Libertarianism is stupid.

[thegreekdog]

And theres nothing at all wrong with the refining process of what is and isnt required. But i tend to wonder, to what end, in more diverse arrangements with difficult to define spaces (the problem of a fair amount of governmental policy) taking the ideological approach of no does to serve that social contract. Assuredly there are situations in which doing nothing is a reasonable and perhaps a preferential approach, but ideologically it seems an increasingly unreasonable proposition. Especially out of the context in which i think most libertarian thought comes from, i find it to be an increasingly distasteful intellectual position.

But thats just me.

I think maybe it's an unreasonable proposition because we have added so much to the social contract already. Perhaps the future belongs to more government control because that's the way we are heading and we've been heading that way for a long time.

In any event, as I've indicated before, it may be helpful for you to read the Libertarian platform, if only to further refine your arguments against the ideology that you find so distasteful.

[Snorri1234]

It doesn't work.

It doesn't work? Can you elaborate?

Because even the most die-hard capitalist will not refuse to help a poor old lady who is sick. Or for that matter, a little kid.

i agree. I'm more than willing to set aside a portion of my income for those who need it and give it to an organization of my choice that will be undoubtedly be more able than a bureaucracy-laden government to efficiently allocate that money and maximize its effects. however, i don't support the government forcibly taking my money and then giving it away to people or organizations i don't want to support. charity should be optional, not a requirement.

This is not about charity, this is about saving money. If you admit that you will not let an old lady or small kid die despite them not having insurance, then the entire idea behind private healthcare is flawed. Because the only way to make such a system work is denying people care even if that means their death.

[Snorri1234]

I think maybe it's an unreasonable proposition because we have added so much to the social contract already.

No, it's an unreasonable proposition because it opposes things from an "I want to determine how I spend my own money"-point even when the alternative is cheaper and more effective.

[mpjh]

Let me give one example of a leading libertarian argument on the FAA. We should do away with the FAA and let the airlines take responsibility for airline safety. If there is a crash, the families of the dead can sue the airline. That will make the airlines operate safely. As heard in a radio interview.

Here's a qoute that I heard from a liberal.
"I need smore crack; where's my welfare check?"

And here's one from a conservative;
"I'm a judge and the ten commandments have standing in my courtroom."

Huh, Juan you need to stop hanging out with crack-heads and listening to Mr. Limbaugh interview wacko judges. Read something, or change the station to Anti-war radio (a radio station founded by libertarians).

[thegreekdog]

I think maybe it's an unreasonable proposition because we have added so much to the social contract already.

No, it's an unreasonable proposition because it opposes things from an "I want to determine how I spend my own money"-point even when the alternative is cheaper and more effective.

I'm not sure I understand. What alternative is cheaper and more effective?

I cannot emphasize this enough - READ... THE... LIBERTARIAN... PARTY... PLATFORM... especially before attacking Libertarians.

[mpjh]

Read the republican part platform. Read the democratic party platform. Read any party's platform. Then look at what they do. Fat chance you see any connection.

[thegreekdog]

Read the republican part platform. Read the democratic party platform. Read any party's platform. Then look at what they do. Fat chance you see any connection.

That's probably true. What have Libertarians done in government lately?

[Snorri1234]

Let me give one example of a leading libertarian argument on the FAA. We should do away with the FAA and let the airlines take responsibility for airline safety. If there is a crash, the families of the dead can sue the airline. That will make the airlines operate safely. As heard in a radio interview.

I don't see anything in the official libertarian website about the FAA, but then again i might have missed it. even so, think about it. it is in an airline's best interest to regulate itself and maintain good safety standards because a) if it gets people killed, their families will sue for millions of dollars and b) no one will even fly on an airline with a reputation for unsafe planes or pilots. now, while i personally support the FAA and appreciate the job it's done, I can certainly understand the argument that it's unneccessary.

Yes but the argument presupposes that it's worth more to become saver than cutting on maintance and making money. And that would mean the FAA was somehow created completely without a reason. Because if the argument holds true, airlines would have begun doing everything about safety from the start.

It's a bit like saying that it's in a companies best interest to not polute.

[Snorri1234]

I think maybe it's an unreasonable proposition because we have added so much to the social contract already.

