Look… you may believe that a purely Libertarian society would devolve into a sort of feudalism, and that might be an interesting debate to have sometime, but it’s absurd to put forth that Libertarians “desire a return to feudalism”.
The fact of the matter is, feudalism cannot exist in a Libertarian society. It requires laws that, if enacted, would make the society non-Libertarian. Feudalism is a legal system that violates the most basic principle of Libertarianism. It would like claiming a dictatorship like NK is a democracy. No can be.
Probably because the things you list are not free market economics per se, but more radical free market.
Always fewer? How about the right level of regulation? Or is that left wing. It is a hallmark of the right to give lip service to regulation, but to pretty much want to eliminate most of them, often on bogus grounds.
Again, always lower? Last year, at least, we had a historically low tax rate in the US, and yet the right wanted taxes to be still lower. Of course the reason has nothing to do with economic policy, but with your next point
Bingo. A true free marketer wants government to do things that will lubricate the market. For instance, it is important to support people creating new businesses and ways of letting labor move easily from one job to another as the market changes. Universal health care does this, since it might be hard for someone to take the risk of starting a business if it means he loses health care, especially if he has a pre-existing condition. Yet the right is against it.
Why is the right of labor to organize somehow against a free market? A truly free market would have no sides with built-in advantages, yet this shows a pro-business, not pro-market bias.
And claiming that the left is against capitalism is a slur. We have experimented with nearly unchecked capitalism, and it was a failure. You get dangerous working conditions, and since the mass of people are going to vote for getting out of these conditions, you need an oppressive regime to prevent them from exercising their will. Moderation is the thing that really protects free enterprise, in the long run. FDR did more for capitalism than any Republican I can name.
Enforcing contracts is about law, not regulation. Bringing in robbers is not equivalent to community policing. Fraud is closer, but lots of rabid free enterprise types oppose strict truth in advertising laws, and prefer caveat emptor. The financial markets are an excellent example. We’ve seen what weak regulations do, yet the right opposes stronger ones.
A distinction without a difference. Regulation is:
1.A process of the promulgation, monitoring, and enforcement of rules, established by primary and/or delegated legislation.
2.A written instrument containing rules having the force of law.
Establishing breach of contract as a cause of action and a court system where the complaint is heard qualifies.
That’s a very narrow example of fraud. Either way, I don’t claim to represent all free-enterprise types, I merely remarked that nearly everyone sees the need for some level of regulation of market activities, and the fight is over the extent, not the concept.
The most basic principle of libertarianism is the rich are the masters, and everyone else exists to serve & admire them. What you are doing is like claiming that a tyrant cannot exist under Marxism because tyranny is against Marxist principles.
Neither of these have anything to do with contracts, which are freely agreed to by two parties. The results of a breach are often specified within the contract. Thus our debates about people walking away from mortgages. In any case suits about contracts are between two parties, not between one and the government, and are of course civil.
I do have to admit that people on the right, often claiming that they support free enterprise, have no trouble with regulations limiting the freedom of women to terminate their pregnancies. And I didn’t deny that they say they are for the “right” regulations - it is when you start getting down to details that the number of proper regulations seem to diminish in their eyes.
I disagree. I’d say that it is more that we are all equal except in terms of ambition and work ethic, and if you get ripped off and oppressed it is really your own fault.
Right, and in the event of private arbitration, you’re right, government regulation doesn’t factor in.
Suits brought to the civil court system are subject to regulation, however. Here’s the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for instance. Government regulation does, in fact, affect the enforcement of contracts.
I fail to see the relevance.
Yes, they tend to want fewer, and of a different type.
No; they talk all the time about how the more economically successful are more intelligent and tougher and leaner and pretty much superior in every way. There’s a pretty strong link between libertarianism & racism as well.
Der Trihs, I hear the price of hay has increased. Does that affect your ability to construct these strawmen?
How interesting! I will share my view of your brand of liberalism with you as well.
The most basic principles of liberalism are that everyone is entitled to whatever they want simply because they exist; that the concept of actually having to earn anything by contributing value to society is unjust; that all people are exactly alike; and, that competition is inherently immoral.
Boy, this is such a stress-free method of debating! It’s so much easier than attempting to address anyone’s actual position.
Morally or practically? We don’t have the technology to do that. But yes, if we had something like Star Trek replicators, I’d just hand people whatever they wanted. And yes, I regard having to earn a living as unjust; again, it’s something we have to live with due to the limits of our technology. Not something that’s good or desirable.
I’ve never even implied the former, and as for the second real world competition strongly leans towards predatory behavior and tends to reward people according to how ruthless and cruel they are unless it’s strongly regulated.
So in fact your attempts at straw-manning me actually aren’t too far off in 3 of your 4 attempted “insults”.
Sheesh. Well, don’t worry then, I can come up with more.
Policies advocated by the left are motivated out of jealousy of intelligent, successful people and a desire to punish them and bring them down, not a desire to help the poor! The political left supports the poor with the proceeds they steal from the successful members of society simply as a means of buying votes. Since they realize that a competitive free market would result in increased prosperity for everyone and rob them of their power to buy votes by distributing resources to the poor, they are against free markets.
EDIT: this is more in line with the tone and logic of your posts in this thread anyway. Forgive me for giving you too much credit in my previous post.
We’ve had extreme libertarians right here (none in this thread) claim that doing away with the FDA is okay since anyone should be able to research and understand which drugs are safe - or which drug rating agencies are real and which are in the pay of drug companies. That presupposes everyone is able to do that. The person I am thinking of basically implied that anyone who felt they could not do this was lazy, or was calling others stupid. We’ve also seen right wingers say that anyone who is unemployed is just too lazy to find a job. You remember that, surely.
Privately I’m sure they do call those less fortunate stupid.
Of course it affects it. The courts being involved affect it. But we are getting far afield from what is commonly meant by regulation. California has regulations on the size and content of its drivers licenses. That is a pretty far cry from regulations on car emissions. I bet even the most extreme libertarian agrees on the first - assuming they agree on driving restrictions at all. I’m unaware of any who say anyone can drive, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they exist.
Just admitting that the right loves some regulations. Want to be fair.
And for different reasons. Protecting the less fortunate or more gullible is not high on their list, as far as I can tell.