Libertarian Ideology - What's wrong with it?

[Sisyphus]

Look, I agree with you about tariffs. I agree about free trade. My questions were, is your position primarily one of fairness or of sound economic policy?

 

And, more generally (and more importantly), if there is a conflict between fairness and the health of the economy, which would be your primary consideration? Is there a balance needed between the two, or does one always outweigh the other?

[Severian]

Why should americans pay anymore to buy foreign products than domestic products? If foreigners can build something better or cheaper and sell it cheaper then there is no reason to add any fees to it just because it wasn't made here.

 

There may be associated costs with the foreign products which are not factored in. For example' date=' what if the foreign product was made using slave labour? What if the proceeds from the sale went to fund terrorist activities?

 

A free market allows sellers and buyers to decide their own transactions without government punishing either by imposing tariffs

 

Why is it automatically best for sellers and buyers to decide their own transactions?

[doG]

Look' date=' I agree with you about tariffs. I agree about free trade. My questions were, is your position primarily one of fairness or of sound economic policy?

 

And, more generally (and more importantly), if there is a conflict between fairness and the health of the economy, which would be your primary consideration? Is there a balance needed between the two, or does one always outweigh the other?[/quote']

As one which believes most in liberty and freedom I would lean toward fairness. I do not believe any economic policy is truely sound if it needs band aids like tariffs to keep it afloat. There are times when societies have to use temporary vehicles to achieve a means, like affirmative action, but I generally am opposed to such measures.

[doG]

There may be associated costs with the foreign products which are not factored in. For example, what if the foreign product was made using slave labour?

Define slave labor. There are many people in the world that gladly work for wages that americans consider slave pay and yet they are appropriate wages for their own economy. Indian programmers make 1/5th the wages of american programmers but it is actually an upper class wage to them.

 

FWIW though, I am opposed to protective tariifs, those which simply protect pricing. I am not opposed to prohibitive tariffs which are designed to completely shut out foreign supply of some produtcs. An example would be a billion percent tariff on Hezbollah or Al Qaeda goods.

 

 

What if the proceeds from the sale went to fund terrorist activities?

I support prohibitive tariffs....

 

Why is it automatically best for sellers and buyers to decide their own transactions?

This is consistant with my position on minimum wage. I should be free or have the liberty to negotiate my own price with the seller as opposed to having government interference. More government equals bigger government which is the best way to make anything less efficient.

[ParanoiA]

Why?

A free-market is one mechanism for distributing good and services. You may thing it is a good method' date=' but others may not. Why do these others have to conform to your method of distribution?

 

A libertarian position is assuming that the free-market will provide people with the things they need, and the things that will make their lives better (if it doesn't, what is the point?). I disagree that it does.

 

I am not saying that things can't be regulated best by the free-market - I think many things can. I am saying that the free-market is not always the best method, and I think the people should decide what sort of society they want to live in via a democratic government.[/quote']

 

I'm confused why you think a libertarian government isn't democratic. I don't think anyone would be in favor of an imposed libertarian government - it isn't possible by definition.

 

So, conforming to my method of distribution? There's nothing to conform to. That's the whole point. Why should I have to conform to government supported monopolies, like water, electric and gas? Why should I have to give up 20 to 30 percent of my paycheck to support programs and people that I don't agree with nor believe in?

 

A free market is about choice, not conformity. I don't see where that idea is coming from.

 

Over and over again the free market has proven itself more effective and more responsive to people's needs.

 

Did you notice how fast Wal-mart mobilized to help with Katrina? That wasn't a government mandate. That was big business seizing an opportunity. Good PR and people get help at the same time - a win-win scenario. Certianly much better than the governor of NO.

 

Private schools run circles around public schools and do it with less money. And remember the Carb counting fad? It wasn't a week after I heard about it and every restaruant and fast food drive thru had Carbs posted next their meals.

 

They'll sell you whatever you want, quickly and efficiently. And with competition, it stays fair. They will always perform better than the government. But....

 

All that said, I still believe in anti-trust laws. I still believe in state-run police and fire. I still believe in the FDA. There is a limit, and pragmatism should override idealism. But, I think alot of times what people believe is pragmatic, really isn't. Tarrifs is such a thing, in my opinion. I agree with doG, it sounds like it's just patching holes.

