Support NeoGAF

WrathOfOtaibah · Apr 26, 2008

The biggest flaws of most libertarians is that they take the current services for granted.

The fact that what you might eat is considered safe or the fact that you can even tell what ingredients are in the food you eat, the quality of water you drink, the guaranteed flow of electricity, gas, etc. is all due to government regulation. The Libertarians want to return to the Gilded Age but assume that private interests will have the people's best interest at heart, which is a total joke because whenever deregulation happens, private interests move away from transparency into doing shady, backroom shit, that harms people as a whole.

The simple answer they give to that problem is just get another brand. Yet things are never that simple. The oversimplistic view most Libertarians have is another large flaw. They believe that businesses can rise up and fold as quickly and cleanly as what Milton Friedman writes about. Not the case at all.

Another beef I have with Libertarians is the fact that they think they have the right to claim that what the founders wanted is what they wanted. 1787 is a far different time than 2008.

Chairman Yang · Apr 26, 2008

JayDubya said:
And the parents of "trust fund babies" earned their property. Who are we to dictate its distribution upon their demise? I don't know about you, but my values, and the values of my parents, and their parents, are at least partially defined by the following - what is the purpose of working all one's life if not to make things better for the children you leave behind?

Irrelevant. The equality of opportunity is the issue here, not the morality of taking money from rich people.

JayDubya said:
OTOH, name an artificial legal barrier that separates us. People say "oh you're middle class" but does that title have any significance whatsoever? Does it define you and your limits?

Why does it matter if legal barriers are "artificial" or not? Under libertarianism, there is NOT perfect equality of opportunity, and provisions that could correct that wouldn't be allowed under the system.

This is one aspect of my problem with libertarianism. It's a rights-based ideology, not a utilitarian one. Which would be fine, except many supporters (including you) seem to present it as being optimal from a utilitarian standpoint as well, and that's based on little more than faith.

JayDubya said:
That's not a libertarian approach, that's a death tax rate of 100%, after taxing income their whole life. Incredibly lame.

Agreed. But lame or not, it would increase equality of opportunity; which means libertarianism is somewhere below the maximum equality of opportunity.

Slavik81 · Apr 26, 2008

Francois the Great said:
what is with this softening of libertarianism? trying to make it more acceptable?

i've been studying milton friedman, father of libertarianism, and he basically says the government should never intervene in the economy under any circumstances. he is for complete deregulation and for NO government programs or subsidies except for education vouchers in poor areas (but no public education.)

it boils down to liberty>>>>>equality and opportunity.

if you support "some" government programs, you are not a libertarian.

Just about everything you've said in this post is wrong.
Let's break it down.

Francois the Great said:
what is with this softening of libertarianism? trying to make it more acceptable?

No, that's simply your misguided notion of what libertarianism is.

Libertarianism is a broad spectrum of political philosophies, each sharing the common overall priority of maximum limitation of government combined with optimum possible individual liberty. At no point does it define anarchy as the only acceptable government model.

Francois the Great said:
i've been studying milton friedman, father of libertarianism, and he basically says the government should never intervene in the economy under any circumstances. he is for complete deregulation and for NO government programs or subsidies except for education vouchers in poor areas (but no public education.)

I've never seen Milton Freedman never say anything of the sort, but rather that the risk of Market Failure should be weighed against the risk of Government Failure. Government Failure is caused by conflicts-of-interested created in democratic systems (See: Porkbarreling).

Francois the Great said:
it boils down to liberty>>>>>equality and opportunity.

Equality of Opportunity is one of the basic principles of Libertarianism.

There's some very, very tricky issues about children. A child cannot raise himself. When a child becomes a person with all his or her rights is very hard to decide... And ensuring equality of opportunity for all children infringes on the rights of their parents. Very, very tricky stuff. Libertarians may disagree as to where the line is drawn for that.

Francois the Great said:
if you support "some" government programs, you are not a libertarian.

Being libertarian means you value the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others. At the very minimum, there's a case to be made for a government law-enforcement agency that punishes those that infringe upon the rights of others.

You are wrong again.

avaya said:
Market failure.

Market failures are well-covered by positive economics. A case for government intervention can be made.

Nerevar · Apr 26, 2008

JayDubya said:
The United States has perfect equality of opportunity. It does not have equality of outcome, nor is that desirable in the first place

really? really? You can't possibly be naive enough to believe this. With the way education is set up in America those at the top are a lot more "equal" than those at the bottom. If it wasn't for the big bad government providing insurance on student loans for education the cost would be even worse.

Azih · Apr 26, 2008

JayDubya said:
And the parents of "trust fund babies" earned their property. Who are we to dictate its distribution upon their demise?

