So it’s our fault people like you and Der Trihs insist on inventing your own definitions of Libertarianism? How convenient.
Na, libertarian is a boogie man liberals use to scare their children into obeying regulations that have no relevance other than to boost their power.
“If we let gays marry and buy alcohol on Sunday everyone will get food poisoning and die!”
A convenient shortcut to avoid actually having to think about a topic, lest reality not match the desired outcome.
Oh, and roving gangs of murderous corporations, have to work that into it as well, rape optional.
Grumman: Everyone else has their own definition; why not us? Ours has the added value of being grounded in reality.
Those are your idea of “liberal” positions? :rolleyes:
And who determines what the public wants? Where is this monolithic public that all want the same thing? Some communist utopia?
Face it, we’re a pretty liberal country already. All we have to do to be a pragmatic libertarian state in a good sense is cut way back on the imperialism & stop locking so many people up. But of course too many advocates of “Liberty” out in the masses want to cut environmental regulations before they let Third World countries rule themselves or “urban thugs” breathe free air.
See? No EPA, FDA, OSHA, nor SEC. What’s the word I want? Fool’s paradise?
That’s a* conservative *argument.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
And who determines what the public wants? Where is this monolithic public that all want the same thing? Some communist utopia?
[/QUOTE]
Um…they VOTE. The people would elect representatives who purportedly exercise the will of the majority or in the next election cycle they get booted out…just like they do now. Seriously…wtf are you on about here? Libertarianism is the opposite of totalitarian communism. A libertarian society would be essentially what we have right now wrt democracy (though perhaps with more direct democracy instead of representative…it’s hard to say how it would work out) and would work pretty similar to how the US works (or doesn’t work) today. The differences would be more freedom in most cases, as adults would be free to choose things like marrying someone of the same sex and with the same rights as folks who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, free to choose what drugs they would or wouldn’t use without someone else deciding those things for them, etc etc…and they’d also be responsible for those decisions.
I disagree that libertarianism=anti-environmentalist or that a libertarian society would necessarily mean free reign to the corporations to rape the environment. I think there would be MORE laws on the books and it would be easier for private individuals and communities to sue large corporations for environmental impacts than it is today.
As for your comment about being a ‘pretty liberal country’, if you are so free can you go to the local bar and light up a joint? Or a cigarette for that matter? Where do you buy your cocaine…a store or from a drug dealer? How easy is it for someone to get married to a person of the same sex and have the exact same legal rights as people who marry someone of the opposite sex? Sorry…we aren’t ‘pretty liberal’ at all in this country, and it’s as much the blame of the left wingers and their nanny state philosophy as it is for crazy ass right wingers who have moral issues with drugs and gay marriage. We are awash in rules and laws…so much so that what ends up happening is that they get ignored by a large percentage of the population and only arbitrarily enforced. If it wasn’t the case then why is drug use so high, why does prostitution still thrive, etc etc??
It’s funny…I think that most of 'dopers would actually love most aspects of libertarianism and what it would do for this country. Sadly, most dopers seem to be completely ignorant of what libertarianism actually is (as indicated by the numerous threads on this subject tearing down libertarianism on this board). People seem to think that libertarianism=total anarchy or dystopian hell world of mega-corporations acting like nation states and battling each other while stomping on the little man (I have to ask…who is going to buy their products if they act like that?? How the fuck could something like that even work??).
-XT
No it isn’t. It just hands absolute power to the wealthy and the corporations instead of to the government. And if a single corporation managed to dominate all the others they’d become essentially identical.
Nonsense. They’d do what they were told because they’d no longer have the protection of the government. Their boss would tell them what to do, when to do it, and how, on and off the job.
Nonsense. Removing laws like that is a major focus of libertarianism. And no one would dare sue a corporation because of the retaliation that would be levied upon them; at the very least they’d lose their job and be blacklisted from working pretty much anywhere. There’d be nothing to keep corporations from doing such things anymore, after all. And realistically they’d probably end up beaten or killed.
