Libertarians- why does anyone take them seriously?

[TradCat]

It should be remembered that business people are not pro-free market. If they can lobby (or bribe) a government to fix a market in their favour they will do so every time.

[QuizMaster]

There's no reason why Libertarianism and capitalism need to be associated.

In theory, people who believe in minimal government should have no problem with other ownership systems like workers'or producers' cooperatives. In practice, I've never seen a non-capitalist libertarian, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Libertarianism as it presents itself today does seem to be a case of enough rules to suit business, but not so many as to help citizens.

...which is about where Thatcher was. She was at least halfway down the road to libertarianism. People used to call her a fascist, which was incorrect.
A true libertarian believes that all soldiers should be mercenaries, firefighting should be done by rival companies, and there should be no social welfare of any kind.
I'm not sure who was meant to maintain the sewers.

[Monkey-Magic]

That is a completely misinformed view of Libertarianism.

Libertarians believe in as little state involvement as possible. Economically that would lead to almost pure capitalism and socially it would equate to extreme liberalism.

The most certainly do support freedom of the people and to say that "a society based upon libertarian principles would self-destruct in about 3 seconds" is pure idiotic. America's founding fathers were libertarians and that country has lasted a bit linger than three seconds...

Libertarianism > Socialism > Anarchism but still I am not much of a fan of Libertarianism. I feel that there should be a fair amount of state involvement but Libertarianism is far from the worst form of government espoused on this site. I actually like Ron Paul though I wouldn't agree with much of what he says, the Libertarian movement has however been damaged by leaders such as that nutjob Bob Barr who are just reject extreme Republicans.

Yes they want as little state interference as possible but this is not because they believe in any form of freedom or liberty. It is becuase they don't want to pay tax and they want to create a very aggressive form of wage slavery. It is nothing like socialism or anarchism. Socialists and anarchists want the economy to be publicly and democratically controlled so that its resources will be used to best meet the needs of the people. Libertarians want to leave the entire economy in the private ownership of a few capitalists while everyone else works to make them rich.

The great "founding fathers" were racists and thieves. They fought a war with Britain because they didn't want to pay tax so in that sense they are libertarians but that's about it. It still didn't stop them from using black slaves on their huge plantations. It still didn't stop them forming massive armies to rob the native american indians of their lands and then launch a vicious genocide against them. There was a navy, there was a police force, there were public prisons, there were schools, there were state built railways etc There was always a powerful US state right from the time of the revolution. If there hadn't been a US state the country would have collapsed.

[Mr.De-Regulation]

There's no reason why Libertarianism and capitalism need to be associated.

In theory, people who believe in minimal government should have no problem with other ownership systems like workers'or producers' cooperatives. In practice, I've never seen a non-capitalist libertarian, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Libertarianism as it presents itself today does seem to be a case of enough rules to suit business, but not so many as to help citizens.

I have argued that one can develop a socialist democracy, with in a capitalist system. In fact people do do that across the world.

[20000miles]

Of course the reason these libertarians are opposed to the state is because they dislike paying taxes.

Not entirely true. Libertarians don't oppose taxes because they "dislike them". The two obvious reasons for opposing taxes are:

• they are collected coercively, and hence incompatible with the non-aggression axiom
• taxes are a punishment on productive activities (such as production, savings and capital formation) - activities that benefit all humanity.

Anybody who knows anything about economics...

...It is essentially an ideology based on greed and rampant individualism. Nothing would ever be done in the interest of the public. For example a road would never be get built unless somebody could make a profit on it. Toll booths would appear every 100 metres. No buses or trains would run on non-profitable routes leaving huge amounts of people without transport. No postal service could exist in rural areas. People wouldn't be able to afford to go to the doctor, unemployed people would be made homeless, there would be no minimum wage so wages would drop to such a low level that unskilled workers couldn't survive without working 80 hours a week, some children would never get to go to school and god only knows what other horrors. There would probably be dead bodies lying in the streets. Why would anyone clear them? There's no profit in it.

Are you a walking cliche?