 

And for the record, that's going to be the case with all government ideologies. Not even libertarianism is perfect, but it's close!

[ParanoiA]

There may be associated costs with the foreign products which are not factored in. For example' date=' what if the foreign product was made using slave labour? What if the proceeds from the sale went to fund terrorist activities?

[/quote']

 

Good point. Slave labor in some other country is none of my business and terrorist activities sounds like a national security issue.

 

One thing to consider: Society, in America anyway, behaves as it does by virtue of its environment. We're not used to handling things on our own - almost never. Everytime we have a problem with something or see something we don't like, we want a law to fix it. We demand legislation. We don't cooperate and organize to make change enough in this country.

 

In a libertarian society, the public has more power. The public can effectively override any law when it's cooperative and not forced.

 

So, products made via slave labor? It wouldn't be difficult at all for society to boycott those products and hurt that country even more than anything we have in place today. They could take it as far as they want. You're left with a more informed and proactive society. They have to be, because the government doesn't do all of their thinking for them anymore.

[GutZ]

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but because of the enviromental penalities and restrictions, labour problems, a few companies like Wal-Mart go overseas and make their products for a rediculously amount cheaper (workers get paid nothing compared to here), send them over without any problems.

 

http://www.nlcnet.org/live/article.php?id=10

 

Kinda like that.

[ParanoiA]

Well, I find it interesting no one brought up anything about victimless crime.

 

This is actually my biggest issue with this country. There are so many people in prison right now - jailed for their behavior only. Two consenting adults agree to sex for money rather than sex for free. Jailed. People all over this land grow a plant that the government doesn't like, which is arguably safer than alcohol. Jailed. That's sick.

 

That's the heart of libertarianism. No victim = no crime. Who are any of you to tell me I can't smoke a joint? What gives you the right to regulate my behavior? Who am I to tell you, you can't eat a box of twinkies? Where do we get off judging people and throwing them in jail for their behavior? It's sick. It's wrong. Good, hard-working moms and dads sitting in prison with their familiy torn to pieces because they got caught buying a bag of pot.

 

I just don't see how anyone can pass judgement on people's behavior like that and still sleep at night.

[-Demosthenes-]

The "what if" game? no thanks. I do not support any protective tariffs. Let manufacturers compete on an even playing field.

 

That would make some freedoms impossible. If south-east Asia can produce something cheaper because their populations have little freedom, then we would have to either mimic their government or get out of the game.

 

I think most people who identify with the libertarian ideas concerning welfare are on the right track, but fundamentally wrong (). The current problem doesn't come with the welfare itself but with the way it is given out. From a far away government to anyone who says they want it.

 

Municipal controlled welfare, and a strong city government (and proportionally weaker federal government) would all but solve these problems.

[ParanoiA]

That would make some freedoms impossible. If south-east Asia can produce something cheaper because their populations have little freedom' date=' then we would have to either mimic their government or get out of the game.

 

I think most people who identify with the libertarian ideas concerning welfare are on the right track, but fundamentally wrong (). The current problem doesn't come with the welfare [i']itself[/i] but with the way it is given out. From a far away government to anyone who says they want it.

 

Municipal controlled welfare, and a strong city government (and proportionally weaker federal government) would all but solve these problems.

 

Many feel that welfare is an attitude. And liberals tend to be enablers. If welfare recipients were forced to work for their benefits, there wouldn't be but a fraction of folks on welfare. So, I do agree with you in that the way it is given out creates part of the problem.

 

However, I don't think it's the government's job to do this. You'd be amazed at how motivated people get when the permanent safety net is gone. Americans are not going to let people starve on the street. Charity will work. But charity is doled out by people who have to control their contribution. It's not a limitless money supply that can be augmented with the stroke of a pen.

 

This forces people to make changes in their life and do what they need to do to get what they need.

[Severian]

I'm confused why you think a libertarian government isn't democratic. I don't think anyone would be in favor of an imposed libertarian government - it isn't possible by definition.

 

A democratically restricted government is not truely libertarian. If you are going to accept restrictions on the market in any form (eg. a government which sets laws) then you have accepted the need to regulate the free-market. Then it only becomes an argument on the degree of regulation.

