I thought I’d throw in my opinion here, as I am a [light] libertarian. Some just call this conservative, or a strange hybrid between Left + Right but this is what I believe in. Not saying it will work, just the belief system. Just like certain other ideas, it looks best written.
1.)The Federal government is not obligated to anything except national defense and basic infrastructure (roads etc…)The practice of being fiscally conservative otherwise. They can help if they wish, but charity is left to private organizations.
2.)The states deal with their own distribution systems for aid and welfare. But can appeal to the federal government for infrastructure projects that will bring in more employment/money for their programs.
3.)disruption of the ‘private prison’ idea and decriminalization of victimless crimes.
4.)Practice or don’t practice any Religion, no government endorsements of it of any kind.
5.)Inalienable marriage rights for all and woman’s rights, abolition of government endorsed racial preference.
6.)LITERAL, Prima Facie interpretation of the U.S. Constitution/Bill Of Rights. No digging in for altered definitions.
Basically, Live and Let live + State’s rights > Federal.
Now it may not work out, and things may have to be modified for it to work at all.
I can dream can’t I?
What’s more efficient, 50 small countries or one big one? The trouble with your proposal is that
(1) you’re not really creating a libertarian utopia. Every state will be different.
(2) things like non-discrimination or meaningful civil rights - not just lip service - require deep government meddling. Think about how it is right now. Right now, an employer can say ‘fuck the law’, write you up for trivial technicalities, and fire you…when the real reason is because of your race, gender, religion, or because you reported someone else at your company for sexual harassment. The only way to prove otherwise requires quite a lot of government meddling.
(3) Libertarians talk about how the government must enforce contracts. But what it misses is :
a. contracts are almost never 2-sided negotiations. Almost every contract ever signed is a massive several hundred page wall of legalese created by a company, and the hapless individual either signs it or gets no service or nowhere to live or no health insurance or something else that they need. Also, individuals have no leverage in most cases to change any outrageous terms.
b. Naturally, these days, companies can specify that a biased decision maker (“binding arbitration”) of *their *choice gets to decide how those contract terms are to be evaluated. So if the company flagrantly breaches the contract, they get to pick who decides what the language even means.
c. So the only practical way is the government has to be able to step in, require key provisions for common contracts (such as requiring health insurance cover all essential services instead of playing a game of excluding random things), ban outrageous contract terms, and so on.
I would rather have an efficient federal government I can live with than 50 tiny state governments who all suck.
Fair points. I wasn’t elaborating though because most of what I was expressing is idealism. I understand where you are coming from but there are always different methods of achieving a result. Much of what you proposed could be handled just fine with local or state government, not federal. I understand that most of what I was listing would not be possible to do unless the entire country “started over” but the point of libertarianism is to keep everyone and everything out of your life, unless you give them permission to enter. Its not so much a feasible “in play” ideology as it is a method or attempt to keep government expanse in check. It is an ideology that wants to strictly enforce government minimalism and checks and balances. We all have our own ideas of what is good for our country, the only thing that matters is that we stay united despite our differences in how we want to achieve the end result.
It is my opinion that libertarianism ideals exist solely to keep big government “nervous” if you will. To show that the people can and will fight back if they attempt a Chancellor Palpatine motive and that we do not need them and can survive without them. That’s pretty much it, feasible or not, its the looming specter that counts.
[I have edited the following post to clarify its relation to thread topic.]
I’m not sure what you mean by the Federal government being “obligated.” Workers’ paychecks have unemployment insurance premiums deducted, with the Federal government then “obligated” to pay (its share of) benefits should that worker become unemployed. Is this the sort of “obligation” you mean? Otherwise the Federal government already imposes its own self-obligations, as Congress wishes. How is this different then what you propose?
The main point you make is that responsibility for aid (health care? social security? safety regulation?) should be transferred from the U.S. to its several state governments. This is a key issue — I want to start a GD thread on it but haven’t got around to it — but it begs the question. How would you vote in your state on proposals for state funding of education, environmental protection, healthcare etc.? If you’d vote Yes, you’re still a “statist”; if you’d vote No you’re a “libertarian.” All that you’ve done in your quoted post is to transfer this decision from the Fed to the states.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I want to compliment Dopers on arguing against Flat-Earthism without incurring Mod warnings. I couldn’t.
Take care, however, not to cite things like food safety as a benefit of statism. Unless you can find payments by consumers to food producers for guarantees that the food is not poisoned, and an active free market in which consumers and producers determine the fair and free market price for such food safety, Farnaby will argue that food safety has no value.
Sure they do, anyone who learned their political philosophy from Ayn Rand and never read anything after that.
If it really were a libertarian government the court system would not be set up that way. After the first suit cost the polluter so much in punitive damages that they had to shut down, future polluters would get the message and be much less likely to offend. I do agree that money damages are no substitute for the life of a loved one, so I am focusing on the bigger picture here.