There are some libertarians on here like 2000 miles and you just have to wonder about the sort of world he wants. It's a world so full of hate, selfishness and mutual distrust that nobody humane would want to live in it. You'd just want to commit suicide or something. For example 2000 miles wants to replace the police with private security firms. Whoever could afford the most private security would have the most "justice".

I resent your calling the free society "hate filled" (and by implication, calling me "hate filled").

I really object to them calling themselves "libertarians". It implies they support freedom for the people. In reality they just want to create a ruthless form of wage slavery. Everyone would be forced to rent their body out to a capitalist in order to survive. Of course the libertarian will say it's a free contract but that a joke. It's not a free choice if your only options are prostitute your body to a capitalist or starve.

Noone is forced to rent their body out if they don't wish to. Your only options are not "prostituting your body" or starving They do so becuase they mutually benefit from the arrangement.

I might add that in a non-capitalist society, the threat of poverty and starvation doesn't go away either.


Monkey, that's an overly simplistic analysis of libertarianism, even for you

[Mr.De-Regulation]

There's no reason why Libertarianism and capitalism need to be associated.

In theory, people who believe in minimal government should have no problem with other ownership systems like workers'or producers' cooperatives. In practice, I've never seen a non-capitalist libertarian, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Libertarianism as it presents itself today does seem to be a case of enough rules to suit business, but not so many as to help citizens.

I have argued that one can develop a socialist democracy, with in a capitalist system. In fact people do do that across the world.

[cd27]

you can have co-operatives in a liberal society, of course you can, people can club together and do whatever they want, and others can do whatever they want, simple as.

[Drico]

Yes they want as little state interference as possible but this is not because they believe in any form of freedom or liberty. It is becuase they don't want to pay tax and they want to create a very aggressive form of wage slavery. It is nothing like socialism or anarchism. Socialists and anarchists want the economy to be publicly and democratically controlled so that its resources will be used to best meet the needs of the people. Libertarians want to leave the entire economy in the private ownership of a few capitalists while everyone else works to make them rich.

The great "founding fathers" were racists and thieves. They fought a war with Britain because they didn't want to pay tax so in that sense they are libertarians but that's about it. It still didn't stop them from using black slaves on their huge plantations. It still didn't stop them forming massive armies to rob the native american indians of their lands and then launch a vicious genocide against them. There was a navy, there was a police force, there were public prisons, there were schools, there were state built railways etc There was always a powerful US state right from the time of the revolution. If there hadn't been a US state the country would have collapsed.

That nutty rubbish explains your Socialist Party membership in any case.

Complete historical revisionism. Please learn your history.

[Monkey-Magic]

So the enormous growth of the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries had nothing to do with freedom?

No. It had alot more to with robbing and dispossessing the native americans of their lands and resources than "freedom". I don't even know what you mean by freedom anyway. Sure they was a lot of growth in the US in the 19th century but that was for the benifit of the industrialists and capitalists rather than the workers. The average american industrial worker had a much less rights than their comrades in western europe at the time. In fact the US has an extremely violent labour history, much more violent than europe. Trade Unionists used to be shot and knee-capped by goons hired by the bosses. Police used to baton charge picket lines. You risked your life if you campaigned for better wages and conditions for workers. Is this what you mean by freedom? In the early 1930s an estimated 5 million Americans starved to death while the government ordered the destruction of meat, crops and milk in order for prices to remain high for capitalists. Is that what you mean by freedom? You know the Soviet Union in the 30s had much higher growth rates than the US ever did. The Soviet Union achieved an industrialisation in a decade that took the USA a century. And the people in the USSR certainly did not have freedom so I have no idea what the point of your post is.

[Monkey-Magic]

That nutty rubbish explains your Socialist Party membership in any case.

Complete historical revisionism. Please learn your history.

Are you saying that the "founding fathers" were not racists and thieves? You should read what George Washington writes about the "red man". He calls them sub-human and compares them to animals that should be hunted. It's really disgusting. Also do you know how many slaves Thomas Jefferson had?