[ParanoiA]

A democratically restricted government is not truely libertarian. If you are going to accept restrictions on the market in any form (eg. a government which sets laws) then you have accepted the need to regulate the free-market. Then it only becomes an argument on the degree[/b'] of regulation.

 

Sounds like you're confusing libertarian with anarchy. And no ideology is employed 100% and no sane person believes 100% in any ideology. I can accept limited restrictions on the free market and still be quite libertarian. Just like a conservative can be pro-choice and still be quite conservative.

 

The kind of regulation in place today would be stripped away almost entirely, with a bare minimum of checks and balances for responsibility's sake if I had my way about it. Monopolies pose a serious threat to the balance of a free market, for one.

[Pangloss]

Monopolies pose a serious threat to the balance of a free market, for one.

 

Do they? Alan Greenspan didn't think so.

 

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/06-12-98.html

[Severian]

Sounds like you're confusing libertarian with anarchy. And no ideology is employed 100% and no sane person believes 100% in any ideology. I can accept limited restrictions on the free market and still be quite libertarian. Just like a conservative can be pro-choice and still be quite conservative.

 

The kind of regulation in place today would be stripped away almost entirely' date=' with a bare minimum of checks and balances for responsibility's sake if I had my way about it. Monopolies pose a serious threat to the balance of a free market, for one.[/quote']

Well, I certainly have libertarian friends who propose no government what-so-ever. Anarchy is really something else - it is the absence of hierarchy, so many anarchists do not support the free-market. Libertarianism, by definition, always has strong property rights. You were probably thinking of Anarcho-capitalists, but they are a pure form of libertarian.

 

Do you conceed my point that free-markets just become a matter of degree once you are willing to have some constraints? If you do, then your next step should be to list the things you think a government should restrict, and see if we agree.

 

Slave labor in some other country is none of my business and terrorist activities sounds like a national security issue.

Really? You would feel no moral qualms about giving money to slavers? What about child pornography - should that be legal if the abused child is abroad?

 

What gives you the right to regulate my behavior?

What gives you the right to choose your own behaviour? What gives you the right to disobey my commands? Rights are very abstract things, and I think we have been molded into a very rigid viewpoint on rights by our society. In fact, I think this is one of the factors at the heart of our problems with Islam.

 

For example, what gives the democratic majority the right to tell the minority what to do? This is at the very heart of democracy, but isn't it a restriction of freedom? A true libertarian would think so...

[Pangloss]

What gives you the right to choose your own behaviour? What gives you the right to disobey my commands? Rights are very abstract things' date=' and I think we have been molded into a very rigid viewpoint on rights by our society. In fact, I think this is one of the factors at the heart of our problems with Islam.

 

For example, what gives the democratic majority the right to tell the minority what to do? This is at the very heart of democracy, but isn't it a restriction of freedom? A true libertarian would think so...[/quote']

 

Very nicely put.

[ParanoiA]

Do you conceed my point that free-markets just become a matter of degree once you are willing to have some constraints? If you do, then your next step should be to list the things you think a government should restrict, and see if we agree.

 

Well sure it's just a matter of degree, but that's just math. If it was constraint-free it's just zero. Add one lousy law and suddenly we've crossed some major threshold? The political ideology graph is defined by degree of control over personal and economic issues.

 

Off the top of my head I can think of restricting/regulating monopolies, chemicals, toxic waste and etc...anything that undermines the free market or national security is up for pragmatic override in my book.

 

 

Really? You would feel no moral qualms about giving money to slavers? What about child pornography - should that be legal if the abused child is abroad?

 

Of course I would. In terms of government position, it's none of our business. In terms of society, we can make it our business by not supporting any of that country's products or motivate a labor stoppage at their US facilities since we will soon become a tax shelter for manufacturing.

 

That's what I said in my previous post. When we recognize our power in organization and collective cooperation, we can be more responsive and effective as a free will society rather than the big government umbrella. When your government takes a stand against another country, it implicates all americans, whether they support it or not. With the free will approach, a stand is only taken when all americans are truly in support of it.

 

It's the same public, government and society, but one is an institution while the other is individual. When we take the power away from the government we will learn how to apply it as individuals - power of pursuasion. I believe this would integrate into our culture resulting in a more informed and proactive society.