No, it's an unreasonable proposition because it opposes things from an "I want to determine how I spend my own money"-point even when the alternative is cheaper and more effective.

I'm not sure I understand. What alternative is cheaper and more effective?

Universal Healthcare.

I cannot emphasize this enough - READ... THE... LIBERTARIAN... PARTY... PLATFORM... especially before attacking Libertarians.

I already know what the libertarian stance on healthcare is.

[got tonkaed]

I think maybe it's an unreasonable proposition because we have added so much to the social contract already. Perhaps the future belongs to more government control because that's the way we are heading and we've been heading that way for a long time.

In any event, as I've indicated before, it may be helpful for you to read the Libertarian platform, if only to further refine your arguments against the ideology that you find so distasteful.

Because of the nature of the social contract, we cannot simply decide when or where we have met our obligation. I cant really make long term forecasts as things tend to be murky enough as it is. But when you consider that so much of the current libertarian resurgence is nothing more than a backlash, it makes this argument about saying enough in terms of the social contract a bit sour in my opinion.

A cynic could say its simply people deciding to be overly risk averse or as i have mentioned earlier, deciding to take their ball and go home because they dont like the way the game is currently being played. From the standpoint of a social contract, this remains a very distasteful choice.

[thegreekdog]

Because of the nature of the social contract, we cannot simply decide when or where we have met our obligation. I cant really make long term forecasts as things tend to be murky enough as it is. But when you consider that so much of the current libertarian resurgence is nothing more than a backlash, it makes this argument about saying enough in terms of the social contract a bit sour in my opinion.

A cynic could say its simply people deciding to be overly risk averse or as i have mentioned earlier, deciding to take their ball and go home because they dont like the way the game is currently being played. From the standpoint of a social contract, this remains a very distasteful choice.

I think I understand your objections now. They seem reasonable, and pretty accurate. I do acknowledge that a lot of the Libetarian platform can appear to be backlash against the federal government (and others) adding terms to the social contract. However, when our obligations continue to increase, I would tend to think at some point we should take notice.

At what point does "taking the ball and going home" become a tasteful choice? I registered as a Libertarian after the second Bush election because I was tired of an increasing government control over the economy, unfettered government spending, and the government's continued abridgement of the rights of Americans. I guess you could say that I took my ball and went home at that point. The recent budget bills have not assuaged my views that continued government spending, control, and regulation is rampant.

Finally, I will say this - Libertarians aren't taking the ball away from the other kids and going home, they are taking the ball away from the teacher (i.e. government) and going home. Just because the social contract with the government is limited, does not mean the social contract between people is limited.

[thegreekdog]

Universal Healthcare.

I'm not against Universal Healthcare. I'm against government-sponsored and government-controlled Universal Healthcare. We need to think of ways to provide healthcare for those that cannot afford it apart from setting up the Department of Universal Healthcare and requiring all Americans to participate.

[got tonkaed]

I think I understand your objections now. They seem reasonable, and pretty accurate. I do acknowledge that a lot of the Libetarian platform can appear to be backlash against the federal government (and others) adding terms to the social contract. However, when our obligations continue to increase, I would tend to think at some point we should take notice.

At what point does "taking the ball and going home" become a tasteful choice? I registered as a Libertarian after the second Bush election because I was tired of an increasing government control over the economy, unfettered government spending, and the government's continued abridgement of the rights of Americans. I guess you could say that I took my ball and went home at that point. The recent budget bills have not assuaged my views that continued government spending, control, and regulation is rampant.

Finally, I will say this - Libertarians aren't taking the ball away from the other kids and going home, they are taking the ball away from the teacher (i.e. government) and going home. Just because the social contract with the government is limited, does not mean the social contract between people is limited.

Hmm...heres where ill probably make a mess of things.

While my objections as of thus far are all things i stand by it only really fits into the overall arc of my objection to libertarianism in a small piece. I see a majority of libertarians as individuals who are stuck in a difficult position to maintain intellectually, especially in the context of current changes in demographics and international influence. For me, libertarians who come from the current framework of "its breaking because you are trying to fix it" seem to disasterously miscalcuate the way in which power and influence appear to potentially be taking shape in the near to long term future.

