It was the first time I had encountered that word. Whether or not you believe me is your business.
No, I’m claiming that I doubt my idea of the “neocon agenda” is the same as yours. If you’re not willing to be more spefic, then you’ll have to take your chances with **Jonathan ** (no pun intended) to answer your question.
Not to speak for him, but I think what John meant was that you used very broad terms in your question so there could be a variety of responses, all of them legitimate depending on how one interprets it. And I think he stated this rather lucidly.
I don’t know what you mean by the “neocon agenda.” Rather than laying it out in a different thread, could you please explain it to me? It would really help me understand your question. 
Neoconservativism being more of a foreign policy position, it doesn’t have much to do with liberatarianism, and a new thread might be better.
Jonathan Chance,* the OP*, has requested a different thread for my replies (without replying to my original question, I might add).
I will respect that request for now. If I can construct a thread that answers the unanswered questions here, I will do so. Please forgive me in advance if it doesn’t satisfy everyone…
What are the economic ramifications of this?
From my (limited) knowledge of economics it seems that this would destroy every large company.
I’d just like to add:
Jonathan, if you dont want to deal with the “neocon” influence in the current admin., then could you please explain why, or at least why it’s not relevant to current affairs in re to libertarianism?
I don’t want to call “bullshit” in advance, but really, you’re not even being particularly subtle about it. What’s up with that???
Perhaps because neocon doesn’t equal libertarian?? Maybe because ‘neocon’ is an ill defined term that doesn’t really mean anything…or means something different to everyone who hears it so brings nothing meaningful to this discussion? I don’t want to call bullshit on you or anything Anna, but why is that so hard to understand?
-XT
Anyone else hearing the tinfoil hats slamming into place? Anyone who could believe that I, of all people, am a Bush supporter simply hasn’t been paying attention.
Next question…
I’m a Heisenbergian observer – interacting by the process of observation! 
But if you wish: To what extent is there a corporate responsibility for the needs of our fellow men? How, without intrusive and expensive government intervention, can that corporate responsibility be met?
Would a better description of your political stance be social libertarism? In that you want the largest amount of personal freedom but you also want the government to play a large role in the economy and welfare of the state.
OK, Martin_Wolf asked about police powers.
As a practical man it’s my position that police power should, by definition, be limited. As I believe that MOST governmental powers should be limited and self-frustrating. It becomes a matter of which is the greater issue for society:
A) The lack of efficiency that lessened police powers bring to law enforcement.
or
B) The limitations on civil liberties brought about by increased police powers.
For me, at least, I fall into the camp that believes ‘B’ is the greater wrong. Infringing on basic freedoms to aid in the arrest and prosecution of felons will, in my opinion, inevitably lead to more infringement of the rights of the innocent than infringement of the rights of the suspected.
And government (which will be with us always) must have as one of its first goals NOT limiting the rights of the citizens which comprise the body politic.
treis followed up with: "Is the current U.S. model close to what you have in mind?"
Well, given that we’re starting from the US model then I’d say yes. I believe the US model, with minor (and some major) adjustments can lead to a decent balance between enforcement of societal norms and maximizing practical liberty for the people.
Details, man!
What adjustments would you make? Feel free to order by feasability.
It’s a good question, but doesn’t ANY system, other than communism, have the same problem? I suppose you could take all the wealth, divvy it up, and then start from scratch. But I suspect we’d be right back in the same situation after a few generations-- some people with lots of wealth and some people with none. What do you do then-- divvy it all up again?
I kind of view it like the borders we have in modern day Europe. You could make all sorts of claims about how the borders should be drawn differently and who should be in what country vs who should be in another country. But at the end of the day, as long as the countries all have more or less reasonably democratic governments with reasonable civil rights, we’re all better off just taking the current situation as the best possible scenario, and working from there.
As long as there are no real barriers to property acquisition, I can’t see a better way than to just start from where we are, and go on from there. One exception I would have made in the US, is that there should have been some monetary compensation given to Blacks upon emancepation-- 40 acres and a mule or something along those lines. But at this point, we’re too far removed from the fact to correct that problem retroactively.