 

Just like I'm participating now in not purchasing any miller products due to their support of illegal immigration.

 

What gives you the right to choose your own behaviour? What gives you the right to disobey my commands? Rights are very abstract things, and I think we have been molded into a very rigid viewpoint on rights by our society. In fact, I think this is one of the factors at the heart of our problems with Islam.

 

Rights aren't abstract at all. Generally speaking, we all have a natural idea of what is right and wrong based on empathy and pity. The degree we differ can be viewed as the gray area of right and wrong. It's easy to agree that murder is wrong, therefore we should have a right to not be murdered. People use the phrase "god given rights" because it's almost instinctive. We all have that innate inclination to free will - liberty - rights.

 

To go back even further, consider the logistics necessary for a large group of humans to cooperatively exist. Humans can't live together successfully while acting out their instinctive, violent behavior on each other. We group up and establish rules of conduct at a bare minimum. The axiom for establishing these rules, at some point, will boil down to rights or a long list of wrongs.

 

Rights are an easy line in the sand and necessary for a nation of laws, such as a democracy. Wrongs seem to be the focus of Islam, and yes, it's a problem. And ours are for sale right now...

 

For example, what gives the democratic majority the right to tell the minority what to do? This is at the very heart of democracy, but isn't it a restriction of freedom? A true libertarian would think so...

 

I don't know how true of a libertarian I am since I have several issues with the ideology at its core, but yes I do have a problem with majority rule about everything. I feel the same as Jefferson and Madison in that majority rule is not really a great idea, it's only better than the alternatives.

 

But, I don't think it's that bad when personal freedoms are not trampled on. When those freedoms are protected, the majority rule is at least plural. The thing is, majority rule is why we have victimless crime and other laws that tread on civil liberties - they're not being protected. And that's what Madison was concerned about.

[Sisyphus]

ParanoiA, I'm not sure I understand the gist of your position. With regards to child pornography, are you saying it should be up to individual citizens to make the moral decision and not support it?

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA, I'm not sure I understand the gist of your position. With regards to child pornography, are you saying it should be up to individual citizens to make the moral decision and not support it?

 

Well, with respect to what's going on in other countries, yes. Not my own, because it is and would still be illegal. We're talking about free international markets. If I don't like country "A" because they make child pornography, then I can organize and punish country "A" economically - however little or much it may be. It's not up to my government to police the world.

 

We don't seem to have any issues with slaves in India and child sex trafficing in a dozen countries now and we're not even a libertarian government, so this is not a unique idea, nor a change from the status quo.

[-Demosthenes-]

However, I don't think it's the government's job to do this. You'd be amazed at how motivated people get when the permanent safety net is gone. Americans are not going to let people starve on the street. Charity will work. But charity is doled out by people who have to control their contribution. It's not a limitless money supply that can be augmented with the stroke of a pen.

 

I'd prefer an organized municipal system. One that is intimately controlled by a government body whose members reside in the community. What could be wrong with that?

 

Sounds like you're confusing libertarian with anarchy. And no ideology is employed 100% and no sane person believes 100% in any ideology. I can accept limited restrictions on the free market and still be quite libertarian. Just like a conservative can be pro-choice and still be quite conservative.

 

I've gotten in a lot of debates over this (many internal); how do we differentiate ideologies? As an example' date=' when talking about capitalism and socialism, I would try to differentiate the ideas as two separate and exclusive entities. Eventually in the discussion we define capitalism as anarchy and socialism into any form of government control.

 

But those definitions aren't terribly useful, as the main point of capitalism is the right to own property, which would be a government restriction (government must enforce property rights) and therefore socialist (at least in this respect). Rather, both ideologies overlap. Not only do they overlap, but they overlap a lot, especially in practice.

 

Now in a discussion including multiple ideologies this becomes even more of a problem. The tendency to define every ideology as a separate and exclusive one from all others is too great. Ideologies overlap everywhere. We can't define Libertarianism as anarchy merely to make politics seem somehow organized. In reality it's one big mess. One big sticky mess.

 

Well sure it's just a matter of degree, but that's just math. If it was constraint-free it's just zero. Add one lousy law and suddenly we've crossed some major threshold? The political ideology graph is defined by degree of control over personal and economic issues.