At risk of making a hypocrite of myself, one predicition i do like to make is that the focus of international relationships and non-national entities including mulitnational ones is seriously affecting the way in which we govern. It is likely to do so increasingly in the future, possibly toward a more polar arrangement of power, aware from a more systems theory based approach, or at least a redefined one. People who view government as what can i maximize for as little as possible arent out of their minds rationally, but that are for my view strategically weakening everyones position if they ideas were to truly gain influence.

Regrettably in the context of the changes that are held within the statements two paragraphs above, a reasonable (yet in my view ultimately incorrect) approach is to demand a more limited government. Limited government has a history of success and for a suprisingly historically illiterate nation, it is an idea that remains enticing. That doesnt mean its a good approach going forward however. In both domestic and foreign policy we should continually be looking for ways to plan and invest in some of the types of investment that the private sector is going to be hesitant to make in developed economies.

The social contract requires us to work together to make good strategic decisions for the embetterment of all of us. I question whether the libertarian thought process is adequately prepared for the days in which America cannot negotiate on G-2 terms effectively (if it can even at the moment) or as the economy continues to change requiring us to either refit or maintain our workforce.

[Snorri1234]

Universal Healthcare.

I'm not against Universal Healthcare. I'm against government-sponsored and government-controlled Universal Healthcare. We need to think of ways to provide healthcare for those that cannot afford it apart from setting up the Department of Universal Healthcare and requiring all Americans to participate.

There is no way to do that. You need universal healthcare mandated by the government, magical free-market solutions do not work. If you say that people are free to choose whether they want insurance and what kind of insurance and against what you are needlesly complicating the issue and spending more on a system that doesn't work as good as socialized healthcare.

[Neoteny]

I think I understand your objections now. They seem reasonable, and pretty accurate. I do acknowledge that a lot of the Libetarian platform can appear to be backlash against the federal government (and others) adding terms to the social contract. However, when our obligations continue to increase, I would tend to think at some point we should take notice.

At what point does "taking the ball and going home" become a tasteful choice? I registered as a Libertarian after the second Bush election because I was tired of an increasing government control over the economy, unfettered government spending, and the government's continued abridgement of the rights of Americans. I guess you could say that I took my ball and went home at that point. The recent budget bills have not assuaged my views that continued government spending, control, and regulation is rampant.

Finally, I will say this - Libertarians aren't taking the ball away from the other kids and going home, they are taking the ball away from the teacher (i.e. government) and going home. Just because the social contract with the government is limited, does not mean the social contract between people is limited.

Hmm...heres where ill probably make a mess of things.

While my objections as of thus far are all things i stand by it only really fits into the overall arc of my objection to libertarianism in a small piece. I see a majority of libertarians as individuals who are stuck in a difficult position to maintain intellectually, especially in the context of current changes in demographics and international influence. For me, libertarians who come from the current framework of "its breaking because you are trying to fix it" seem to disasterously miscalcuate the way in which power and influence appear to potentially be taking shape in the near to long term future.

At risk of making a hypocrite of myself, one predicition i do like to make is that the focus of international relationships and non-national entities including mulitnational ones is seriously affecting the way in which we govern. It is likely to do so increasingly in the future, possibly toward a more polar arrangement of power, aware from a more systems theory based approach, or at least a redefined one. People who view government as what can i maximize for as little as possible arent out of their minds rationally, but that are for my view strategically weakening everyones position if they ideas were to truly gain influence.

Regrettably in the context of the changes that are held within the statements two paragraphs above, a reasonable (yet in my view ultimately incorrect) approach is to demand a more limited government. Limited government has a history of success and for a suprisingly historically illiterate nation, it is an idea that remains enticing. That doesnt mean its a good approach going forward however. In both domestic and foreign policy we should continually be looking for ways to plan and invest in some of the types of investment that the private sector is going to be hesitant to make in developed economies.

The social contract requires us to work together to make good strategic decisions for the embetterment of all of us. I question whether the libertarian thought process is adequately prepared for the days in which America cannot negotiate on G-2 terms effectively (if it can even at the moment) or as the economy continues to change requiring us to either refit or maintain our workforce.

tl;dr

[got tonkaed]

tl;dr

+1

[thegreekdog]

I think I understand your objections now. They seem reasonable, and pretty accurate. I do acknowledge that a lot of the Libetarian platform can appear to be backlash against the federal government (and others) adding terms to the social contract. However, when our obligations continue to increase, I would tend to think at some point we should take notice.