It wouldn’t work. A real libertarian society wouldn’t be stable at all. As for why they’d buy the product of some brutal corporation; they’d have no choice. They’d buy what they were told for the price they were told.
Der Trihs, just so this thread doesn’t end up with people talking about two separate things by the same name, some people do think that libertarianism is (or could be) something other than a cynical euphemism for laissez-faire corporatism. Admittedly as I mentioned upthread, the challenge of a truly free society would be how to avoid having the rich and powerful be “free” to enslave everybody else. So while your point is taken that the dysutopian concept I labled “corporate feudalism” is the possible outcome of some versions of “libertarianism”, there are at least a dozen different concepts of what people mean by the term, some of which seek safeguards against that very outcome.
And Communism “could be” something other than a totalitarian dictatorship - but we all know that’s what it ended up as.
It seems odd that given all the thoughtful responses to your OP so far, the only poster you have replied to directly to is DT, who has a passionate hatred for libertarian philosophy and is famous for grossly misrepresenting it in thread after thread on this MB.
Are you interested in discussing this topic with people who actually know something about it? Your OP contains some incorrect assumptions, and until you address that, you’re not going to get anywhere.
Okay, so for the past the power is currently with government, how’s that going for you? How many years has it taken to get one more state to de-regulate the marriage industry? 41 still have a constitutional amendment against it.
Did the “wealthy” have a vested interest in preventing same sex marriage? Or was it a rich Republican that “bought” the votes needed to pass?
What does that even mean, and how is it different from right now?
You forgot raped. They’d be raped, beaten, raped again, and then killed. If you are going to be absurd at least be consistent.
Maybe, but few systems are stable including the current one.
That was adorable. What you’re saying is that there can’t be freedom because people will do what they’re told.
Just because you have no self control and buy what ever shows up on that weeks’ billboard doesn’t mean everyone is that weak. You don’t need the government, you need your mom to drive around with you and remind you to buckle your seat belt and chew with your mouth close.
“Refuses to buy the propaganda” isn’t the same as “grossly misrepresenting”. And I doubt I’m “famous” for criticizing libertarianism except in your own mind.
A conveniently non-specific claim, a way of claiming that Lumpy doesn’t know what he’s talking about without making any claims someone can dispute you on.
Certainly; most of them are conservatives.
There are a great many limits on what an employer can tell you to do, what they can do to you in retaliation for disobedience, and how much they can cooperate among each other. Libertarianism would remove all those limits, rendering them able to assert near total control of the lives of the working class, and to cooperate among each other to ensure that the disobedient are punished. No more rules against price fixing, blacklisting, demanding sex from your employees, demanding employees join a specific church, or anything else like that.
People need to eat. They need shelter. They need a multitude of things, so “not buying” isn’t an option. And yes; compared to an organization, any individual is weak. That’s why organizations exist.
Your first post in this thread was utter nonsense.
The specific claims were already made in my earlier posts.
My mistake, I saw excessive government intervention into people’s lives, and unnecessary regulation that serves no purpose and just assumed you guys would be all for it.
I mean, without the government to tell us who to marry, it will be corporations telling us, and then we’ll all end up beaten, raped, and dead!
And if the government doesn’t stop us from buying alcohol on Sundays, we’d all do what corporations tell us and go crazy buying something that we could get on Saturday or Monday. Thank god the government stops us, just think of what a world we’d live in if I could buy a bottle of wine today.
Cite? Or are you talking out your ass again?
You misspelled government. It was the government that limited the rights of homosexuals. Oddly enough, many businesses were fine allowing same sex couples to get benefits.
This is the natural result of granting regulatory power to the government, some times the government fucks up.
As an example, the best time for organized crime was during Prohibition, a period of excessive regulation that profited criminals and politicians at the expense of the population. All because a few busy bodies felt people couldn’t be trusted to drink alcohol.
How’d that turn out for you? It wasn’t until libertarians got into power and let people choose for themselves.
See how that works yet? Now that we’ve lead your straw man to water, can we finally beat it to death?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No it isn’t. It just hands absolute power to the wealthy and the corporations instead of to the government. And if a single corporation managed to dominate all the others they’d become essentially identical.