 

Off the top of my head I can think of restricting/regulating monopolies, chemicals, toxic waste and etc...anything that undermines the free market or national security is up for pragmatic override in my book.

 

But Libertarianism (at least as used here) would merely be defined by degree, not by any grand ideology. When you think about it, everything passed anarchy is only differentiated by degrees.

 

Of course I would. In terms of government position' date=' it's none of our business. In terms of society, we can make it our business by not supporting any of that country's products or motivate a labor stoppage at their US facilities since we will soon become a tax shelter for manufacturing.

 

That's what I said in my previous post. When we recognize our power in organization and collective cooperation, we can be more responsive and effective as a free will society rather than the big government umbrella. When your government takes a stand against another country, it implicates all americans, whether they support it or not. With the free will approach, a stand is only taken when all americans are truly in support of it.

 

It's the same public, government and society, but one is an institution while the other is individual. When we take the power away from the government we will learn how to apply it as individuals - power of persuasion. I believe this would integrate into our culture resulting in a more informed and proactive society.

 

Just like I'm participating now in not purchasing any miller products due to their support of illegal immigration. [/quote']

 

Yeah, why can't our society just decide that we won't buy products from slavers, or monopolies?

 

Has any society been able to do that before?

 

If Corp A can get product b for $100 cheaper from a slaver and it's legal, guess what Corp A is going to do?

 

If Jimmy Thompson can get his mp3 from a foreign company that uses under paid labor guess what he's going to do?

 

Human nature is rather unfortunate, but real all the same.

 

Rights aren't abstract at all. Generally speaking' date=' we all have a natural idea of what is right and wrong based on empathy and pity. The degree we differ can be viewed as the gray area of right and wrong. It's easy to agree that murder is wrong, therefore we should have a right to not be murdered. People use the phrase "god given rights" because it's almost instinctive. We all have that innate inclination to free will - liberty - rights.

[/quote']

 

What if I think it's okay to kill people not of my religion? Is it not my right to do so? Anything that can be interpreted so broadly is rather abstract.

 

I feel the same as Jefferson and Madison in that majority rule is not really a great idea, it's only better than the alternatives.

 

Or Churchill

 

We don't seem to have any issues with slaves in India and child sex trafficing in a dozen countries now and we're not even a libertarian government, so this is not a unique idea, nor a change from the status quo.

 

As these rights seems only to apply to certain people under certain conditions, it would seem that that they are rather abstract after all. (I do say "rather" a lot don't I?)

[padren]

I scored:

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 30%.

 

 

I can give some examples of where tarifs are needed economically:

 

I have family up in Canada, where there are no more onion growers in their area. Basically, California dumped onions in BC at a great cost to themselves, selling them far cheaper than they can make a profit on.

 

Naturally, no one in BC could compete with that, and the farmers stopped growing onions after a few years of this. They went bust.

 

Now, California onions come at a jacked up price, since there are no more farmers left locally that can undercut them.

 

 

Personally I find this a gravely unfair practice, and feel strongly that communities should be able to at least subsist in times of emergency off of foods produced as closely to their locals as possible. Granted no one is going to die in a Great Onion Famine but it is just one example (a real one) of how the free market can cause real problems when left unchecked.

 

Also, given that we as a nation will do everything in our power to ensure at least x percent of people are unemployed, there will always be people who just keep up with the curve.

 

If we had 100% employment, growth would stagnate completely. It would become exceptionally hard to hire anyone, and if you did it would either be someone just entering the workforce for the first time or by forcing another business to reduce it's employment base by stealing an employee away.

 

I have no problem with welfare programs, and trust them far better than charities. I am also very strongly in favor of nationalized healthcare, since its one of the few industries where the free market pressures cause more profits for the more you find excuses to kick off your consumers that need it.

Since profit and performance are inversely related, it seems like the last thing that should be determined by the free market.

 

I think the free market is the best way to protect our economy, much like a crazy guard dog protects a warehouse. And likewise, I believe in good sturdy fences to keep that dog from running amok.

[ParanoiA]

I'd prefer an organized municipal system. One that is intimately controlled by a government body whose members reside in the community. What could be wrong with that?