First off, no. Some of those parents were trust fund babies themselves (dynasties).

Secondly The babies didn't earn it. The babies didn't 'choose' to be born into either abject poverty in a trash dump in Pakistan or a Hilton. One has more opportunities than the other.

I don't know about you, but my values, and the values of my parents, and their parents, are at least partially defined by the following - what is the purpose of working all one's life if not to make things better for the children you leave behind?

The Gate and Buffet approach is a great step in the right direction. You still need equivalent access to education especially in early years, but also as one goes through high school and on to post secondary. That is not true currently.

OTOH, name an artificial legal barrier that separates us. People say "oh you're middle class" but does that title have any significance whatsoever? Does it define you and your limits?

Doesn't define my limits, and we weren't talking about 'limits' in any case. We were talking about access to opportunity (completely different things dood). And so in terms of my access to opportunity I've been pretty damn blessed. Thank god I beat the odds and wasn't born in a poor family in the third world. But then again I'm no Belinda Stronach either. Relevant bit from the link:

She graduated from Newmarket High School and attended York University in 1985, where she studied business and economics, but dropped out after one year to work at Magna (her father's company).... Stronach was a member of the board of directors of Magna from 1988 until 2004.

One whole year of post secondary lands her a sweet job at Daddy's company, two entire years of experience gets her on the board of directors.

Nepotism may be an opportunity, but it certainly ain't an equal one.

That's not a libertarian approach

It's an equality of opportunity approach which your conception of libertarianism does not provide.

thesoapster · Apr 26, 2008

JayDubya said:
OTOH, name an artificial legal barrier that separates us. People say "oh you're middle class" but does that title have any significance whatsoever? Does it define you and your limits? People of merit (or the lack thereof) do not succeed or falter?

Yeah, but you said we have perfect equal opportunity, which you know is not true. All sorts of factors can either help or hinder individuals (education, job placement, stereotypes).

Speaking of stereotypes and opportunity...I'm still not sure why the U.S. lets blacks/other certain minorities score lower on certain tests...I don't see how it's not racist (either by being unfair to non-minorities or by being downright insulting to blacks/said certain minorities).

And what about equal opportunity for those with medical conditions that hinder them? What if their family has a lesser income and their insurance will not pay for medications/treatments etc (assuming they have insurance)?

There is way too much variance in society to say we have perfect equal opportunity.

Slavik81 · Apr 26, 2008

JayDubya said:
That's not a libertarian approach, that's a death tax rate of 100%, after taxing income their whole life. Incredibly lame.

It certainly is not very libertarian at all, I would agree. It greatly infringes upon the right of the soon-to-be-dead to do whatever they want with their life's savings.

However, the increased equality of opportunity that arises from it may greatly help sustain increased libertarianism in the rest of society.

Gig · Apr 26, 2008

avaya said:
Market failure.

But, but, but, market failures don't exist!!

JayDubya · Apr 26, 2008

Chairman Yang said:
Irrelevant. The equality of opportunity is the issue here, not the morality of taking money from rich people.

This thread has a central issue?

Why does it matter if legal barriers are "artificial" or not? Under libertarianism, there is NOT perfect equality of opportunity, and provisions that could correct that wouldn't be allowed under the system.

There is no outside force placing limits on your opportunity. Classic liberalism is an attack on outmoded notions of classes and castes.

This is one aspect of my problem with libertarianism. It's a rights-based ideology, not a utilitarian one. Which would be fine, except many supporters (including you) seem to present it as being optimal from a utilitarian standpoint as well, and that's based on little more than faith.

I don't know, I know a lot of Libertarians that are big on utilitarianism. I'm not so much. I'm big on strong moral principles, and I don't like how the utilitarian calculus can so easily fall on the 51 doing whatever they want with the 49 for their self-inte... oh, no, of course, I mean, the greater good. I'm really not big on coercion.

Agreed. But lame or not, it would increase equality of opportunity; which means libertarianism is somewhere below the maximum equality of opportunity.

We have maximum equality of opportunity. What you're talking about is equality of outcome.

thesoapster said:
Speaking of stereotypes and opportunity...I'm still not sure why the U.S. lets blacks/other certain minorities score lower on certain tests...I don't see how it's not racist (either by being unfair to non-minorities or by being downright insulting to blacks/said certain minorities).

You're not sure why the U.S. lets people score lower on tests? What? What exactly are you implying / proposing?

Slavik81 · Apr 26, 2008

The Experiment said:
The biggest flaws of most libertarians is that they take the current services for granted.