At what point does "taking the ball and going home" become a tasteful choice? I registered as a Libertarian after the second Bush election because I was tired of an increasing government control over the economy, unfettered government spending, and the government's continued abridgement of the rights of Americans. I guess you could say that I took my ball and went home at that point. The recent budget bills have not assuaged my views that continued government spending, control, and regulation is rampant.

Finally, I will say this - Libertarians aren't taking the ball away from the other kids and going home, they are taking the ball away from the teacher (i.e. government) and going home. Just because the social contract with the government is limited, does not mean the social contract between people is limited.

Hmm...heres where ill probably make a mess of things.

While my objections as of thus far are all things i stand by it only really fits into the overall arc of my objection to libertarianism in a small piece. I see a majority of libertarians as individuals who are stuck in a difficult position to maintain intellectually, especially in the context of current changes in demographics and international influence. For me, libertarians who come from the current framework of "its breaking because you are trying to fix it" seem to disasterously miscalcuate the way in which power and influence appear to potentially be taking shape in the near to long term future.

At risk of making a hypocrite of myself, one predicition i do like to make is that the focus of international relationships and non-national entities including mulitnational ones is seriously affecting the way in which we govern. It is likely to do so increasingly in the future, possibly toward a more polar arrangement of power, aware from a more systems theory based approach, or at least a redefined one. People who view government as what can i maximize for as little as possible arent out of their minds rationally, but that are for my view strategically weakening everyones position if they ideas were to truly gain influence.

Regrettably in the context of the changes that are held within the statements two paragraphs above, a reasonable (yet in my view ultimately incorrect) approach is to demand a more limited government. Limited government has a history of success and for a suprisingly historically illiterate nation, it is an idea that remains enticing. That doesnt mean its a good approach going forward however. In both domestic and foreign policy we should continually be looking for ways to plan and invest in some of the types of investment that the private sector is going to be hesitant to make in developed economies.

The social contract requires us to work together to make good strategic decisions for the embetterment of all of us. I question whether the libertarian thought process is adequately prepared for the days in which America cannot negotiate on G-2 terms effectively (if it can even at the moment) or as the economy continues to change requiring us to either refit or maintain our workforce.

Unfortunately, libertarians tend to be locally focused, so you are correct in your arguments (at least from my perspective). I think the word we're looking for is "provincial." "States rights" is a commonly used phrase as well. I don't fall into that camp, though I think the Libertarian Party does. I understand that in an increasingly global economy, provincialism is not going to work.

However, I do think limited government can work on an international basis. I certainly don't mean to espouse the idea that we should pick up our ball and take it away from the world (another bad analogy). I think in order to remain competitive with world economies, we need to be engaged with world economies (and governments). This is a topic that I admittedly have little experience with or knowledge about. I can tell you a lot about international relations from an historical perspective, but couldn't tell you what's going on today.

I read an article on MSN.com (I don't have a link... so you don't need to ask) stating that the United States still has the largest manufacturing workforce in the world. I'm not sure where the article's authors pulled their data. Not sure if that's helpful for purposes of your last paragraph, but, well, there it is.

Anyway, bottom line - Libertarianism, in its strictest sense, probably wouldn't work in a global society. I agree with you there. However, limited domestic government is still an issue with me.

[thegreekdog]

Universal Healthcare.

I'm not against Universal Healthcare. I'm against government-sponsored and government-controlled Universal Healthcare. We need to think of ways to provide healthcare for those that cannot afford it apart from setting up the Department of Universal Healthcare and requiring all Americans to participate.

There is no way to do that. You need universal healthcare mandated by the government, magical free-market solutions do not work. If you say that people are free to choose whether they want insurance and what kind of insurance and against what you are needlesly complicating the issue and spending more on a system that doesn't work as good as socialized healthcare.