 

The problem with that is my money is spent on it. Why should I have to pay a dime towards someone else's problem? Charity is based on contribution, free will contribution. There are certain things I do think should be forced on us to have to pay for in terms of welfare - like veterans, the disabled...etc. But welfare for a perfectly able person is ridiculous and creates an entitlement attitude and embraces poverty as a culture.

 

Look how awful welfare has been abused. Even when not abused, it's still aweful. At one point, a few years ago, we spent over $50,000 per recipient - administration and bureaucracy costs. We could have cut a check for 25,000 dollars per recipient and spent half the money, and that would be more money than I made per year WORKING, taking care of my wife (who did not work) and two kids.

 

I could go on all day about the terrors and failures of welfare but it should already be well known.

 

Not to mention the asinine idea of taxing some poor guy's check just to turn around and give him welfare. If we let him keep all of his money, he wouldn't need welfare.

 

 

But those definitions aren't terribly useful, as the main point of capitalism is the right to own property, which would be a government restriction (government must enforce property rights) and therefore socialist (at least in this respect). Rather, both ideologies overlap. Not only do they overlap, but they overlap a lot, especially in practice.

 

A government's job is to mandate order, civil protection from external forces, establish currency...etc - it will always be about control. Even anarchy has to be protected from control. So working that into these ideologies is fruitless.

 

The ideologies, I think, already take that into consideration. They are just logical designs for operation within the vaccum of this implied control.

 

So I think it's irrelevant to say that capitalism is a mixture of anarchy and socialism. So what? That doesn't change the logic behind the ideology. My only point was that no single ideology is 100% perfect because humans are not 100% logical. We're a mixture of logic, instinct, emotion, and etc... so while the ideologies may very well be consistent, we are not. Therefore no ideology is or even should be implemented 100%.

 

Don't get me wrong. I guess for academic's sake it's good to realize the control requirement for government and how ironic capitalism and socialism overlap each other, I just don't think it matters that much when discussing ideological preference. That's just me.

 

 

But Libertarianism (at least as used here) would merely be defined by degree, not by any grand ideology. When you think about it, everything passed anarchy is only differentiated by degrees.

 

Glad we agree...

 

Yeah' date=' why can't our society just decide that we won't buy products from slavers, or monopolies?

 

Has any society been able to do that before?

 

If Corp A can get product b for $100 cheaper from a slaver and it's legal, guess what Corp A is going to do?

 

If Jimmy Thompson can get his mp3 from a foreign company that uses under paid labor guess what he's going to do?

 

Human nature is rather unfortunate, but real all the same.[/quote']

 

But you're approaching this from a conditioned position. We've already been living under the government umbrella - born, raised and indoctrinated - so of course we're going to think that way.

 

When a society doesn't have the government doing everything for them, they learn to cooperate with each other and embrace pursuasion. That happens in small form today with protests and so forth, but it's so much easier to make a law and force everyone to be like you rather than convince them.

 

In your example above, we would boycott and punish Corp A because we don't like who they buy from, even though they know better. By the way, this unethical trade practice already happens today and no one is doing squat about it. Why? Because no one knows about it or doesn't care or expects our government to fight that battle. They expect our government to do all of our thinking and ammoral judgement for them. So, we all walk around blissfully ignorant about the world. We will pay for that. We will pay dearly for it.

 

Look at terrorism. The government and big business knew how they were pissing off that region of the world - but john Q public didn't. Maybe that wouldn't have changed anything, but for most americans Sept 11 was a huge surprise. For a select minority it was very expected. This is what happens when you depend on your government to do everything instead of YOU taking responsibility for yourself and your countrymen. We are all animals and at the end of the day it is still survival of the fittest and we're still competing with the rest of the world. Sticking your head in the sand will cost you.

 

What if I think it's okay to kill people not of my religion? Is it not my right to do so? Anything that can be interpreted so broadly is rather abstract.

 

I think you need to re-read my statement on this, actually the paragraph following it. I don't know how you got this out of that. I will concede that rights are abstract after all, but they're not elusive - they're quite obvious for a civilized society to exist.

[ParanoiA]

I can give some examples of where tarifs are needed economically:

 

I have family up in Canada' date=' where there are no more onion growers in their area. Basically, California dumped onions in BC at a great cost to themselves, selling them far cheaper than they can make a profit on.

