3 Things That Make Libertarian Heads Explode

Libertarians are proponents of a philosophy that embraces free-market ideology, limited government, and a certain form of individual liberty. They would like to take the government and drown it in the proverbial bathtub. Unfortunately, libertarians tend to ride on theoretical unicorns that don’t take them too far in the real world.

Next time you find yourself in the company of one of these quizzical beings, try bringing up one of the following topics and watch them start galloping off in 10 directions at once.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/3-things-make-libertarian-heads-explode

 

IS there a single country outside of the USA where attempts to form a "Libertarian" based political bloc has ever lasted more than one or two election cycles ?

  

I believe I recently came up with a way to justify not only the existence of government but also welfare spending, purely through free-market libertarian principles!  ::D:: 

Maybe I'll post it when I get a chance; it's a bit complicated ...

Why is it some people have to insist on attacking theories by taking them to the extreme?

I have not seen libertarianism ever want zero government but rather minimal government.

For example on health - a thing some people choose to do is found to be harmful to some of the people doing it. Should the governments role be to provide evidence based facts and let people decide for themselves or use legal and monetary methods to change behaviour or to ban it outright?

What is wrong with proper democracy where people are told the options in all the cases and choose themselves - and that choice stupid or brilliant is allowed to stand.

sphinx wrote:Why is it some people have to insist on attacking theories by taking them to the extreme?

I have not seen libertarianism ever want zero government but rather minimal government.

Lucky you were never on NewsHabit!  ::D:: 

But I don't attack the idea of libertarianism -- I actually consider myself libertarian in many ways -- but rather the wacky ideas of some of the people who call themselves libertarians.

The non-aggression principle is sublime in my opinion, and leads to the conclusion (IMO) that there are proper and improper uses of government force.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:Why is it some people have to insist on attacking theories by taking them to the extreme?

I have not seen libertarianism ever want zero government but rather minimal government.

Lucky you were never on NewsHabit!  ::D:: 

But I don't attack the idea of libertarianism -- I actually consider myself libertarian in many ways -- but rather the wacky ideas of some of the people who call themselves libertarians.

The non-aggression principle is sublime in my opinion, and leads to the conclusion (IMO) that there are proper and improper uses of government force.

LOL so if you and I sat in a room somewhere to design the perfect government there would probably be few arguments.

In the UK government is simply too intrusive - and people become dependent when deprived of the right to choose their own risks.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:Why is it some people have to insist on attacking theories by taking them to the extreme?

I have not seen libertarianism ever want zero government but rather minimal government.

Lucky you were never on NewsHabit!  ::D:: 

But I don't attack the idea of libertarianism -- I actually consider myself libertarian in many ways -- but rather the wacky ideas of some of the people who call themselves libertarians.

The non-aggression principle is sublime in my opinion, and leads to the conclusion (IMO) that there are proper and improper uses of government force.

LOL so if you and I sat in a room somewhere to design the perfect government there would probably be few arguments.  

Exactly, which is why democratic government works best. In fact, democratic government itself is based on the principle of letting the market choose winners and losers.

In the UK government is simply too intrusive - and people become dependent when deprived of the right to choose their own risks.

It would help me if you were to use examples -- I disagree with the common opinion that benefits make people too dependent, but we may find other issues we agree upon.

@sphinx
the USA is just as intrusive, the data is just held by private organisations

I would much prefer to let the Gov't have rights to the information (since someone has to, because cowards keep saying we cant let "naturally occurring fatal event" occur ever again) than some private organisation like they do in the USA.

Even now I can guarantee Google or Apple (depending on which you use) knows more about you than the Gov't. And their only reasoning is to advertise target product to you better so they can maximise there take of you money.

All American Citizen's supposed rights are already trumped by the Rights given to Corporations.

sphinx wrote:
Why is it some people have to insist on attacking theories by taking them to the extreme?

I have not seen libertarianism ever want zero government but rather minimal government.

For example on health - a thing some people choose to do is found to be harmful to some of the people doing it.  Should the governments role be to provide evidence based facts and let people decide for themselves or use legal and monetary methods to change behaviour or to ban it outright?

What is wrong with proper democracy where people are told the options in all the cases and choose themselves - and that choice stupid or brilliant is allowed to stand.

::drnkpst::    DRUNK again, Sphinxy ?!?

I haven't yet seen one post from you this week that makes any actual sense...

THIS latest post doesn't change that track record one iota..

sphinx wrote:Why is it some people have to insist on attacking theories by taking them to the extreme?

I have not seen libertarianism ever want zero government but rather minimal government.

For example on health - a thing some people choose to do is found to be harmful to some of the people doing it.  Should the governments role be to provide evidence based facts and let people decide for themselves or use legal and monetary methods to change behaviour or to ban it outright?

What is wrong with proper democracy where people are told the options in all the cases and choose themselves - and that choice stupid or brilliant is allowed to stand.