The fact that what you might eat is considered safe or the fact that you can even tell what ingredients are in the food you eat, the quality of water you drink, the guaranteed flow of electricity, gas, etc. is all due to government regulation. The Libertarians want to return to the Gilded Age but assume that private interests will have the people's best interest at heart, which is a total joke because whenever deregulation happens, private interests move away from transparency into doing shady, backroom shit, that harms people as a whole.

Those are regulations that increase the flow of information, and preventing people causing harm to others. They can be justified under libertarian principles. On the other hand, laws against gay marriage, for example, would be unconstitutional.

I'd also like to point out, that at no point does any economic philosophy expect private interests have the peoples' best interests at heart. Have you ever looked at an economic textbook? The assumption is that people are rational beings that have their own best interests at heart.

In fact, the best argument against most economic philosophies is that people are irrational, often knowingly doing things that are bad for them.

Gig said:
But, but, but, market failures don't exist!!

Oh, fuck this.
People aren't even addressing where the discussion currently is and are attacking strawmen instead.

Slavik81 · Apr 26, 2008

JayDubya said:
We have maximum equality of opportunity. What you're talking about is equality of outcome.

You do not have the maximum equality of opportunity as long as you allow people to impact each other positively.

Only if you consider entire families as a single entity do you have equality of opportunity. Once you go to the level of a person, inequality arises due to people imparting positive benefits upon others. Every molecule of H2O might be equal, but Hydrogen =/= Oxygen.

Azih · Apr 26, 2008

JayDubya said:
This thread has a central issue?

Equality of opportunity.

There is no outside force placing limits on your opportunity.

Limit of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of opportunity. Please see the Belinda Stronach example.

We have maximum equality of opportunity.

Ah so we have retreated from

The United States has perfect equality of opportunity.

At least that's something. Pray what do you mean by 'maximum'. It's kind of a vauge term.

Gig · Apr 26, 2008

Slavik81 said:
Oh, fuck this.
People aren't even addressing where the discussion currently is and are attacking strawmen instead.

:lol :lol It was just a joke.

JayDubya · Apr 26, 2008

Slavik81 said:
You do not have the maximum equality of opportunity as long as you allow people to impact each other positively.

Only if you consider entire families as a single entity do you have equality of opportunity. Once you go to the level of a person, inequality arises due to people imparting positive benefits upon others. Every molecule of H2O might be equal, but Hydrogen =/= Oxygen.

You're right, of course, family imparts a multitude of negative and positive factors ranging from financial to genetic.

I'm not sure what this has to do with equality of opportunity, however.

Chairman Yang · Apr 26, 2008

JayDubya said:
There is no outside force placing limits on your opportunity. Classic liberalism is an attack on outmoded notions of classes and castes.

Let me restate my question: why does it matter if the limits on opportunity are caused by an "outside force" or not? How is that not an arbitrary, meaningless distinction?

JayDubya said:
I don't know, I know a lot of Libertarians that are big on utilitarianism. I'm not so much. I'm big on strong moral principles, and I don't like how the utilitarian calculus can so easily fall on the 51 doing whatever they want with the 49 for their self-inte... oh, no, of course, I mean, the greater good. I'm really not big on coercion.

Sure, I understand that--but in that case, you should argue based on those moral principles, and not faith-based utilitarian principles.

JayDubya said:
We have maximum equality of opportunity. What you're talking about is equality of outcome.

I'm not talking about outcomes at all. Certain people in the US (and in a theoretical libertopia) are born with more opportunities than others--that means inequality of opportunity. Whether they eventually transcend their limitations and rise high, or squander their advantages and stay stuck--that's a question of outcomes. It says nothing about their initial opportunities.

thesoapster · Apr 26, 2008

Slavik81 said:
You do not have the maximum equality of opportunity as long as you allow people to impact each other positively.

Only if you consider entire families as a single entity do you have equality of opportunity. Once you go to the level of a person, inequality arises due to people imparting positive benefits upon others. Every molecule of H2O might be equal, but Hydrogen =/= Oxygen.

...what the fuck

When we talk about equal opportunity, we're talking about individual opportunity...at least I was. But even so, here's an example of two families who...wait, families with individuals who would not have eq...UGH

WHAT! How the hell do you have families with equal opportunity? What does that even mean? Are you saying that once any given number of families are taken into consideration, somehow their opportunity ends up being the same? If a family lives in an area where schools are worse off thanks to the city they live in, their children's opportunity is not as great when compared to another family living elsewhere in a city with better schools. Both families could be dependent upon their parents' jobs, therefore making it more difficult for them to relocate. Both families are more tied to where they are, but if we are talking about the ability to benefit a family, one set's children would have a better opportunity than the other.

This is not hydrogen bonding with oxygen.

edit: And if you consider providing public school as "imparting a positive benefit" that causes inequality...yes, I can agree to an extent. Though the fact is that that's a valuable benefit to have. There will never be such thing as "perfect" opportunity. We are taught by humans, which vary themselves. Some people may get further in life simply because they had a better-suited set of teachers in schools and better mentors at work.