There are problems with government regulations, such as that they can be changed at any time, and that those changes can and are influenced by money. Money can influence court cases too, but usually that’s by hiring more expensive lawyers. That’s not always effective, and once there is case law setting precedent, more expensive lawyers can’t really do very much. In general, case law is much more reliable and stable than government regulations or any other legislation except the constitution and its amendments.
You could say the same thing about government regulations, for a different political point of view.
Now, folks are going to glance at this and conclude that I’m just another WillFarnaby apologist for rich people. Not so. But I would like to open up their minds to possibilities other than government regulation. Those possibilities may not be immediately practical, but thinking about them can inform a more interesting and less dogmatic debate.
I didn’t notice anyone calling for Soviet-style central planning, so I’m not sure who you’re arguing against. If your point is that we don’t have enough lawyers and lawsuits in the U.S.A., I’d like to see a cite.
Unlike most “conservatives” on this board, we rationalists have read Adam Smith, studied economics, and have an understanding of and appreciation for free markets (and their limitations), but thanks for caring.
In the 1990’s I called myself a “libertarian.” My views haven’t changed much — it’s the dictionary that’s moved on. “Libertarian” no longer means what it did in the 20th century; it means “someone who needn’t study economics because he has access to YouTube rants and consults with other Freemen-on-the-land.”
Prior threads where SDMB’s hyperlibertarians espoused their ideas were comedy gold! One argued that public water management was inappropriate — farmers worried about weather variation should buy rainfall futures on the Chicago Board of Trade!
Yes, you could…if “No, you!” is an argument you use often. Much of government regulation involves correction and/or prevention of problems, instead of paying off victims after the fact.
Really? Is that why my (at the time) self-employed spouse (who was working full time and even had employees, that is, was employing others as well) was dropped from private medical insurance and told they’d never cover him again at any cost back in the early 1990’s because of his birth defect? Oh, I suppose if he’d been taking better care of himself at 8 weeks post-conception (8 months prior to his birth) when the defect occurred it wouldn’t have happened so it’s really all his fault, he needed to be more responsible for his own health…:rolleyes: (That’s when I took a job at Blue Cross - it was the only way to get health insurance for him).
No, in a free-for-all, non-regulated environment ONLY the healthy could get insurance. Those already sick, those who were born with a problem not their fault, will not be covered because there’s no way to make a profit at it.
Working for a large company that can provide insurance for workers and their family helps, but, again, in a libertarian paradise there is no reason for them to do so. Far easier to simply boot out the door anyone with less than perfect health or with sick family, because all of that costs money. And we know that will happen because it did happen in the past, when companies routinely would fire people who were injured on the job or because sick for whatever reason and couldn’t show up one morning.
Maybe if those rich people were more frugal when they had income and invested more wisely, avoided things like nice houses and cars and lived in shacks and drove beaters they’d be able to hold onto their wealth and live comfortably poor for lifetime. Isn’t that what you ask the poor to do - lived savagely austere lives with not a penny for comfort or small luxuries? Why should that change simply because one’s income goes up, right?
But there’s a check on the government. It has to answer to the voters on a regular basis. If we feel the government is getting too crazy with regulations, we can tell them to knock it off. Or we can replace the people in the government with different people.
We have no equivalent check on corporations. In a libertarian system where you take the government out of the picture, corporations are only answerable to their stockholders.
I believe the proportions vary from time to time and place to place. Back when I was one of the Repressed it seemed like the proportions were 30:10:60. There were plenty of lazy arses but the vast majority of people really wanted to get back to work.
One of the big problems with Libertarianism is that the social safety net, the state helping people to get back on their feet, to have the opportunity to succeed when they’d previously failed, is a net public good. It worked for me, so I speak from experience.
Not true. The mechanism for checking the government does not kick in until you reach that 50% threshold. Corporations are checked on the margins. For every consumer that boycotts their actions, they lose that much revenue. This is a much more effective check. The results are clear, governments kill and steal much more than corporations.
Some customers are more trouble than they’re worth - literally. They cost more in time and labor to deal with than we can profit from them. When they say “we aren’t coming back!” we say GOOD!
If a mill pollutes the stream that provides drinking water to a downstream community it’s not going to care if those individuals aren’t customers.
See Gilded Age and Early 20th Century for reference examples.
See, this is what I don’t understand about the usual libertarian/Objectivist advocacy. We KNOW what a society without government regulation looks like and what it does to people. It’s HISTORY! But advocates of that philosophy always act like it’s never been tried. It HAS! And it didn’t work. It didn’t work so catastrophically that we made laws to prevent it.
Well, you have to admit that the government keeps a registry of plats and deeds and stuff like that. If you are holding a lot of land, you may need to have the government intervene on your behalf if you want to keep it.
Then there is that money thing. I am not sure how well markets would function without it. If government notes suddenly became valueless, wealthy people might find themselves in a difficult position.