Well, I actually don't know if there's no way to do that. I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

In any event, if the United States government mandates universal healthcare and requires all US citizens to participate, I'm going to be pretty unhappy; if only because I'd like to be able to choose my own doctors. Alternatively, if the United States mandates universal healthcare and requires only some US citizens to participate, I'm fairly sure the rich will be happy, the poor will be happy, and you and I will be screwed. We shall see.

[bbqpenguin]

Universal Healthcare.

I'm not against Universal Healthcare. I'm against government-sponsored and government-controlled Universal Healthcare. We need to think of ways to provide healthcare for those that cannot afford it apart from setting up the Department of Universal Healthcare and requiring all Americans to participate.

There is no way to do that. You need universal healthcare mandated by the government, magical free-market solutions do not work. If you say that people are free to choose whether they want insurance and what kind of insurance and against what you are needlesly complicating the issue and spending more on a system that doesn't work as good as socialized healthcare.

Well, I actually don't know if there's no way to do that. I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

In any event, if the United States government mandates universal healthcare and requires all US citizens to participate, I'm going to be pretty unhappy; if only because I'd like to be able to choose my own doctors. Alternatively, if the United States mandates universal healthcare and requires only some US citizens to participate, I'm fairly sure the rich will be happy, the poor will be happy, and you and I will be screwed. We shall see.

since when do people "deserve" healthcare anyway? for children i can see perhaps a universal system which garantees kids healthcare, but besides that, why? if i personally don't want to pay for my own or someone else's health insurance or medical bills, why should i have to? i know it sounds heartless and cruel, but I at least can't say it is worth sacrificing personal freedom in order to garuntee healthcare for everyone

[got tonkaed]

The first paragraph as you point out makes up quite a base of my alternative approach, though it isnt actually laid out in any reasonable or concise way. Seemingly from the nations inception, we have slowly but more often than not shifted our focuses from the local to the global. I am a bit of an advocate of the notion that while local agency is still very relevant, locality is somewhat being eradicated. Even the at the city level in the United States you see serious individuals looking at how to make their cities more globally oriented. Not merely as a way to increase revenues, but as a matter of competitive survival in terms of their demographics. Cities like Detroit appear to have failed in this regard, as their approach for reinvestment was based on something that was likely to be too locally based, though nationally oriented in nature. Many of us seem to be making the push more outward in terms of ideology, for what in my view at least is a more potentially sustainable long term approach.

I would disagree with the small ball approach for international relations. As much people detest regionalization i believe that it needs more fine tuning than overhauling. While there are obvious problems with many international organizations they appear to be far less insurmountable than some critics are claiming they are. Mechanisms for compliance will likely appear as we have need for them, and if they do not, all the more reason for us to be working together to begin with.

While the USA may maintain the largest industrial workforce for a time it is rapidly becoming a less competitive and less effective one. Regrettably i dont believe that the domestic approaches to libertarianism prepare us for this eventual possiblity nor do many of the other positions put us in more effective positions. Again, its not that libertarians dont provide a valuable check to some of the other more overly ambitious (and perhaps more shorsighted) approaches. But that alone doesnt make it something that so many should be running to so aggressively as it appears many are now.

[got tonkaed]

since when do people "deserve" healthcare anyway? for children i can see perhaps a universal system which garantees kids healthcare, but besides that, why? if i personally don't want to pay for my own or someone else's health insurance or medical bills, why should i have to? i know it sounds heartless and cruel, but I at least can't say it is worth sacrificing personal freedom in order to garuntee healthcare for everyone

People deserve healthcare as long as your ideological basis for your country dictates that investing in your human capital will lead to long term gains.

[Snorri1234]

since when do people "deserve" healthcare anyway? for children i can see perhaps a universal system which garantees kids healthcare, but besides that, why? if i personally don't want to pay for my own or someone else's health insurance or medical bills, why should i have to? i know it sounds heartless and cruel, but I at least can't say it is worth sacrificing personal freedom in order to garuntee healthcare for everyone

So when confronted tomorrow with a very sick woman who can't afford insurance you will let her die?