JayDubya · Apr 26, 2008

Azih said:
Equality of opportunity.

Okay, if that's the focus for the Saturday morning episode, but it didn't start that way. It started fumbling in the dark, with Gaborn posting a fairly lame YouTube link, and Cheebs being a dickhead, and then the requisite leftie GAFpile.

Limit of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of opportunity.

A lack of limit of opportunity is the same thing as equality of opportunity.

Please see the Belinda Stronach example.

Yes, nepotism exists. Private interests can make their own voluntary choices. By putting someone academically non-qualified into a leadership role, they have placed their own holdings at risk if she is not up to the task. If she is up to the task, then it paid off, and she had merit, so it didn't matter. Of course, merit is not a binary switch, there was probably someone more qualified, and it's in the company's financial self-interest to hire that person, so they should. If they don't, that's to their own detriment.

Ah so we have retreated from At least that's something. Pray what do you mean by 'maximum'. It's kind of a vauge term.

No retreat. Synonymous.

JayDubya · Apr 26, 2008

Chairman Yang said:
Let me restate my question: why does it matter if the limits on opportunity are caused by an "outside force" or not? How is that not an arbitrary, meaningless distinction?

It's not meaningless, though I suppose it's not the central point: you, as an individual, have no boundaries on your opportunity other than yourself (and that would logically include your own genetic factors) to self-actualize and make the best of your life and your situation.

Sure, I understand that--but in that case, you should argue based on those moral principles, and not faith-based utilitarian principles.

It's kind of like being fluent in one language and dabbling in the other. Sometimes I try to argue on other people's terms, usually when people aren't connecting or understanding where I'm coming from.

I'm not talking about outcomes at all. Certain people in the US (and in a theoretical libertopia) are born with more opportunities than others--that means inequality of opportunity. Whether they eventually transcend their limitations and rise high, or squander their advantages and stay stuck--that's a question of outcomes. It says nothing about their initial opportunities.

You are saying some people are born into wealth and others are not. Yes, this is true. Is that "fair?" Well, perhaps not. Neither are the proposed alternatives.

But I thought we were talking about equality of opportunity. Yes, people are born at different starting points, but financial empires rise and fall, a great idea is always worth its weight, and hard-work and perseverance do pay dividends.

I'm sure this is where the leftists in the crowd will go all Colbert and translate the above to "BOOTSTRAPS, MOTHERFUCKER. PULL 'EM." If so, so be it.

* * *

To touch on your other, perhaps throwaway statement... Again, -topia implies perfection, and this oh-so-common turn of phrase, which seems exclusive to GAF's collective lexicon, makes no sense, and hasn't the shred of accuracy.

That's not possible. Freedom is messy. Freedom is dangerous. When freedom is the central idea of a system, you will not have a utopia. Hoping for an absurdest utopia is the hallmark of the distinguished competition.

Freedom's also better than the alternative, though the subjective nature of that claim means no shortage of argument. Case in point.

Azih · Apr 26, 2008

JayDubya said:
A lack of limit of opportunity is the same thing as equality of opportunity.

Lack of limit on opportunity does not include any conception of ease of access to opportunity. Ease of access to opportunity is a very important part of equality of opportunity.

One of the problems (among many) with your statement is that 'A lack of limit of opportunity' applies to everybody, everywhere, in every time, under every nation, not just the States. A child born in the slums of Calcutta could grow up to be President of the United States. There's no limit there. A child born in the middle of a Somali drought could grow up to win multiple Oscars. There is no lack of limit of opportunity on any human being that has every lived. But the ease of access to opportunity varies like crazy and thus there is a difference of equality of opportunity.

Yes, nepotism exists. Private interests can make their own voluntary choices. By putting someone academically non-qualified into a leadership role, they have placed their own holdings at risk if she is not up to the task.

None of this speaks to ease of access to opportunity which Ms Stronach had in spades because of Daddy and children born in slums and trash dumps do not. Those kids could struggle up to become CEO and President of Magna Enterprises by their early thirties, sure. Same limit of opportunity for everybody but the ease of access to those opportunities is WORLDS apart.

JayDubya · Apr 26, 2008

Ah, the wonders of streaming video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

If you must, skip to 26 minutes.

Also, each episode contains a lengthy debate at the end.

thesoapster · Apr 26, 2008

Azih said:
A child born in the slums of Calcutta could grow up to be President of the United States.

I agree with your whole post, but this um...wouldn't work

TomServo · Apr 26, 2008

The Experiment said:
The biggest flaws of most libertarians is that they take the current services for granted.

