Cite? I’d be very interested in reading a comparison of the last 5 years of a lower class persons life pre- and post- New Deal.
Seriously–I’ve always assumed that the New Deal programs were instituted to deal with things that were problems.
next question:
what would assure the safety of the food supply? water supply? what safeguards are there in libertaria to prevent pollution?
lh
Nah. It’s virtually impossible to prove that something didn’t happen. If you think people WERE dying in the streets, show us the stats.
So what? I’m not trying to be snarky, but are you implying that there is only one solution to any given problem?
I still have to ask what the practical difference is.
Those are not the people I was talking about, and even if they were this would only prove that the current system is far from perfect too, not that libertarianism would be any better.
Please do Jonathan.
I am an engineer if you show me numbers that prove your system is better I will switch immediately. If you can show me that an average family will be better off in Libertaria I will hop aboard the Libertarian band wagon.
I’m sorry, I assumed that we’ve been using “dying in the streets” as a metaphor for the sorts of problems the poor and destitute face (a lack of medical care, a lack of housing, etc.) rather then literally dying in the streets. That’s why I asked for information comparing quality of life for poor people before and after the welfare state was instituted, rather then asking for a cite about how many people died in the street before and after the New Deal.
No. By stating that people weren’t dying in the streets before the modern welfare state was created, you were implying that dying in the streets wasn’t a problem that people faced. But the fact that such a radical social change was instituted implies that it was addressing real problems–which, given a metaphorical interpretation of “dying in the streets,” would contradict what you’re asserting.
I think I already explained it. If you don’t pay your taxes, you go to jail. If you don’t save for retirement, you have to depend on the kindness of family or strangers, but you don’t go to jail. If “going to jail” vs “not going to jail” isn’t enough of a difference for you, then I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the subject-- I really can’t think of anything else to say.
friend treis,
from what i have been able to gather from this ongoing discussion, the average family of a rather wealthy entrepeneur would do very well if liberataria were established in a place with an already functional infrastructure in place. (subsistence farmers would propably do well without the infrastructure)
lh
Firstly, Liberteria has never existed, so no one will be able to prove this to you empirically.
Secondly, most libertarians consider liberty (ie, freedom) to be an end in itself-- more valuable than any given standard of living. So, you are comparing two different things that most libertarians aren’t will to trade against each other: liberty vs security. (By security here I mean social welfare.)
It’s that second part that makes libertarianism impractical, IMHO. Most people are NOT willing to sacrifice freedom above all else. Most people ARE willing to give up a certain amount of freedom to ensure social welfare.
Oops. My mistake.
Shouild have been:
Most people are NOT willing to valuefreedom above all else.
friend john mace
as far as it goes, this describes what i understand to be the political explanation of libertarianism. on the surface it seems plausible, but the practical applications of a libertarian society are still questionable
lh
Yes, they take you to jail if you don’t pay your taxes. In Libertopia, if you don’t put away money towards your retirement (or are unable to), you die horribly when you get old. The net result is that only an idiot wouldn’t do it, so what’s the difference? Freedom to be an idiot? That’s not a freedom I cherish.
This thread feels a bit like a Quaker meeting. 
I can’t emphasize enough that asking the question “will the average family be better off FINANCIALLY in libertopia” is pretty much besided the point. The point is that everyone will be better of from the standpoint of maximum personal freedom.
Then you should never live in libertopia, and the libertopians would never prevent you from leaving, nor from forming cooperative ventures with other like minded individuals to ensure your long-term welfare. Keep in mind that you could contract with others to pay dues into a fund to ensure the welfare of all members in the fund. You could allow members to join without paying, too. In fact, you could call such a scheme “insurance” or “religious charity”.
I realize that but we do theoretical studies all the time. We have an understanding of economics and generally how a free market economy works. Using the general rules of economics predict how a Libertarian economy would funciton. Surely that is possible and has atleast been attempted by someone somewhere.
Then again most people would rather the government go F themselves. If I was convinced that the economic status of the average person would be somewhere at or above “slightly worse off” I would be happy to live in Libertaria.
there is a vast difference between politics and economics, i will admit.
how does our current system infringe on this concept of “maximum personal freedom?”
If you don’t pay taxes, you go to jail.
IANAL, and I’m not sure it’s a good idea, but I know of some Libertarians who believ even the criminal justice system should be pay-as-you-go, if you get my drift. Specifically, they think that there should be numerous competing justice systems, each of which has private laws and punishments for infractions.
I frankly think this will not work, but the thought is at least original and displays a certain willingness to ponder new ideas.
friend metacom, i find it interesting that you equate personal freedom with the freedom from taxation. it seems that you are asking to receive the benefits of our society, but are unwilling to pay for those benefits.
in libertaria, one would only pay for those benefits that you receive willingly?
lh
I’m not saying it is any better. “Better” is entirely subjective, just like “average”. I’m saying that I prefer it myself, and I am willing to allow you the right to give your consent to whatever government you believe is most likely to effect your safety and happiness. I ask nothing more than that from you.
Yep, that’s the idea. The only benefit that a libertarian asks of his society is to be free from coercion by other citizens. What you see as a benefit, beyond freedom from coercion, a libertarian sees as an undesirable constraint.
The thing is, if you wanted to set up a socialist system inside libertopia, you’d be perfectly free to do so. All you would need to do is contract with like-minded individuals. You could take in “charity cases” if you wanted, and you could impose “taxes” on each other in any way you’d like. What you would not be able to do is FORCE someone to join your coopertive. If that type of system was more benefitial, then people would flock to it and it would eventually become the norm.