Do you have a better suggestion of how to get around the problem?
longhair asked me to define 'maximum liberty’
Let me refine that. In an ideal world maximum liberty would define that which allows all to perform all actions that don’t impact other people in any way.
And if I’m dreaming I’d like a pony. Even by existing we impact other people both positively and negatively in myriad ways. We consume resources that could go to others…we have jobs that could be filled by some unemployed person. A complete null-impact isn’t what humanity is capable of accomplishing.
So I would define ‘maximum liberty’ with the statement "Liberty, the freedom to act, speak and believe, should be maximized to the extent where people are capable of pursuing their activities without government intruding until a sufficiently strong societal norm is violated in such a way as to lead to injury on the part of an uninvolved person.’
annaplurabelle asked me to comment on the ‘pure’ libertarian position on the neocon agenda. S/He asked me to comment further on whether we should fear ‘corporatism’ as much as big government.
Let me make clear again that I represent almost nothing about ‘pure’ libertarianism and I would horrify those on my side (God help me) who wish to be ‘pure’. Human beings ain’t what you’d call ‘good’ at being pure anything…much less an ideology or philosophy.
That said, if we define the ‘neocon agenda’ (which, to a follower of interior politics is about as pure as the ‘liberal agenda’ or the ‘crank job agenda’) as the spread of American power and influence at the barrel of a gun the then vast majority of libertarians would reject it. The basic principles of libertarian thought would lend themselves more to ‘leading by example’ rather than through warfare and coercion (even though I dislike that word in libertarian discussions).
I think I said above that, like anything with power far exceeding the norm, large corporations need to be monitored to ensure their behavior remains within accepted parameters. It’s clearly established that some persons, when leading ANY power bloc, corporate or otherwise, will begin to place their power/dreams/self image above and beyond those limits that society would consider ‘reasonable’. Ya gotta watch for that.
More later: Baby to bed.
fiend jonathan chance
so how does society today provide you with less than this? what limits have been placed on you that impair you freedom?
lh
To the OP: How would a more Libertarian US go forward with international trading blocks and agreements? How much should the authority of courts such as that of the WTO be enforced?
For that matter how involved in international criminal courts should the Lib USA be?
I know that the basic libertarian stance is on the isolationist side but also free-trade so I’m wondering how these would play against each other.
The other thread had moved on so I didn’t feel it was useful to respond to John Mace there, but the fact is that industrialized world is full of “Tarifftopias” and “Subsidtopias”.
Huh???
I understand that neocon doesn’t equal libertarian, and I wasn’t suggesting that Jonathan Chance was a Bush supporter. Where are you getting that???
My original questions:
Are you trying to say that libertarians shouldn’t or don’t have a viewpoint on corporatism and/or neocon foreign policy??? I really don’t get these responses…
A libertarian government would neither favor nor disfavor corporations. Generally, the powers given to a libertarian government would be very limmited in scope-- focused on preventing coercion. It would neither grant special favors to corporations nor give labor unions any legal advantage other than the right to exist. Theoretically, a corporation would not be able to buy out a legislator because the legislator would be unable to pass any laws in favor of that corporation.
But keep in mind that this thread is devoted to Jonathan’s idea of practical libertarianism, not “pure libertarianism”, which seems to be the root of your question. You probably would be better served asking someone in the other thread about this (the one directed at Liberal). **Liberal **is probably as close as anyone comes to a “pure” libertarian on this board.
As for the neocon agenda, I think **Jonathan **already addressed it. A libertarian military would be purely defensive. There would be no effort to use the militiary to influence foreign affairs. Not only would a libertarian oppose the Iraq war, but he would also oppose the Gulf War of Bush Sr. A libertarian government would not involve itself, for example, in whether or not a country like Iran had nuclear weapons. If you have some other idea of what the neocon agenda is (besides the spreading of American influence thru military means) you really will have to spell it out.
Thanks John.
My fault - I didn’t read that Jonathan had responded to my question(s) while I was replying to your post (Sorry Jonathan).
I still don’t understand the “tinfoil” or “Bush supporter” references, and yes, by “neocon agenda” I meant foreign policy (the spreading of American influence thru military means, as you say). Again, wasn’t sure why that was deemed a hijack, but perhaps it was all due to the cross posting mix-up…