No, they just believe that those services can be better provided by private entities. The UL is an example of this. It's a non-governmental entity, and to an informed consumer knows that a UL stamp on a product generally means that it won't burn your house down.

Big government types is that they'd rather hand over regulation to government so that they don't have to worry about such things. Instead of actually paying attention to what they bring in their home and what they put in their bodies, they'd rather let the government handle it for them. Sounds great in theory, but the flaw is that it's terribly inefficient and there's no motivation on the part of the government to maintain integrity - they're the only game in town.

The Experiment said:
Another beef I have with Libertarians is the fact that they think they have the right to claim that what the founders wanted is what they wanted. 1787 is a far different time than 2008.

I don't pretend to know, and I appreciate that times change. That said, we have a Constitution, and we have a process to amend it, and it's designed to be difficult to change (and for good reason). If there's enough of a majority to amend it, then go right ahead. The problem arises when there isn't a large enough majority, but what majority there is wants change they pass laws that argueably impinge on Constitutional rights.

pgtl_10 · Apr 26, 2008

Fragamemnon said:
Not nearly as delicious as the absolute failure of the campaign one of the best funded libertarian candidate in modern American politics. You weren't even competitve, which means that your ideas and philosophy have been judged as intellectually bankrupt and not worthy of consideration by the American people.

A stupid way of analyzing the failure of one campaign.

Azih · Apr 26, 2008

thesoapster said:
I agree with your whole post, but this um...wouldn't work

Sure it could. The child would have to struggle out of the slums, get an eduction, immigrate to the States and become such a political powerhouse that he/she gets a constitutional amendment passed that allows foreign born Americans to become president and then run as a candidate and win an election. NO LIMITS TO OPPORTUNITIES. Why that child has opportunities equal to George W Bush and Chelsea Clinton.

teh_pwn · Apr 26, 2008

reggieandTFE said:
Your own examples bely the false hope in a simple opening of the market.

Because of the push for massive industrial growth, China is the number environmental disaster in the world. The growth of the left in Latin America is widely seen as a reaction to failed IMF/WTO/Chicago School economic policies that enriched the few (and int'l investors, of course) at the expense of the many. And Russia's gangster capitalism is about as terrible a model that any country would ever want to follow.

The problem I have is that economic growth as measured by GDP is not equal to a better life/economic opportunity for the majority of the population. Another example, South Africa has had great "growth" since Apartheid was gently eased out, but numerous studies have shown that average South African living in the Bantustans is worse off than they were in the mid 80s. The only difference between then and now is that minority Black affluent class is sitting at the top of the pile with the former purveyors of apartheid.

Libertarians believe in a world where competition, greed and aggression are the only qualities that mattter where resources are distributed and I don't want to live in that world

Oh, no doubt those countries have major issues. I'm not saying that they're perfect. I used them as examples to counter the idea of getting rid of free markets, or at least that's what I interpreted from an earlier post.

I completely agree that GDP growth is not an indicator for quality of life or liberty/freedoms/opportunity. If we want to have the highest GDP, we're in a loser's game, because in all likelihood we're going to fall down the ranks in the upcoming years as Asia/Pacific catches up with modernized economies for all of it's many citizens. On the positive side, while we won't be #1, the rate of scientific progress is going to exponentially accelerate as hundreds of millions of rural Chinese move into modern civilization.

But as my example goes, while China does have issues, I do think they're improving quickly. We're not environment or foreign policy saints either, but we are beginning to improve and I'm sure they will too.

I wouldn't say that Libertarians think that the world works by greed. I think they believe that if everyone worked in their best interests with more freedom, that things would be better off overall for most people. Certainly some would be greedy, but I don't think that's their intention.

One area that I differ from Libertarians is that I believe that all children should be provided government funded healthcare. But we still need to get rid of government corruption so that this isn't a costly task.

Instigator · Apr 26, 2008

You guys sucked dry whatever humor was achieved early in the topic.

ronito · Apr 26, 2008

Instigator said:
You guys sucked dry whatever humor was achieved early in the topic.

to be fair, outside of imagining that guy in the video as JayDubya there wasn't much humor in it.

Puppies, Sunshine and Ice Cream!

teh_pwn · Apr 26, 2008

The Experiment said:
Another beef I have with Libertarians is the fact that they think they have the right to claim that what the founders wanted is what they wanted. 1787 is a far different time than 2008.

I think they tend to reference them because our current government isn't following the Constitution properly anymore, and a Constitutional government is closer to their ideals. While the US Constitution can be interpreted in many ways, there are certain areas where the government is over reaching, like the power of the Executive branch.