[/QUOTE]
I see. And can you show me some evidence that this would be the case? Perhaps something from one of the official libertarian websites or writings by libertarians? Why would corporations gain such control? How would they gain it? Why, having gained it, would they act in such a way? Details details…please provide some details.
Why would they no longer have protection from the government? What would the government be doing during this? Why would I, say, go along if I don’t work for one of these uber-corporations? What about the millions of other Americans that don’t work for them? Why would I continue to buy products from a company operating in such a manner, even leaving aside what the government would or wouldn’t be doing? Free trade, ehe? Why wouldn’t I just buy stuff from Japan or China or whatever…you know, JUST LIKE WE DO TODAY? For that matter, what would YOU be doing…just going along? :dubious: Because they told you too? :dubious:
Excellent…that should be very easy for you to demonstrate then. Feel free to provide cites to backup your assertion. Should be quite easy, since it’s a ‘major focus of libertarianism’ to show that they wish to remove laws. Also, feel free to demonstrate how libertarianism would put all power into the hands of the rich and large corporations who would then rule us all as small independent nation states.
How does that even make sense? Let’s say I work for Powerful Uber-Corporation Alpha. And I have a grievance against Powerful Uber-Corporation Beta. Why would Beta’s supposed black list affect me? Why wouldn’t it be in Alpha’s best interests to see that my suit went through? And what about Powerful Uber-Corporation Gamma who hates both? Why would I have to work for ANY US corporation? Why couldn’t I just go to work for Toyota, or one of the foreign IT companies that have offices in the US?? For that matter, if US corporations all acted in that matter how would they keep ANY workers or compete with foreign companies? Unless you figure that all corporations world wide would act the same and be as casual about their lack of interest in keeping customers.
I mean, even leaving aside all the other stuff you glossed over, this doesn’t seem logically consistent here even within the realm of total paranoid horseshit. I really don’t get where you and others are pulling this stuff out of.
Well, nothing but the government, the law, the police, the court system, and let’s not forget an armed populace. Other than that there is, of course, rival Powerful Uber-Corporations, leather clad hero’s wandering the wastelands in methane powered muscle cars and fighting muscular bad guys in hockey masks, etc etc. Plus combat wombats and battle cattle, obviously.
It wouldn’t work. A ‘real’ libertarian society on the scale of the US would basically look, well, just like the US looks today, because when you have a government on a continental scale there is going to be endless compromise. The rest of your assertions are all fantasy, but you got that part right…it wouldn’t work on anything larger than a small town or a very small city-state perhaps.
-XT
Just read history. Just look at places in the world where corporations can do as they choose. They’d have such power because the ability to destroy someone’s livelihood is just as effective a weapon of coercion as writing the law is. And they’d act that way, because that’s the way they’ve always acted; ruthlessly, and obsessed with control at least as much as they are obsessed with profit.
Because that’s what libertarianism is about, and the government would be smashing any of the common people who try to stand up to the wealthy. And probably filling up for-profit prisons with slave laborers.
What makes you think there’d be any other kind? And you’d go along because if you didn’t you’d be blacklisted as a troublemaker and unable to get work anywhere in the country. Or just killed. Again; we know from history what happens when you let the corporations and wealthy run wild.
Because they’ll recognize a commonality of interest against you. They’ll be cooperating heavily on things like blacklists and price fixing, just as they did in the old days that the libertarians want to return us to.
The “armed populace” is a joke. Especially since one function of government libertarians do believe in is using the police to prevent violent crime - such as any of that armed populace trying to fight back against the corporations. Or even unarmed protesters. Again; we’ve seen in history what happens.
I’m not an expert on Libertarian philosophy, however, I don’t believe Libertarian represents anarchy or an absense of government. Just minimal goverment intervention.
Ultimately all forms of goverment must maintain a monopoly of violence so that they can enforce laws. I would assume one of those laws would be to restrict corporations from infringing on the rights of individuals.