Because that never existed there is more than 2 choices which is all we are ever offered. and FUCK the dumb, Why not just say here Rupert you vote 1 million times since there are so many dumb asses that believe the lies you have printed.  Want a good Society only let the smart people vote, there is a saying with all system 'RIRO' or 'Rubbish In Rubbish out', let rubbish in the system (i.e dumb voters) and you get rubbish out (current politicians)

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

LOL so if you and I sat in a room somewhere to design the perfect government there would probably be few arguments.  

Exactly, which is why democratic government works best. In fact, democratic government itself is based on the principle of letting the market choose winners and losers.

In the UK government is simply too intrusive - and people become dependent when deprived of the right to choose their own risks.

It would help me if you were to use examples -- I disagree with the common opinion that benefits make people too dependent, but we may find other issues we agree upon.

I was not referring to just benefits - but there is an example there. In the UK people out of work are paid their living expenses while their housing expenses are paid to the landlord direct. If someone is out of work for a long time the thought of having to pay their own housing is scary and it puts people off applying for jobs because they worry they will get evicted.

Health and safety is another big area - people stop looking out for themselves if someone else is supposed to be doing it. The latest example is a woman who fell when dive bombed by a seagull suing the owner of the building it flew off for failing to protect her safety. A couple of winters ago people were being told not to clear snow from their path because it made them liable if someone fell - leave the snow let lots of people fall and its not your fault (its gods) clear the snow and only one person falls then it is your fault because you didnt protect them adequately.

Lone Wolf wrote:

sphinx wrote:
Why is it some people have to insist on attacking theories by taking them to the extreme?

I have not seen libertarianism ever want zero government but rather minimal government.

For example on health - a thing some people choose to do is found to be harmful to some of the people doing it.  Should the governments role be to provide evidence based facts and let people decide for themselves or use legal and monetary methods to change behaviour or to ban it outright?

What is wrong with proper democracy where people are told the options in all the cases and choose themselves - and that choice stupid or brilliant is allowed to stand.

::drnkpst::    DRUNK again, Sphinxy ?!?

I haven't yet seen one post from you this week that makes any actual sense...

THIS latest post doesn't change that track record one iota..

Obviously cause you have not been reading them as everyone else has made sense of them fine even if they disagreed with them.
Maybe try debating points instead of attacking people and you might get some where.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Exactly, which is why democratic government works best. In fact, democratic government itself is based on the principle of letting the market choose winners and losers.



It would help me if you were to use examples -- I disagree with the common opinion that benefits make people too dependent, but we may find other issues we agree upon.

I was not referring to just benefits - but there is an example there.  In the UK people out of work are paid their living expenses while their housing expenses are paid to the landlord direct.  If someone is out of work for a long time the thought of having to pay their own housing is scary and it puts people off applying for jobs because they worry they will get evicted.

Health and safety is another big area - people stop looking out for themselves if someone else is supposed to be doing it.  The latest example is a woman who fell when dive bombed by a seagull suing the owner of the building it flew off for failing to protect her safety.  A couple of winters ago people were being told not to clear snow from their path because it made them liable if someone fell - leave the snow let lots of people fall and its not your fault (its gods) clear the snow and only one person falls then it is your fault because you didnt protect them adequately.

It seems that modern society is killing old fashioned society.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Exactly, which is why democratic government works best. In fact, democratic government itself is based on the principle of letting the market choose winners and losers.



It would help me if you were to use examples -- I disagree with the common opinion that benefits make people too dependent, but we may find other issues we agree upon.

I was not referring to just benefits - but there is an example there.  In the UK people out of work are paid their living expenses while their housing expenses are paid to the landlord direct.  If someone is out of work for a long time the thought of having to pay their own housing is scary and it puts people off applying for jobs because they worry they will get evicted.

Health and safety is another big area - people stop looking out for themselves if someone else is supposed to be doing it.  The latest example is a woman who fell when dive bombed by a seagull suing the owner of the building it flew off for failing to protect her safety.  A couple of winters ago people were being told not to clear snow from their path because it made them liable if someone fell - leave the snow let lots of people fall and its not your fault (its gods) clear the snow and only one person falls then it is your fault because you didnt protect them adequately.

It seems that modern society is killing old fashioned society.

There is a clear line to be drawn between looking out for public safety and sheer ridiculousness, but I doubt any of us wants to be the one who proves a building hasn't been constructed safely. That's the problem I have with libertarians -- they want businesses to be regulated only by the company's desire to maintain a positive public image.

For one, in order to get a negative public image, someone has to get hurt or killed, and I don't fancy being the guinea pig who helps the rest of the market determine whether a company's products or services are safe. For another, if you look at the cases of Ford, Coca-Cola and DuPont (to name just a few), there are companies that do horrible things and simply throw money at their image problems until they evaporate.

Going back to democracy -- it stands to reason that if the majority of people objected to regulations on businesses, a political movement would be inspired to win elections on that public mandate and to remove those regulations. Democracy is the best application of market principles we've ever come up with.