Libertarianism -- sell me

More and more often I see people posting that they are libertarians, but from what I can tell, it’s a pretty wacked out and impractical philosophy. It seems to me that on the surface it sounds all pie-in-the-sky, but scratch below the surface and it seems little different from anarchy.

I’m guessing that I’m missing something.

So tell me – if libertarians ran society, what would society look like? Would it stand any chance of surviving more than a year?

This is way too broad a question. Why not focus on the biggest issue you have in one specific policy area? Tell us what you don’t like about libertarianism. Since most libertarians support the military, judicial, and police functions of government, your statement about it being tantamount to anarchy doesn’t hold water.

I think many libertarians would be happy to live in a society governed by a strict, constructionist interpretation of the US constitution.

Since I don’t know enough about it, I’m not sure I can even form an intelligent question, but I’ll do my best.

Wouldn’t strict libertarianism eliminate federal agencies such as the FDA? What about Medicare? Public schools?

Order yourself a copy of Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz (ISBN 0-684-83198-8). That should answer most of your questions about Libertarianism.

If you google “libertarian” you will find the Libertarian Party’s home page which spells out in detail its political positions.

For whatever the market will bear? :confused:

I should tell you that while slightly damaged, I am a one of a kind model!

Well yes, not you, but the libertarians. You know, markets cure all, time heals all things through the market.

Santa Market is coming to town–with “you” under the tree?!

Pish, never mind. Libertarianism is for the tinfoil crowd, anyway.

The short answers are: YES, YES, and PROBABLY. The real question is how you’d get there from where we are now. Also, it doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. Each of those areas you mention have solutions that run the spectrum from authoritarian to libertarian. One might also look at “less than strict” libertarian ideas as a way to enact public policy with a more free market approach.

I call myself a small “l” libertarian, which means I don’t belong to nor necessarily support the Libertarian Party. But the Libertarian Web Site is a good place to start if you just want to educate yourself about the overall principles.

It doesn’t seem to say much. The party line seems to be “Big government sucks. We will do away with it then everything will be better.” No real plan of action.

Their mission statement looks like so many meaningless mission statements from corporations. Throw around words like "freedom, “liberty”, and “peace”, and it’s hard to disagree with them – until you realize that they’ve made nothing at all sound very patriotic.

Let’s take what they say about the three areas I mentioned:

Two thirds of that paragraph is spent complaining about the current situation rather than offering a solution. And the assertion that the FDA has done no good is quite simply false, or at best a matter of opinion. As to the last bit, it’s a nice thought, but I’m not so sure that it would work out in real life. While UL has done a bang-up job, I’m not sure I want a private sector organization to regulate the food industry.

While I agree that the current system needs fixing, I’m uncomfortable with what they are proposing. While those with money can certainly choose to purchase anything they want, my concern is that the poor won’t be able to choose anything. Unless I’m misinterpreting things (always a strong possibility), that’s a Very Bad Idea.

Once again, the poor get little benefit from this, and I don’t trust corporations to do the right thing.

It all smacks of trickle-down economics to me, and it seems like the people that can ill-afford to take care of themselves will have no safety net. Quite frankly I see little distinction between this and ultra-conservative “screw the poor” economics.

Why do you trust government bureaucrats more?

Seems to me you know quite a bit about libertarianism, and have already formed an opinion-- that you don’t agree with it. I always find it more fruitful to start at the basic level of why you think governments are instituted, and then argue policy based on that overriding principle rather than jumping into the details.

What do you think the purpose of governement is? Most libertarians would argue that a government should not be in the business of trying to “do good”, but rather to prevent people from doing harm to each other coercively-- that governments should not do what free people can freely choose (or not choose) to do themselves. You can’t force someone to comply with a contract you both signed, but you certainly can give as much money as you choose to your favorite charity.

You might also want to look at the social aspects of libertarianism. You might find yourself more in agreement with those areas (drug laws, free speech, separation of church and state) rather than the economic sphere.

