means that they must stay in their job, starting your own business is a big risk if you are not covered, it reduces people freedom instead of increasing it. Imagine your wife gets sick, you ask your boss for some flexibility in work to go to appointments and look after her offering to make up the time at weekends and evenings. The boss fires you! Happened in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFJT0gpsALo&feature=player_embedded#at=20

For profit health care just does not work. The insurer wants to pay out as little as possible and the provider wants to charge as much as possible. There is no profit to be made insuring old people, handicapped, disabled, even people with dangerous jobs. What happens to them then just die I suppose.

SupaNova

Watched the TED (thanks for the link) talk and saw the Khan one before. In a free market system there would still be some without access to education if they can't afford anything for education. Tough luck I suppose. Freedom to me means that you have more options available to you. Education is the most important factor in having success. In a society with little social safety net or healthcare surely people will go for stable safe careers. Starting your own business would be very risky as there would be no second chance if something goes wrong.

If you are hung up on state style education you will find that school attendance was gradually increasing in the US before state education just as poverty was declining before Welfare was introduced. This is the point i am making that even in the poorest in a free market environment would be better off than those getting 'free' healthcare, or 'free' education.

At last someone finally said it. You die! Sounds like a warped type of society where the Gov has no interest in the lives of human beings but the copyright on a dvd is protected!!

The point again is in a free market system the poorest would get healthcare better than the 'free' healthcare 'guaranteed' by the state. How many people die on wait lists for guaranteed state care. What happens when state's hyperinflate their currency and the default on all its promises cause deaths.

The US is the closest thing to a free market health system and it is the most expensive in the world.

You obviously have no knowledge of US healthcare as its not close to a free market system in the slightest.

People go bankrupt in the US because of an accident or illness. The fear of losing health cover means that they must stay in their job, starting your own business is a big risk if you are not covered, it reduces people freedom instead of increasing it. Imagine your wife gets sick, you ask your boss for some flexibility in work to go to appointments and look after her offering to make up the time at weekends and evenings. The boss fires you! Happened in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFJT0...embedded#at=20

Someone lost their job because it was not profitable for the employer to keep them hired. This is what makes me believe you have not read a single economics book. If employers started running losses they would go out of business and many more people would be affected. The fact that someone has a sick relative is unfortunate, but the responsibility is not with the employer. It is with the individuals involved to have adequate cover for the eventualities, insurance, savings for a rainy day, etc. When people think they can rely on the state they ignore individual responsibility, thinking they can depend on the state.

You are making an argument similar to that of a young Michael Moore made to Friedman, not one of principle, but one of price. If you understand basic economics and that a business can't run at a loss, you are only asking a question of price, how much of a loss should the employer take when someone asks for flexible working hours is what you are asking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&playnext=1&list=PLB5287C011F43E5C1

20Cent

SupaNova wrote: »

If you are hung up on state style education you will find that school attendance was gradually increasing in the US before state education just as poverty was declining before Welfare was introduced. This is the point i am making that even in the poorest in a free market environment would be better off than those getting 'free' healthcare, or 'free' education.


The point again is in a free market system the poorest would get healthcare better than the 'free' healthcare 'guaranteed' by the state. How many people die on wait lists for guaranteed state care. What happens when state's hyperinflate their currency and the default on all its promises cause deaths.

You obviously have no knowledge of US healthcare as its not close to a free market system in the slightest.

Well we have historical evidence of societies without public education and health. Well documented by people like Charles Dickens. I guess the person dieing slowly of cancer would be glad to be free of evil socialist healthcare.
I actually lived in the US and worked in banking thanks. I do recall my collegues main concern was to keep health cover for themselves and their families. There was also the time I took a neighbour to the emergency room at 3am in a terrible fever. She got five minutes with a doctor a perscription and a bill for 800 dollars.
To believe something without empirical, historial or even anecdotal evidence is called faith I believe. Those with the faith think that others would also believe if only the knew enough. Sorry not buying it.

SupaNova wrote: »

Someone lost their job because it was not profitable for the employer to keep them hired. This is what makes me believe you have not read a single economics book. If employers started running losses they would go out of business and many more people would be affected. The fact that someone has a sick relative is unfortunate, but the responsibility is not with the employer. It is with the individuals involved to have adequate cover for the eventualities, insurance, savings for a rainy day, etc. When people think they can rely on the state they ignore individual responsibility, thinking they can depend on the state.

You are making an argument similar to that of a young Michael Moore made to Friedman, not one of principle, but one of price. If you understand basic economics and that a business can't run at a loss, you are only asking a question of price, how much of a loss should the employer take when someone asks for flexible working hours is what you are asking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&playnext=1&list=PLB5287C011F43E5C1

Firing someone because his wife got cancer. Lovely society being descrbed here. What about my question, There is no profit to be made insuring old people, handicapped, disabled, even people with dangerous jobs. What happens to them?

The sight of Friedman makes me want to puke. The young fella asked a real world question with facts and figures which actually happened. Friedman replies with a made up theoretical situation and claims victory. Typical of the theorist, his policies were enacted much to the detriment of many south American countries. They also involved plenty of murder and torture guess he thought it was worth it. Horrible human being. Read plenty of economics books thanks, maybe not the frings faith based ones by the chicago "school" or the austrians. Haven't read scientology books either.