If you're referring to how I said that Thomas Jefferson shares many similar political beliefs, could you explain why you think otherwise? Yes, 1787 were very different times and the application of his beliefs would probably be different today. But many of his ideals are timeless. And yes, had he not been born under the Enlightenment influence and the events of the colonial/revolutionary period, he'd have different beliefs. That's true with any person on any topic.

I don't claim that all founders were libertarians. John Adams is closer to a Democrat, Alexander Hamilton was closer to neo-con, etc.

Dies Iræ · Apr 26, 2008

Libertarianism, in the sense discussed in this thread, is as radical, abstract, dangerous, and ultimately impossible a political and economic theory as communism. Every instance of its implementation under the direct council of its chief creators (Friedman and his Chicago Boys) has resulted in hyperinflation, unprecedented poverty, theft of state enterprises by opportunistic oligarchs, and widespread civil conflict. It's a political system, like Communism, entirely antithetical to notions of democracy. By placing an economic ideal above all, that of the free market, libertarianism fails to factor in the human element.

It's proto-fascism, theoretically. It's fascism, practically.

The two best examples are Chile under Pinochet and Russia under Yeltsin. Read up.

Nerevar · Apr 26, 2008

TomServo said:
Sounds great in theory, but the flaw is that it's terribly inefficient and there's no motivation on the part of the government to maintain integrity - they're the only game in town.

Your whole argument is flawed because invariably the government is beholden to the people it is responsible to. Elected officials have to get elected. You could argue that the average citizen these days doesn't give a shit and just votes according to sound bites or along party lines (and you'd probably be right), but invariably that system is no less efficient than entrusting it to a private entity if the citizens don't give a shit. As an entity the Federal government is no more or less efficient than any other huge private, overly bureaucratized private entity (like, say, IBM - a company I have several close friends who work in). The "inefficient Federal government bureaucracy" is one of those things people take for granted without really questioning anymore, which is partly why you have the problem I mentioned at the start of this post. Much of the waste in fact comes from the private contractors the government pushes contracts to. That would be a discussion worth having.

teh_pwn · Apr 26, 2008

Every instance of its implementation under the direct council of its chief creators (Friedman and his Chicago Boys) has resulted in hyperinflation, unprecedented poverty, theft of state enterprises by opportunistic oligarchs, and widespread civil conflict.

Could you expand on this? Specifically what I don't understand:

1. Hyperinflation.

Libertarians tend to favor either a precious metals based currency, or a constitutionally authorized centralized bank that's more controlled by Congress and less intervening that today's Federal Reserve.

In a precious metals based currency, the money supply is fixed. Inflation is really not seen in such a system. See the United states between 1802-1930 on Figure 1-4 on page 11 of this PDF. Shortly after 1930, we stopped completely tying the dollar to gold. That's precisely when inflation began.

While I don't agree with the gold standard because it isn't flexible enough for a country of our size and for rare and warranted government market intervention, to say that Libertarian philosophy on monetary policy would result in hyperinflation just doesn't match historical data.

2. Unprecedented poverty. Based on what?

3. "theft of state enterprises by opportunistic oligarchs" Total deregulation would, but again that's not encompassing all of Libertarian belief. There's something to be said about corporatism/lobbyists and cronyism in today's government.

4. Widespread civil conflict. I think you too are confusing anarchists with Libertarians. Libertarians believe in government funded military and defense. Libertarians believe in state funded police forces.

It's a political system, like Communism, entirely antithetical to notions of democracy. By placing an economic ideal above all, that of the free market, libertarianism fails to factor in the human element.

I don't see Libertarianism in conflict with Democracy. Democracy is about representation of the people. I do, however, see the current system in violation of Democracy because of the huge weight of representation and policy making on the part of corporations.

Libertarians don't place economics above all. They place liberty above all, which encompasses both economics and civil liberties. For example, many Libertarians either support government recognized gay marriage, or the more anarchist leaning ones don't want government involved in marriage at all which indirectly supports gay marriage...such positions don't have anything to do with economics.

I agree that Libertarians overestimate the intentions of individuals.

It's proto-fascism, theoretically. It's fascism, practically.

I don't understand the comparison. Complete polar opposites in political philosophy.

StoOgE · Apr 26, 2008

someone brought up self regulatory orgs as proof of market efficiency in protecting consumers.

i would argue finra, ul, mpaa, the esrb and most others came to exist because of the threat of government oversight. get your shit together or uncle sam will.

in a free market, i doubt they woul exist, in the securities infustry i know they wouldnt.

TomServo · Apr 26, 2008

Nerevar said:
Your whole argument is flawed because invariably the government is beholden to the people it is responsible to.