Than again many restrictions by USDA, FDA, etc are based on very strict interpretations of situations and minimal risk. If a piece of meat at the supermarket is ok after 5 days is it ok for 6, 7, 8? In many cases a food item will be fine well beyond the FDA/USDA approved expiration date, but it cannot be sold legally. If Grocery stores could keep things 10% longer it would reduce some of their waste allowing them to lower prices. IIRC Libertarianism is a very Caveat Emptor world. Stores could then advertise that they only go 5 days on their meat while another down the street is six days (but maybe sells a little cheaper).

In ways the less regulated world might be better for the poor albeit a bit more risky. Plenty of people pounce on those “about to expire” discount tagged items anyway.

You have a point.

Perhaps I know more about it than I think. And, as you say later in your post, I do happen to agree with the social aspects. It’s the economics and regulatory issues I can’t get my head around.

And this is what I can’t agree with.

The purpose of government is, in my eyes, to provide a safety net for those that, for whatever reason, cannot take care of themselves. Also, to see that our most basic needs meet a minimum of safety/quality standards. As well as police, military, and providing a buffoon for us to lambast in the Pit.

Libertarians denounce the FDA, which I consider to be one of the most important departments we have. I like the fact that I’m not gambling with my life every time I eat something.

Lest I come off as some sort of communist, I’m really a small-government liberal. I believe we could afford to get rid of a lot of government institutions, just not as many as the Lib party wants.

I have no comment other than to say “Wow, thank Og for the FDA.”

On the other hand, I’d probably lose a lot of weight in the world you describe. I wouldn’t trust much of anything in a grocery store.

In Lib world, would there be anything preventing a store from advertizing a hunk o’ meat being 5 days old when really it is 15?

Please.

  1. Lack of profit motive, and
  2. Existence of effective oversight.
    We now return you to your ideologizing, already in progress.

So they have no incentive to actually serve the consumer (or citizen, as the case may be here)

This “effective oversight” you speak of, I have yet to see it in action in any of my dealings with bureaucrats. There is little to no accountability for their actions, unless they really piss someone off and that person gets Congress involved, then maybe there will be some effective oversight and accountability. Unless that happens, bureaucrats can basically tell you, to your face, to screw off and there is little you can do about it. Since it’s almost impossible to fire a bureaucrat, the most that will happen is that they are transfered.

A government bureaucrat has no incentive to squeeze every last penny out of me, and no fear of getting fired if he doesn’t.

“Effective oversight” of private enterprise is exactly what self-styled “libertarians” want to abolish except for the pressures of the Holy Market. In government, it comes, on the wholesale level, from laws and departmental funding, all of which are controlled by people elected by us. In Libertaria, it depends on the existence of ideal markets, with quasi-infinite suppliers and consumers, and full and free information. Where the hell does that exist? Where *can * it exist?

It doesn’t and can’t. We establish government to do the things that we can only do collectively, not individually. Regulation of businesses for the common good is one of them.

Go try this libertarianism sometime, for once, and let us know how it goes, willya, gang? Meanwhile, stop complaining about how everything would all be beautiful if only the rest of the world were as enlightened as you. It’s too bad we’re stuck in the real world, unfortunately.

The novel Jennifer Government is a somewhat implausible but not completely unbelievable (and yet, I should mention, highly amusing) satire of what society would look like if libertarianism were to run amuck. I suggest you give it a read.

And there you have it. Since we disagree on the fundamental purpose of governmnent, it’s unlikely we’d agree on what areas the government should be involved in. Some libertarians might make the utilitarian argument that the poor are better served by the free market than by government paternalism. While I think this is often the case, it does depend on the specifics, and I still think it is beside the point. I don’t take a libertarian perspective because I think it produces the most material wealth, but because it produce the most freedom.

At any rate, there are still the spectrum of specific solutions to policy issues I talked about above. One might attack the health care “crisis” by nationalizing the healthcare industry or by creating medical 401(k) accounts, to give you an example. Since this country is unlikely to expereince either the extremes of communism or libertarianism, I take the position that public policy should proceed with solutions that give the citizens the most choice and the freest use of their own money.

No, but they gotta get re-elected, or follow the policies set up by those who get relected. Who need campaign funds.

Please name one example of what you consider effective oversight.