SupaNova

Well we have historical evidence of societies without public education and health. Well documented by people like Charles Dickens. I guess the person dieing slowly of cancer would be glad to be free of evil socialist healthcare.
I actually lived in the US and worked in banking thanks. I do recall my collegues main concern was to keep health cover for themselves and their families. There was also the time I took a neighbour to the emergency room at 3am in a terrible fever. She got five minutes with a doctor a perscription and a bill for 800 dollars.
To believe something without empirical, historial or even anecdotal evidence is called faith I believe. Those with the faith think that others would also believe if only the knew enough. Sorry not buying it.

You have just showed an example of the terrible cost of healthcare in the US. It is not a free market healthcare system or anywhere close.

Firing someone because his wife got cancer. Lovely society being descrbed here. What about my question, There is no profit to be made insuring old people, handicapped, disabled, even people with dangerous jobs. What happens to them

He wasn't fired because his wife got cancer! Listen to the video, he was let go because he wanted different working hours.

The sight of Friedman makes me want to puke. The young fella asked a real world question with facts and figures which actually happened. Friedman replies with a made up theoretical situation and claims victory.

You either don't understand economics or are dodging the question. If you understand economics and understand how prices, profit and loss work, you know that profit is good thing and loss is bad thing. If all businesses were required to run at a loss we would be required to print endless currency, prices would lose their functions and we would experience a hyperinflation, the worst case scenario for a society.

Typical of the theorist, his policies were enacted much to the detriment of many south American countries. They also involved plenty of murder and torture guess he thought it was worth it. Horrible human being.

What policy of Friedman's involve theft and torture???

Read plenty of economics books thanks, maybe not the frings faith based ones by the chicago "school" or the austrians. Haven't read scientology books either.

The fact you don't understand price, the role it plays, and profit and loss would contradict your claim.

oscarBravo

SupaNova wrote: »

...in a free market system the poorest would get healthcare better than the 'free' healthcare 'guaranteed' by the state.

How? Who pays for it?

The fact that someone has a sick relative is unfortunate, but the responsibility is not with the employer. It is with the individuals involved to have adequate cover for the eventualities, insurance, savings for a rainy day, etc.

Whose responsibility is it to make sure the insurance company doesn't cheat you out of your entitlements? What happens when the insurance company decides they've paid out enough, and stop your benefits?

You can argue that it's the responsibility of the individual to make sure that they have adequate insurance to cover any possibility that could possibly occur, but in a free market, people will be forced to balance the assessment of risk against the cost of such cover.

SupaNova wrote: »

He wasn't fired because his wife got cancer! Listen to the video, he was let go because he wanted different working hours.

Let's hope he had enough of his income left over after paying for medical insurance to insure against losing his income - and that the income insurance doesn't invoke some small print to refuse to pay out.

As a matter of interest, in a free market society, who would prevent insurance companies from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions?

SupaNova

How? Who pays for it?

The individual pays for it through savings, insurance, help from extended family. Charity if necessary.

Whose responsibility is it to make sure the insurance company doesn't cheat you out of your entitlements? What happens when the insurance company decides they've paid out enough, and stop your benefits?

Its your responsibility and its in the company's own interest to pay the customers what they are entitled.

You can argue that it's the responsibility of the individual to make sure that they have adequate insurance to cover any possibility that could possibly occur, but in a free market, people will be forced to balance the assessment of risk against the cost of such cover.

People don't want to cover any possibility, they cover the possibilities that are most likely to affect them and balance the cost involved. We pay for a health insurance package based on our own situation and our likely health risks. We don't insure ourselves against every possible obscure disease.

As a matter of interest, in a free market society, who would prevent insurance companies from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions?

Breaking contracts would expose them to legal action. They would be forced to pay compensation to the customer, and face massive loss of future business or bankruptcy.

SupaNova

Let's hope he had enough of his income left over after paying for medical insurance to insure against losing his income - and that the income insurance doesn't invoke some small print to refuse to pay out.

Do you blame the employer? If i hire an individual and he asks to change his working hours to something that would make business unprofitable, i obviously can't oblige. If you can understand that you can only argue about how much money you should force me to give up to help the individual i am hiring without going out of business.

SeanW

20Cent wrote: »

The republicans are still the nearest thing to libertarians with power in the world. Ron and Rand Paul are republicans. It is the republicans who are trying to cut welfare and healthcare.

Irrelevant. As I've said, the republican party policy isn't anything resembling libertarianism. Their stance is Right-Authoritarianism, to a level of extreme.

Mars might be nearer to Earth than Alpha Centauri, but it's still Mars.

Ron Paul is very much an outcast in the Republican party, and if you knew anything about him you would know that he's not out to pull the rug out from anyone, always saying that he would start by dismantling the overseas occupations, ending the drug war etc.

loldog

This is one of the few examples I've seen of real Libertarianism in action. I think you'll agree this chap is making tremendous use of his right to private property and freedom from pesky government regulation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFhcDl8tlpI

This must be a Libertarian's wet dream. :rolleyes:

.

SupaNova

This is one of the few examples I've seen of real Libertarianism in action. I think you'll agree this chap is making tremendous use of his right to private property and freedom from pesky government regulation

One of the foundations of Libertarian philosophy is the non aggression principle. And you post a video of children that are beaten to make sure they work. An excellent shoot down of Libertarianism, keep them coming.