Unfortunately, the end result of the libertarian solution will be to have the wealthy property owners run things directly, rather than through their bought and paid for government. This does not seem like a great solution to the problem.
How about instead if we work to weaken the power that the extremely wealthy have over government? I think that there might be a protest that you could attend that talks about this…
This discussion of “libertarianism” reminds me of the famous Story of the Blind Men and an Elephant. For example, furt posted some of his planks, and based on only those (though I suspect he was selective to appear moderate 
) he and I have many similar views; yet I attack the idiot libertarians; then he attacks me for it.
For example:
Of course.
[/QUOTE]
Are you just skimming the thread? Your “libertarian colleagues” made suggestions involving insurance, put/calls on future rainfall, and abandoning famland! Not one of them admitted that a large reservoir to actually address the problem might be wise!
Perhaps libertarians need to be divided into multiple camps. I might propose “rational libertarians” and “lunatic libertarians,” but unfortunately there seem to be more than one brand of lunatic libertarian, and I’m afraid they’d refuse to use the label anyway.
Many of us oppose “libertarianism” – as the term is actually applied in today’s American politics – precisely because it will work to increase the power of wealthy property owners. You may have a romantic vision of old days on the frontier when corporations had not arrived to wield tremendous power. Those days are not these days.
1)No protest will end what i have just said. As long as there is power to wield, there is power for sale. It’s as simple as that. It has been that way since the beginning of government. Do you dispute this?
2)If you are talking about the Occupy movement, I have followed it pretty closely. I have yet to see an idea that would effectively partition power and money. Campaign finance reform will not accomplish that. Do you dispute this? If you have heard an idea that would effectively accomplish what you are suggesting, I beg you to let me know. I am aware of the limitations of libertarianism and I am ready to jump ship if there is a feasible alternative.
If you are able to dispute either one or two I would be interested in hearing your opinion.
Can a corporation imprison you? Can a corporation coerce money from you? Can a corporation grant itself special privileges under the guise of promoting general welfare? Can a corporation have you assassinated with no legal ramifications? Can a corporation grant itself permission to pollute with no punitive action?
In a libertarian society the answer to these questions is no.
You’re completely wrong. In a non-libertarian society the answer to all of these questions is no. The reason corporations can’t do these things is because there is a government that doesn’t allow it. But libertarians want to remove the power of government and allow corporations to have unchecked power. Libertarians want to create a society in which corporations can imprison you, coerce money from you, grant itself special privileges, have you assassinated with no legal ramifications, and grant itself permission to pollute with no punitive action.
Of course, libertarians will argue they don’t want those things. And that that’s true - they don’t want those results. But those are the inevitable results of the conditions that libertarians want to create.
Then why are libertarians always whining about how, in a democracy, the lazy, undeserving poor can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the industrious job creators, and thus destroy the republic? Was that just a fakeout, and the rich control everything? Which is it?
If you read those questions carefully you would see that government either carries out those actions or gives corporations the right to.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with libertarianism. It seems like you are confusing it with anarchy. Libertarians believe in strict property rights so there is no way they could imprison or coerce you. Also, the government grants corporations the ability to pollute a certain amount with no ramifications. Strict adherence to property rights would force polluters to face civil suits for destroying your air or land.
No, it is the conditions we are now living in my friend.
You cannot deny that some politicians acquiesce to lazy people, but it is not who they serve in actuality. We have seen all of the favors our current government hands out to corporations.
I think the government controls everything and they do their best to provide for special interests. Sometimes they are the lazy lobby, more often they are corporations.
If you believe all this then why are you trying to limit government instead of trying to limit corporations? Your ideas will make corporations more powerful.
In some ways yes they will be more powerful, but in ways that inhibit human freedom they will be less powerful. Government grants corporations certain powers they would never have in libertarian society, like legalized pollution and subsidies
I could deny it if you gave me an example.
It appears to depend on which aspect of government libertarians are hating on that day.
It is rational to preserve freedom, without succumbing to panicked predictions.
It is rational to say that it is not the government’s task to protect people from their own stupidity. If your neighbor stupidly burns down his house, the fire can easily jump to yours. Should the government outlaw matches?
The harm is theoretical, and is not direct. Due to chaos theory, your neighbor’s outdoor fan may eventually lead to a tornado that will destroy your house. Is it “rational” to forbid him to have it? Is he “causing you harm” by turning it on?
In a libertarian society, it is ok to do whatever the hell you want, as long as you’re not initiating force against others. If you can prove that someone’s actions harmed you, you would be able to sue the person for restitution and have the state enforce the verdict, if you won. That’s one of the legitimate functions of the government. Limiting someone’s access to medicines isn’t.
I can’t speak for others( I realize this response has become cliched in these discussions)
But come on now. You would deny some politicians pander to less than hardworking people looking for some form of handout? I don’t even want to get into a discussion of pure politics, it doesn’t appeal to me.
The retired elderly, concerned about Medicare and Social Security?
You mean like corporate agriculture getting paid not to plant crops? That sort of thing?
An enterprising young real estate speculator would be wise to take example of the current cybersquatting of internet domain names, in the hope that a company with big pockets will come along to buy out a few of them for big profit.
So, in Libertaria, my company will be buying up 1 sq-ft parcels of land distributed throughout the nation, making sure that at least any one 1x1 ft parcel will be between any straight line point between any towns or factories, and at least one within any potential natural or logistical resource. I’ll also buy up a square flanking any current highway, in case they decide to someday add a lane of traffic.
I estimate a mere 10,000 little tiles of land will be enough to hold hostage any future infrastructure development.
So, it’s like a cross between Settlers of Catan and Monopoly.
I call dibs on the thimble.
Sorry, your employer can’t waste money on luxuries like thimbles. You will use your fingerbones or we will find a worker who will.
But really. Where’s the checks and balances in this sort of government?
It seems entirely reactionary. Where’s the prevention? Merely vested in local authorities paid by volunteers? Sounds like not only will you have very little in the way of local law enforcement, but who would be stupid enough to become a cop or sheriff, if the job is only paid by charity, opt-in or some paltry, ill-equipped sales tax?
And this “inherent freedom” you’re talking about is hypocritical when held up to any perceived “inherent moralism”. Privatized insurance, health, fire, auto, flood, etc… that’s opt-in? You’re going to preach about freedom, when any moral, decent human would risk their life to save another, monetary compensation be damned. So if grandpa Joe couldn’t afford the opt-in health insurance, he’s having a heart attack so you call the local EMS, they arrive with a defib cart, and you’re just gonna shrug your shoulders and shout “Freedom!” after they say, “umm… sorry… he’s not a customer, but hey! you are… need a jolt?”
sulk
I guess I’ll just go eat my dirt pills…