[thegreekdog]

The first paragraph as you point out makes up quite a base of my alternative approach, though it isnt actually laid out in any reasonable or concise way. Seemingly from the nations inception, we have slowly but more often than not shifted our focuses from the local to the global. I am a bit of an advocate of the notion that while local agency is still very relevant, locality is somewhat being eradicated. Even the at the city level in the United States you see serious individuals looking at how to make their cities more globally oriented. Not merely as a way to increase revenues, but as a matter of competitive survival in terms of their demographics. Cities like Detroit appear to have failed in this regard, as their approach for reinvestment was based on something that was likely to be too locally based, though nationally oriented in nature. Many of us seem to be making the push more outward in terms of ideology, for what in my view at least is a more potentially sustainable long term approach.

I would disagree with the small ball approach for international relations. As much people detest regionalization i believe that it needs more fine tuning than overhauling. While there are obvious problems with many international organizations they appear to be far less insurmountable than some critics are claiming they are. Mechanisms for compliance will likely appear as we have need for them, and if they do not, all the more reason for us to be working together to begin with.

While the USA may maintain the largest industrial workforce for a time it is rapidly becoming a less competitive and less effective one. Regrettably i dont believe that the domestic approaches to libertarianism prepare us for this eventual possiblity nor do many of the other positions put us in more effective positions. Again, its not that libertarians dont provide a valuable check to some of the other more overly ambitious (and perhaps more shorsighted) approaches. But that alone doesnt make it something that so many should be running to so aggressively as it appears many are now.

Thanks, I think. It's too complex an issue for you and I to get into a reasonable discussion about on a forum in Conquer Club; especially considering that my expertise does not lie in international government or international economics (I can talk about taxes and history as long as you'd like).

However, I will say that the assumption that more government regulation of the economy will better position us for a global economy is not necessarily the right answer. For example, a big reason that US companies (and non-US companies) go overseas for labor is because labor is cheaper. According to my understanding, labor is cheaper overseas for a whole host of reasons, much of which can be linked to federal government policies (for example, laws regarding minimum wage, healthcare benefits, and the like). While I'm not advocating against the minimum wage, I am arguing that more federal government does not mean better global economics, especially when you consider that the federal government has just spent a whole lot of money in the last few months, driving our deficit way up, which surely cannot help.

[bbqpenguin]

since when do people "deserve" healthcare anyway? for children i can see perhaps a universal system which garantees kids healthcare, but besides that, why? if i personally don't want to pay for my own or someone else's health insurance or medical bills, why should i have to? i know it sounds heartless and cruel, but I at least can't say it is worth sacrificing personal freedom in order to garuntee healthcare for everyone

People deserve healthcare as long as your ideological basis for your country dictates that investing in your human capital will lead to long term gains.

while i support such investments as infrastructure or education which are expensive initially but pay off later, i don't see how costs of universal healthcare wouldn't be more of a burden then a benefit. you can argue that by keeping people alive longer we can get more use and tax money out of them, but the majority of people who use it aren't incredibly productive citizens anyway. the old, the obese, people who smoke or drink too much, people who get hurt doing stupid things... again, i know it sounds inhumane to turn down anyone on healthcare but i don't think it's a legitiamate investment, at least in some terms.

[Snorri1234]

since when do people "deserve" healthcare anyway? for children i can see perhaps a universal system which garantees kids healthcare, but besides that, why? if i personally don't want to pay for my own or someone else's health insurance or medical bills, why should i have to? i know it sounds heartless and cruel, but I at least can't say it is worth sacrificing personal freedom in order to garuntee healthcare for everyone

People deserve healthcare as long as your ideological basis for your country dictates that investing in your human capital will lead to long term gains.

while i support such investments as infrastructure or education which are expensive initially but pay off later, i don't see how costs of universal healthcare wouldn't be more of a burden then a benefit. you can argue that by keeping people alive longer we can get more use and tax money out of them, but the majority of people who use it aren't incredibly productive citizens anyway. the old, the obese, people who smoke or drink too much, people who get hurt doing stupid things... again, i know it sounds inhumane to turn down anyone on healthcare but i don't think it's a legitiamate investment, at least in some terms.

If you do not understand the fact that universal healthcare saves money. (Possibly because you have blocked out all memory of europe or japan out of your mind) Then it's basically futile to argue with you.

If you cannot see how someone getting skincancer because they can't afford to have a mole removed is bad on both a social and economic level, then you are sadly a lost cause.