 

Naturally, no one in BC could compete with that, and the farmers stopped growing onions after a few years of this. They went bust.

 

Now, California onions come at a jacked up price, since there are no more farmers left locally that can undercut them.

 

 

Personally I find this a gravely unfair practice, and feel strongly that communities should be able to at least subsist in times of emergency off of foods produced as closely to their locals as possible. Granted no one is going to die in a Great Onion Famine but it is just one example (a real one) of how the free market can cause real problems when left unchecked.[/quote']

 

And people complain about Wal-mart for the same reason...on their way to Wal-mart. Wal-mart ends up running businesses out of these small towns because the customer base abandons the small businesses that made the town to begin with. Why should we input artificial checks and balances when it's obviously not what the people want?

 

Again, an uneducated society that depends on its government to handle everything will only incrementally swell that dependency over time. When does it end? When do we say enough is enough and accept the consequences of our own actions?

 

We're all smart enough to know economically what that california company was doing. If they appreciated their local business, they would have supported them. Capitalism did what it's supposed to do. Why can't a competitor start up again now that their onion prices have gone way up? If the california company drops prices again, maybe the public will realize what's going on and stick with the local competitor.

 

If we had 100% employment, growth would stagnate completely. It would become exceptionally hard to hire anyone, and if you did it would either be someone just entering the workforce for the first time or by forcing another business to reduce it's employment base by stealing an employee away.

Wouldn't it be awesome? That would be a great problem to have.

 

 

I think the free market is the best way to protect our economy, much like a crazy guard dog protects a warehouse. And likewise, I believe in good sturdy fences to keep that dog from running amok.

 

I agree, but with all of the regulation going on and trumped up checks you're putting him on a ten foot chain. So how well can he guard your warehouse?

[In My Memory]

My results:

LIBERTARIAN

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 60%.

(According to my political compass, at -7.13 economic score and -5.90 social, I'm way out on the fringe of loonie environmentalism)

 

I'm going to have to agree with Severian darling on most of the comments about Libertarianism however, because theres no rationale behind automatically linking "free trade / free market" with notions of good.

 

One of the things that I never cared for were faux libertarians who call themselves libertarians without even being familiar with libertarian theorists like Nozick and Naverson, especially if they've never familiarized themselves with some of Nozicks criticisms of his own theory.

 

 

 

Paranoia,

Look at terrorism. The government and big business knew how they were pissing off that region of the world - but john Q public didn't. Maybe that wouldn't have changed anything, but for most americans Sept 11 was a huge surprise.

Wait a minute? You're blaming 9/11 on the lack of a Libertarian government? I've seen some interesting discussions of libertarianism, but thats the most farfetched thing I've ever seen in my life next to "Republicans caused hurricane Katrina".

[ParanoiA]

Wait a minute? You're blaming 9/11 on the lack of a Libertarian government? I've seen some interesting discussions of libertarianism' date=' but thats the most farfetched thing I've ever seen in my life next to "Republicans caused hurricane Katrina".[/quote']

 

Not at all. I'm blaming simple lack of knowledge about the world around us here in America on the lack of a libertarian government or any government that would ascert more responsibility on its citizens.

 

Whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented based on that knowledge or not is up for debate. I doubt anything really could have prevented it, unless flattering lip service suddenly made them nice to us. I'm really not that apologetic about our global image. The global market place is inherently capitalistic, so obviously a capitalist society is going to be pretty good at it.

 

Oh, and I guess I'm a faux libertarian because I've never even heard of those people. I simply realized years ago that I'm not really a conservative and have never been a liberal. After some light reading here and there I found that I seem to line up more with the libertarian ideology than the others. But I don't define myself by it. I think that would be rather short sighted.

[GutZ]

One of the things that I never cared for were faux libertarians who call themselves libertarians without even being familiar with libertarian theorists like Nozick and Naverson' date=' especially if they've never familiarized themselves with some of Nozicks criticisms of his own theory.[/quote']

 

That's a bit much don't you think?

 

"Republicans caused hurricane Katrina".

 

There were rumors that a platoon of republicians were secretly transported to south america where they planned to frantically waving their hands.