Totally unaware of previous threads, but thanks to you I’ve searched GD for “libertarianism” and “Anarchism” and found this, which I am slowly working my way through. Very amusing, and I thank you, sir.
It seems to me very convenient that Libertarians are very gifted at backpedalling away from dumb shit by simply saying “That isn’t REAL libertarianism you’re seeing there.” I’m sure this is a common trait among ideologues in general, but it’s especially prevalent when you don’t have many elected officials who’ve created policies to date. Im pretty sure this would contribute to some of the confusion you’re irritably accusing your questioners of introducing into the argument. There are about as many brands of Libertarianism as there are people who call themselves libertarians–most of them would disagree violently with their fellow Libertarians. I admit I have no clear idea of what they stand for, but it may well be that they don’t stand for much at all, which makes me inclined to lump them in with other malcontents like Teabaggers and anarchists, until they can show a cohesive platform that most of them buy into. So far, that’s lacking. Maybe the answer to my OP is “It’s anybody’s guess.”
If federal enforcement of the US Constitution ceased, the changes would be significant, but not more radical than the way the US has changed historically since the 1930s, for example.
States are also restrained by state constitutions. And with a few notable exceptions, most of the liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution are also guaranteed by state constitutions. Indeed, large parts of the US Constitution, the parts that probably come to mind when you think of the document like the First Amendment, weren’t enforced against the states even in principle until the Fourteenth Amendment, and after that not in practice until the 1950s.
Assuming the hypo is what would happen with libertarians in the federal government, I think the 1860s-1920s would be a pretty close historical analog.
I think a strong federal government helped diminished social racism, but it seems obvious to me that we wouldn’t return to Jim Crow now if a strong federal presence fighting racism ended.
Can you define what you mean by “dumb shit”? That really gives me the impression that you have already dismissed something before you even hear Libertarian take on it.
You don’t think that firms may decide to only hire Christians, or white people, or not to promote women, or that Real Estate agents might band together to not sell houses to black people in certain areas, or a dance club may decide to solve the problem of gang members getting in by just barring all blacks and Hispanics, or places of business may bar anyone who looks Muslim?
The largest flaw in the OP is the one where actual Libertarianism survives actually ascending to power. Like Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza the Libertarian Party would pretty quickly find that it is MUCH easier than governing.
Libertarian philosophy, once enacted, I give less than 10 years (possibly far less) before collapsing or reverting to a more balanced approach. The simple fact is that the American electorate is currently satisfied and doesn’t WANT major change without a clear problem.
Someone upthread mentioned the cries of dismay when the federal checks stopped coming. That’s the truest statement in this thread. Take those away, whether SSI, or AFDC or some other type of federal wealth transfer and people will vote out the current government as fast as possible. Even if the Libertarian Party held 435 and 100 in Congress they’d be in a minority in the house at the end of the first cycle and a minority in the Senate by the end of the first.
The Libertarian Party, as I have stated before, is still in the mode where they would rather be right than to win. They simply don’t have the compromise in their souls that would allow them to successfully govern.
Let’s stop right here for moment. If we had a less regulated capitalist economy, under which every company would be free to inaugurate a BP-style ecological disaster at will on the off-chance that they’ll get lucky and make money digging anywhere and everywhere for oil by any standard they found worked for the company, how long do you suppose it be before the water that came out of your faucet was 50% or more pure petroleum?
“Weeks” is not sufficently specific. I want to know how many weeks you think it would be.
I just can’t imagine where, in the middle of this disaster caused by insufficently vigorous governmental regulation of the oil companies, libertarians are finding the balls to argue for far less governemental oversight of free enterprise. So let’s be specific here: absent governmental oversight, how would the free enterprise system prevent BP-style disasters from occuring regularly?
This is where I step in tell the OP he asking the wrong question.
Any instant transformation from one system to anther is fraught with peril. The more interesting question might be: What would a transition towards (not to) a libertarian society look like, and how could it practically be done? At what point do people’s natural desire for security over freedom kick in and stop the progression to an actual libertarian society?
Maybe, but another way of stating this is “The largest flaw in Libertarian philosophy is that they haven’t thought out very clearly certain large and practical issues that would instantly arise if they got the smallest bit of power.” Until they can argue coherently some practical response to obvious contradictions between their philosophy and reality, I’m inclined to dismiss the whole ideology with “Go back and think this through, please.”
But an election IS an instant transformation. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was able to undo, more or less instantly, some of George Bush’s decisions. While recognizing that any newly elected President will face problems enacting policies he’s pledged to put into place, it’s hard to see how a rigid ideologue such a Rand Paul would administer, say, the Social Security program without alienating most of his supporters AND without throwing millions of retirees into a panic.
But Obama didn’t change the system, and the changes Obama made were very minor. He didn’t suddenly abolish any departments, eliminate (or create) any social programs. Hell, he’s being hammered precisely because he’s done so little to change the things Bush put in place.
Yes, but he campaigned as a moderate, centrist candidate (despite the right’s attempts to make him appear to be a radical Socialist bombthrower). A Libertarian, by definition, must run on an admittedly extremist platform (else his fellow-Libertarians will say “He’s not even CLOSE to our philosophy”), and he won’t be able to deliver even a small fraction of what he’s saying. So is the conclusion that it’s silly to take the Libertarians seriously at this point? Because that’s just about where I am on the matter.
Well, they consistently get about .2 - .4% of the national vote in presidential elections. If that’s not enough to get you to view them as important players on the national stage, I don’t what is.
Mace, .2 - .4 of the national vote is precisely WHY they shouldn’t be taken seriously. That’s a pitiful amount of votes. Pitiful. They can occasionally elect some local officials, one in a while a state-level player and, with Ron Paul a Congressman. Though note that he had to switch to the Republicans to have a hope at being a national player.
Hell, from wikipedia here’s the vote totals of the major/minor players in the 2008 Presidential election:
Heck, NADER got 40% more votes than the Libertarian Party. And he didn’t even have any party apparatus behind him! Should we, therefore, take Nader seriously? I beg to doubt!
Or, to sum up, The Libertarian Party is not sufficiently popular in The United States of America to be worth more than the occasional minor bit of ink and pixels. However, their noisiness gets them coverage well in excess of their actual level of interest. Good for them. They will NEVER get sufficient power to enact many of their proposals.
The Dept of Education ain’t going anywhere.
Social Security ain’t going anywhere.
The income tax ain’t going anywhere.
The dollar (and the Fed) ain’t going anywhere.
Etc ad nauseum
The truth is that the government of the United States is providing, by and large, the programs that people want and expect. At a minimum most programs that exist have a substantial voting block behind them and therefore they will be around until that voting block aims in a different direction.