In theory, yes. In reality, not even fucking close. Our politicians have nothing but contempt for the people that elect them. Arguing with my senators over a particlur issue in the past year proved that to me. There's not a damn thing anyone on a message board can say that changes an opinion formed when one is basically told to DIAF by the people that supposedly represent him.

StoOgE said:
someone brought up self regulatory orgs as proof of market efficiency in protecting consumers.

i would argue finra, ul, mpaa, the esrb and most others came to exist because of the threat of government oversight. get your shit together or uncle sam will.

UL came into existience in 1894, long before the era of big government, trust-busting, etc.

There are examples all around you of private industry providing information to consumers. Every major game review site you is an example of one - if game reviews didn't affect consumer actions do you really think that so much time and money would be spent by the publishers getting information to those sites?

Product reviews are obviously not a life-or-death issue, but neither is the MPAA or ESRB. What they all have in common is that consumers find a partucular source of information or certification worthwhile, and the private sector provides it.

I don't take government services for granted, but I also know that if the government didn't provide those services I'd look elsewhere for them.

GoutPatrol · Apr 27, 2008

TomServo said:
UL came into existience in 1894, long before the era of big government, trust-busting, etc.

Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 says hi.

Hitokage · Apr 27, 2008

Dies Iræ said:
It's proto-fascism, theoretically. It's fascism, practically.

No, it's not fascism at all. Libertarianism is arguably radical, while Fascism is purely reactionary. There's no strength-driven push for a past national ideal in libertarianism.

ZAK · Apr 27, 2008

Look at JayDubya dodge and weave. Roll, you magnificent bastard!

adamsappel · Apr 27, 2008

JayDubya said:
... and Cheebs being a dickhead ...

You know, Jay, you spend a lot of time complaining about personal attacks. Practice what you preach.

avatar299 · Apr 27, 2008

adamsappel said:
You know, Jay, you spend a lot of time complaining about personal attacks. Practice what you preach.

telling the truth isn't a personal attack

lastendconductor · Apr 27, 2008

How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

none! it will magically change itself

TomServo · Apr 27, 2008

GoutPatrol said:
Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 says hi.

Tell it I said hi back. While you're at it, ask it what it had to do with the formation of the UL.

ronito · Apr 27, 2008

DKnight said:
How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

none! it will magically change itself

Touche, the light bulb would never go out. The free market would finally make the perfect light bulb which the evil government and scum (aka the poor) have held back and release it.

lastendconductor · Apr 27, 2008

Besides, my light bulb is none of your business!

ZAK · Apr 27, 2008

DKnight said:
How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

What a loaded, Marxist-bullshit question. You're assuming collectivism in this scenario. Why should libertarians be expected to work together towards this arbitrary goal? The amount of libertarians that change the light bulb is the amount that freely choose to. That's my solution to the lighting issue.

JayDubya · Apr 27, 2008

ZAK said:
What a loaded, Marxist-bullshit question. You're assuming collectivism in this scenario. Why should libertarians be expected to work together towards this arbitrary goal? The amount of libertarians that change the light bulb is the amount that freely choose to. That's my solution to the lighting issue.

:lol I like this answer. No, I love this answer.

Gaborn · Apr 27, 2008

ZAK said:
What a loaded, Marxist-bullshit question. You're assuming collectivism in this scenario. Why should libertarians be expected to work together towards this arbitrary goal? The amount of libertarians that change the light bulb is the amount that freely choose to. That's my solution to the lighting issue.

*claps.gif* that's... awesome. And so true.

Azih · Apr 27, 2008

Yo Jay, how come you didn't respond to my critique of your 'A lack of limit of opportunity is the same thing as equality of opportunity. == equality of opportunity' contention?

JayDubya · Apr 27, 2008

Azih said:
Yo Jay, how come you didn't respond to my critique of your 'A lack of limit of opportunity is the same thing as equality of opportunity. == equality of opportunity' contention?

I thought I did, but I guess I missed a post. It'll have to keep until tomorrow though, because I'm practically falling asleep in my chair.

Good night, GAF.

Gaborn · Apr 27, 2008

Azih said:
Yo Jay, how come you didn't respond to my critique of your 'A lack of limit of opportunity is the same thing as equality of opportunity. == equality of opportunity' contention?

I'm not Jay, but your argument seems rather flawed. Let's take a look.

Lack of limit on opportunity does not include any conception of ease of access to opportunity. Ease of access to opportunity is a very important part of equality of opportunity.

Untrue! Differences in ease of access are a product primarily of wealth. By itself that shouldn't be a problem for anyone. A wealthier person on average is probably more likely to own more acreage, maybe even two or more homes, they're more likely to have multiple cars, etc. They're also more likely to be able to afford different items in life. Yet how is that fundamentally unequal?

From what I can tell you would say that the mere fact that people with more money have different buying patterns than people with less money that it's "unfair" somehow. Well, fine, what's your solution? I'd say that, well, *points to tag.*

One of the problems (among many) with your statement is that 'A lack of limit of opportunity' applies to everybody, everywhere, in every time, under every nation, not just the States. A child born in the slums of Calcutta could grow up to be President of the United States.

Well, not under our current laws, but yes, if they worked for and passed a constitutional amendment they could, assuming the current generation wasn't grandfathered in.

There's no limit there. A child born in the middle of a Somali drought could grow up to win multiple Oscars. There is no lack of limit of opportunity on any human being that has every lived. But the ease of access to opportunity varies like crazy and thus there is a difference of equality of opportunity.

So? Just looking at your two examples, personally I don't mind having a citizenship requirement to be President but I also wouldn't object to a Constitutional Amendment removing that restriction. However, whether it's removed or not, another basic limiting factor is whether the US population would vote for someone born in the "slums of Calcutta" for President. In other words, it's a question of law in part, but also of merit.

For your Oscar question, well, isn't that true of anyone? Actually, Bollywood makes even more movies than Hollywood yearly (I thought I saw it was almost double, but the number isn't really relevant). I don't feel it's unfair that I'm not in some movie somewhere (closest I got was singing a political campaign song about Ross Perot in Lansing when I was a kid - hey, we all go through a crazy stage - which made the Lansing news), the people who finance the movies have the right to put whomever they wish in them.

So really, we're not talking about difference in opportunity in terms of EQUALITY, we're talking about them in terms of whom people freely choose to support in opportunities (whether as a political issue or as an employment issue)

Azih · Apr 27, 2008

Gaborn said:
Untrue! Differences in ease of access are a product primarily of wealth. By itself that shouldn't be a problem for anyone. A wealthier person on average is probably more likely to own more acreage, maybe even two or more homes, they're more likely to have multiple cars, etc. They're also more likely to be able to afford different items in life. Yet how is that fundamentally unequal?

Not talking about buying patterns. I'm talking about access to better healthcare, better education, nepotism leading to easier jobs, See my Belinda Stronach example and compare her to a child from the slums of Calcutta. They both have no limit of opportunities, but equality of opportunity?

Well, not under our current laws, but yes, if they worked for and passed a constitutional amendment they could

Right, no limits on opportunity. But how can you say that this child has equality of opportunity with, say, Chelsea Clinton?

Azih: There is no lack of limit of opportunity on any human being that has every lived. But the ease of access to opportunity varies like crazy and thus there is a difference of equality of opportunity.
Gaborn: So?

Are you agreeing with that statement of mine but just don't think it's important?

Gaborn · Apr 27, 2008

Azih said:
Not talking about buying patterns. I'm talking about access to better healthcare, better education, nepotism leading to easier jobs, See my Belinda Stronach example and compare her to a child from the slums of Calcutta. They both have no limit of opportunities, but equality of opportunity?

Right, no limits on opportunity. But how can you say that this child has equality of opportunity with, say, Chelsea Clinton?

Are you agreeing with that statement of mine but just don't think it's important?

For the most part, yes. Take education for example - depending on your definition of equality, we're NEVER going to give every child exactly the same education because that depends a lot more on the teacher/professor than socio-economic background, not that socio-economic background does not matter in that equation, but in a sense that's true of almost any statistic. People who have less disposable income have a harder life. Welcome to the real world.

The same could be said for health care. Health care has gone down hill since the department of Health and Human Services was created, but even taking aside government issues and interventionism, good health care is often more a function of which doctor you see. Personally I've had some great doctors, and I've also had some complete idiots for doctors (briefly). That doesn't have to do with medical insurance, it has to go with where I went to receive treatment.

As for nepotism leading to easier access to jobs - if I own a business, I will hire whom I want. I can't imagine hiring a family member because they're family though, since I'd be in the business to accumulate the most wealth I can from my customers and if the family member wasn't qualified they wouldn't get the job from me. But, if someone disagreed... it's THEIR business. Would you suggest they not be allowed to hire whomever they wished to put on their own payroll?

Support NeoGAF

Anti-libertarian Humor

Banned

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen

Member

they call me "Man Gravy".

Member

Member

Member

One man's junk is another man's treasure

Banned

Member

Member

Member

One man's junk is another man's treasure

Banned

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Junior Member

Member

Member

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."

Banned

Member

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."

Member

they call me "Man Gravy".

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."

First tragedy, then farce.

Junior Member

Forgotten in his cell

Setec Astronomer

Member

Member

Banned

Put your snobby liquids into my mouth!

Junior Member

Member

Put your snobby liquids into my mouth!

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads