The Problem with Libertarians...

[Shi Huangdi]

Well I am not that extreme so I don't really think the word libertarian supports me too much. If I had to pick a term it would be classical liberal, as I support a greater deal of economic and social freedom.

"too many people who do not have parents for moral influence... o much general inethical behaviour occuring... too much of a liberal attitude of if it feels good, do it..."

So you are talking about about libertarian beliefs that people should be able to dirnk alcohol, use drugs, engage in prostitution, etc.? Well, I don't deny such things could hinder the poor from improving thir situation. Nor do I do nessecarily think that all of those are good things. However, I think people should be free to do them.

While no doubt using drugs can assist in keeping people in a cycle of poverty if they choose to use them, I think that it isn't the government's job to make people succeed. If they want to make destructive choices, I believe they should be free to do so. If they want to succeed then they should be prepared to make the choices that will help them advance. The government should not exist as a father figure and protect people from their own stupidity.

Moreover, it hardly seems like prohibition is an effective solution for our social ills. The nation is engaged in a vigorous war on drugs, and yet it is still easy for practically anyone to get drugs. I was first offered marijuana when I was in middle school(I declined). The War on Drugs has failed at preventing people from getting drugs. Prostitution is similarily banned, but yet people can still get prostitutes should they so choose. While many of our social ills are serious, banning them has not proven an effective solution.

Finally, the United States has an extremely high crime rate and the highest murder rate in the industrialized world. Given this, it seems hard to justify the amount of effort police put into fighting victimless crimes such as drug use and underage drinking. Our prisons are getting seriously overcrowded and they are filling up with drug users while rapists and murderers get paroled. I think given how severe our violent crime problem is, we would be better off taking the resources that go into fighting victimless crimes such as prostitution, drug use, etc. and putting those resources into fighting violent crime. If anything the war on drugs makes violent crime worse. Just as alcohol prohibition led to rise of violent gangs in the '20s, drug prohbition has led to violent gangs today that can make substantial profits off the drug trade. Were drugs to be legalized, we could take the business out of the hands of gangs and into the hands of corporations. Were prostitution to be legalized, the business would go from pimps to legalized regulated brothels as it has in Nevada, and we could have more protections for the girls as well as ensuring screenings for STDs.

[Ramo]

The problem with libertarianism is that in a society with large wealth disparities, there will always be elements in the society that will use the state to either preserve these disparities, or to undermine them. There always has been and there likely always will be. Libertarianism is only possible in a socialist society.

che is absolutely correct. Monopolists, or anyone else with else with power, will not hesitate to use force to secure and expand this power if there's no one to stop them. They won't play within the libertarians' rules out of the kindness of their hearts.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Felch X
I don't think Apoc would have this point of view if he had better parents. Really, his argument isn't a criticism of the people on this board but of his own family.

Of course I wouldn't have this view. I'd be selfish like the rest of you. It isn't a criticism of my own family though. With my family, many other variables that have nothing to do with this argument come in.

[Al B. Sure!]

Black Dragon:

But much of your arguement is centered around the idea of someone should have the right to do what they want with their body... the problem with this is that such things as drug use do not simply effect the user... they result in vast consequences to family, friends, and society as a whole...

Drug use should not be prohibited because it is a sin and it is not good for the user... but because the user, by abusing drugs, will greatly harm society. What about the children of an abusive mother, for example?

I am not saying a libertarian society will always fail... I am simply saying that it can not exist today... we need to develop a stronger moral code among the population in order to end poverty and end the cycle of poverty and sin... and THEN will we be even able to begin to start a libertarian society. Otherwise, libertarian ideas result in only greater problems


thanks

[Berzerker]

Albert Speer -

they just don't give a damn...

No, we just care more about freedom and morality than your desire to force everyone to pay for what you want.

What libertarians don't realize is that America today in 2003 is incapable of having a working libertarian society.

An unproved assertion.

There are far too many people who depend on the first and fifteenth...

So Libertarians believe people should not be paid for their labor?

too many people who do not have parents for moral influence...

Which is a result of welfare policies that seek to replace parents with government programs. This is a result of social engineering, not libertarianism. And your solution to a problem created by government? More government? Lol...

too much general inethical behaviour occuring...too much of a liberal attitude of if it feels good, do it...

So you're telling us libertarianism cannot work because of liberalism? Btw, I've never heard a liberal say "if it feels good, do it". I've only heard "conservatives" attribute this mantra to liberals without identifying the exact source. Does this mean you believe "if it feels bad, so it"?

A libertarian society that forms in this environment will only result in an even worse cycle of poverty for millions of Americans. Of course, to libertarians, this is just 'tough luck'...

And your support for this argument? Again, welfare programs which libertarians oppose have resulted in a cycle of poverty.

I agree... libertarian idealogy would work in Jefferson's time but not after the industrial revolution when massive, impersonal corporations formed... true capitalism is one of small businesses not monopolies...

Aside from the fact that government created these corporations and protected them with tariffs and handouts, why would a libertarian system fail even with corporations?

Slowhand -

But you're right, libertarians are blind to facts.

Which facts?

chegitz -

In actuality, the monopoly would squash the upstart like a bug through nefarious means, but we can let them have their little fantasy.

If these "nefarious" means involve force with or without government help, they would be illegal in a libertarian system. If these "nefarious" means include providing a product at a lower cost, so what?

Ted Striker -

It's some fantasy world where Libertarians just expect that all of the poor people will just be magically taken care by the goodness of people's hearts. We know that just doesn't happen.

How many people starved to death before welfare programs? Since there was no epidemic of poor people dying of starvation, who was "magically" feeding them?

Libertarians if the government is stealing your money then get the **** off the freeways and stop calling 911.

You're ignorant of libertarianism. If I want to drive my car on a freeway, I have to pay a user fee for the privilege. That isn't the same as the re-distribution of wealth engaged in by Democrats and Republicans, you know, like being forced to hand my money over to "educate" people in government schools. I guess you don't see a difference between a government subsidy to ADM (theft) and paying the local sheriff's salary (a user fee), but I'd expect that from you since you believe married people have out of wedlock babies.

Agathon -

The central problem for Libertarians is that thinkers like Plato and Hobbes are right and they are wrong. Large and complex social institutions like markets don't just naturally spring up as "free individuals" associate with each other, they are created slowly and over time, just as "free individuals" are not born, they are merely acculturated into a certain mode of belief and expectation.

Free individuals associating with each other will not result in complex markets? The complexity of a market depends on the population and freedom of participants. Millions of people making millions of economic decisions everyday result in complex markets. Are you suggesting a relative handful of ruling elites are better equiped to make all these decisions for us?

After all, if you think about the repugnance most of us show towards the sale of bodily organs, then you can appreciate how long it took our ancestors to work themselves up to such things as selling land.

Can you provide a popularity poll from these ancestors showing their attitude toward selling land?

Moreover, exchange economies require a huge bureaucratic apparatus to keep track of who owns what and who owes what to whom.

Why? Ever hear of a sales receipt?

A system of voluntary taxation would quickly destroy the market mechanism because it would generate a "prisoner's dilemma" situation in which self interest would reasonably lead to a worse outcome for everyone.

You'll have to prove that one too.

In fact, if any libertarians are reading this, how about you tell us how a Libertarian polity would solve "prisoner's dilemma" problems without either destroying itself completely or compromising its own principles? I'd really like to know...

Start by explaining this "prisoner's dilemma" and how it relates to your assertions.

Of course all the libertarians could do the decent thing and get real...

If you mean embracing legalised theft as "decent" and "real", no thanks.

Ramo -

The problem with libertarianism is that in a society with large wealth disparities, there will always be elements in the society that will use the state to either preserve these disparities, or to undermine them.

The fact a poor person may use government force to take what belongs to others is not a problem for libertarianism, it's a problem for the system that allows legalised theft. If you invented a machine that makes our lives better and are rewarded for your effort, why is that a problem?

Libertarianism is only possible in a socialist society.

Define socialism. If it's related to the state having control over the means of production, then libertarianism and socialism are contradictory.

che is absolutely correct. Monopolists, or anyone else with else with power, will not hesitate to use force to secure and expand this power if there's no one to stop them. They won't play within the libertarians' rules out of the kindness of their hearts.

Those libertarian rules prohibit the use of force in the marketplace. I suspect you guys are confusing "force" with voluntary association.

[Ted Striker]

How many people starved to death before welfare programs? Since there was no epidemic of poor people dying of starvation, who was "magically" feeding them?

The problem with your whole one-dimensional argument is that you are pinning food supply problems entirely on death count numbers by starvation. No doubt you will point to the "good ole days" before the Gubment came along and started oppressing people with all of its laws and regulations, and started stealing money from people to support terrible things like unemployment benefits and food stamps.

But you ignore two factors:

1) The US in the 19th century was primarily a nation of farmers who grew their own food, and there was plenty of land to do it on. This is an entirely different situation from the early 20th century where the shift went to the cities where city dwellers were more dependent on using money in exchange for food.

2) Just because people are eating, doesn't mean they are eating WELL. I can keep myself alive if there is no food around by going out and eating garbage if I really wanted to.

My own grandfather told me how there were days when he used to subsiste on LARD during the Depression because there was nothing else around to eat.

By your same token, please provide me with your proof of how charities in the 19th century took care of poor people. Certainly in your private model where charities all take up the slack, you have some nice examples of where this works?

We know you long for the 19th century days of runaway lazziez faire economics that produces great things like child labor.

Your ideas of "theft" and "force" are pretty much in line with a drug induced paranoia.

[Berzerker]

Albert Speer -

Black Dragon:

But much of your arguement is centered around the idea of someone should have the right to do what they want with their body... the problem with this is that such things as drug use do not simply effect the user... they result in vast consequences to family, friends, and society as a whole...

What exactly do you mean by "effect"? I get so tired of social engineers using this word without defining it. And once you've defined the word, make the "effect" illegal instead of punishing all drug users based on the "effect" perpetrated by some drug users. Spraying a neighborhood with a shotgun is an "effect" that should be illegal, owning a shotgun is not an "effect" that should be illegal. It's a matter of morality - punishing the innocent because of the guilty is immoral.

Drug use should not be prohibited because it is a sin

Prove it's a "sin".

and it is not good for the user

Prove it's not good for the user.

but because the user, by abusing drugs, will greatly harm society.

So you've just equated drug use with drug abuse. But explain how my use of cocaine or pot in the privacy of my home "greatly harms society". Here's a quote for you: "The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

What about the children of an abusive mother, for example?

There are sober mothers who abuse their children, should sober people be punished too? Why do you advocate punishing millions of people based on what this mother did?

I am not saying a libertarian society will always fail... I am simply saying that it can not exist today...

It can't exist because the majority believes government exists to hand them money stolen from others. The only question left to be answered is who will get to steal more and who will lose more.

we need to develop a stronger moral code among the population in order to end poverty and end the cycle of poverty and sin...

You're not qualified to tell us about morality.

and THEN will we be even able to begin to start a libertarian society.

You can't even see the contradictions in your arguments? You say we are too immoral to be free as if the lack of freedom IS moral? Do you know why so many addicts don't get cleaned up? Because people like you believe government exists to reduce poverty! Government enables addiction by handing out money to addicts...

Otherwise, libertarian ideas result in only greater problems

Another unproven assertion. No, Al, the lack of evidence is not evidence. Did we have more problems when all drugs were legal?

[Berzerker]

Ted Striker -

That's okay berzerker, we know you long for the 19th century days of runaway lazziez faire economics that produces great things like child labor.

If parents force their children into child labor, that would be illegal. But if the family needs money to survive and the child wants to do ther part to help the family, I wouldn't tell them they can't. Would you make it illegal for children to help out on the family farm? If not, does that mean you support child labor? How about paper routes? How about child actors? Btw, child labor laws were not enacted because atruism, they were enacted because adults didn't want children competing for their jobs - and we all know who votes and who doesn't.

Your ideas of "theft" and "force" are pretty much in line with a drug induced paranoia.

That would indeed be something since I don't use drugs. I see you didn't refute my ideas of theft and force, I guess false ad hominems are the extent of your debating skills. So tell us Ted, how many married people have out of wedlock babies?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Parents aren't needed for this though.


Yes, but this can come from things like not having parents buy kids things, feeling left out when your parents don't come to a game when other kids' parents do, and other areas that really don't matter but still create these emotions in kids with bad parents.


That's what I am doing at the moment.


No, I am not talking about. I'm talking about messed up kids. They get upset over not having loving parents because other kids have loving parents, not because they are missing out on something vital that can't be obtained in some other way.


But you can't create loving parents for everyone. Furthermore, like I said earlier, the vital functions of parents can be replaced by the government.


Yes, seriously.

The old Soviet Union tried raising masses of children in orphanages, hoping to create the new socialist man. The children ( at least it was claimed ) were well cared for and given a stimulating environment, yet many of them failed to thrive. The infantile and chilhood death rate among the orphans was very high, but could not be attributed to disease. The intellectual attainment of the children was substantially lower than it should have been as well, even though they were given early learning experiences not shared by other Soviet children.

[Ted Striker]

If parents force their children into child labor, that would be illegal. But if the family needs money to survive and the child wants to do ther part to help the family, I wouldn't tell them they can't. Would you make it illegal for children to help out on the family farm? If not, does that mean you support child labor? How about paper routes? How about child actors?

Way to distort the issue. I'm talking about child labor abuse that was WELL DOCUMENTED where kids were working in factories and sweatshops where they worked long hours under poor conditions and sometimes were injured on the job. I brought up the example because this is just ONE example of abuse that occured in the "Good 'ole days" you always refer to before the evil governmnet started enforcing rules and regulations.

We have modern examples of this very abuse going on today in other countries where there aren't laws there to protect the kids and so the abusive behavior continues.

Sometimes people will keep doing terrible things until the government tells them to quit it, you know?

I see you didn't refute my ideas of theft and force,

Most NORMAL people understand that we give a portion of our money to the government and in return the government supplies shared services that are for the greater good, such as a standing army, water and other utitilites, a transportation system, emergency services, etc.

I guess false ad hominems are the extent of your debating skills.

YES!!! Let me be the first to introduce my favorite label for you -- HYPOCRITE!!!!!



Actually you were the one who attempted to bring in the ad hominem by trying to bring in some sad distorttion from an argument we had like 2 years ago (Good lawd -- get over it man I know I make you frustrated but please I mean get over it!) And just like that argument you keep bringing in your distortion of what was actually said since you have nothing much really to bring to the table.

So tell us Ted, how many married people have out of wedlock babies?

You tell me stud! I really don't understand what your fascination is with this idea you keep falsely attributing to me. Hey, I understand why you'd need to setup a strawman over and over again though.

The point at the time was, idiot, that people can have babies out of wedlock and THEN get married later. Therfore when the baby was born, the baby was born out of wedlock. Is that so hard to understand?

But if it helps you to setup a tired old strawman and beat him down so you can get off over and over again, by all means knock yourself dead champ.

Good lawd man get over it!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker

How many people starved to death before welfare programs? Since there was no epidemic of poor people dying of starvation, who was "magically" feeding them?

Are you serious? During the "dust bowl" and the great depression millions died of starvation. What do you think swept FDR into power? There was a major famine during the 1870s in the east and in the 1880s in the west.

Then there was the Potato famine in Ireland. In a classic example of laissez-faire gone beserk the royal government actually refused to allow American aid societies to send food to Ireland because they thought that giving the starving masses food would interfere with the "forces of nature" which would rectify the situation by forcing the Irish peasents to grow a different crop. They forgot that these peasents were living on rented land and were forced to grow what cash crops they could in order to keep their homes even if it meant going hungry,

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Of course I wouldn't have this view. I'd be selfish like the rest of you. It isn't a criticism of my own family though. With my family, many other variables that have nothing to do with this argument come in.

And a true Libertarian in the spirit of Ayn Rand would say that selfishness is its own virtue. Only through selfishness and the willingness to have pride in oneself and commit the will to produce (i.e put the hard work into being a good parent) rather then let some faceless others (read government) take the bulk of the workload at the expense of the talented. Again, a true Libertarian would abhor the thought of a government run child rearing scheme.

[Ted Striker]

Dustbowl

.

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: Dustbowl

Originally posted by Ted Striker
.

Why Ted, that's a piktcher of a man and his two lil' boys playing together in the sweet, sweet warm sunshine of liberdy. No, they hain't hardly starvin' at all. If they was a starvin' they wouldn't hardly be runnin'. They'd be more likely lyin' down real dead like. That's what I think. Do you? Think?

[Berzerker]

Ted Striker -

Way to distort the issue. I'm talking about child labor abuse that was WELL DOCUMENTED where kids were working in factories and sweatshops where they worked long hours under poor conditions and sometimes were injured on the job.

You claimed I believed in child labor as characterised by 19th century practices and I stated my position. Now you claim I'm distorting my position when it was you who distorted my position before I even gave it.

I brought up the example because this is just ONE example of abuse that occured in the "Good 'ole days" you always refer to before the evil governmnet started enforcing rules and regulations.

Slavery existed 150 years ago, will you accuse me of supporting slavery too?

We have modern examples of this very abuse going on today in other countries where there aren't laws there to protect the kids and so the abusive behavior continues.

Examples of parents forcing their children into these situations. The marketplace I support does not allow for the use of force to acquire labor, that isn't a free market, it's slavery/involuntary servitude.

Sometimes people will keep doing terrible things until the government tells them to quit it, you know?

So why do you look down your nose at others who do terrible things when you support legalised theft?

Most NORMAL people understand that we give a portion of our money to the government and in return the government supplies shared services that are for the greater good, such as a standing army, water and other utitilites, a transportation system, emergency services, etc.

We "give" a portion of our money? We are threatened with violence if we don't "give" the money. Most "normal" people know what can happen if they don't "give" the government that money. And you're still equating desired services with the re-distribution of wealth to enrich political constituencies, you fraud. Yeah, we should be forced to hand our money to the Dupont Corporation and every other special interest via subsidies because we pay taxes to support the local sheriff.

Let me be the first to introduce my favorite label for you -- HYPOCRITE!!!!!

No doubt your proof for this accusation will be devoid of logic and truth.

Actually you were the one who attempted to bring in the ad hominem

You don't even understand the meaning of ad hominem. You accused me of having false ideas about force and theft based upon my drug induced paranoia and I explained that I don't use drugs. That is a false ad hominem - making a (false) personal attack rather than refuting what I said. With regards to your claim that married people have out of wedlock births, that is a fact, you did make that claim. Pointing out the idiotic things you've said in the past is not an ad hominem.

by trying to bring in some sad distorttion from an argument we had like 2 years ago

It was no distortion, you said people of all marital statuses have out of wedlock births - that includes married people, DOH!

(Good lawd -- get over it man I know I make you frustrated but please I mean get over it!)

On the contrary, you're the one having a hissy fit over your idiotic claims being thrown in your face.

And just like that argument you keep bringing in your distortion of what was actually said since you have nothing much really to bring to the table.

As opposed to your "rebuttal" that I suffer from a drug induced paranoia? If you disagree with my ideas of force and theft, refute my ideas. But don't make ad hominems and then act like I'm the one who has nothing to bring to the table, hypocrite.

You tell me stud!

No, Ted, you tell us. I'm not the one who claimed married people have out of wedlock babies. That was your idiocy...

I really don't understand what your fascination is with this idea you keep falsely attributing to me.

Some statements are just so stupid they are unforgettable.

Hey, I understand why you'd need to setup a strawman over and over again though.

What strawman?

The point at the time was, idiot, that people can have babies out of wedlock and THEN get married later.

Stop spinning, that wasn't what you said. You said people of all marital statuses have out of wedlock babies.

But if it helps you to setup a tired old strawman and beat him down so you can get off over and over again, by all means knock yourself dead champ.

Like your strawman about my alleged drug induced paranoia? That was the extent of your "rebuttal" when accusing me of having false ideas about force and theft.

Good lawd man get over it!

Why? Many people here use signatures made up of stupid statements from others. I even used your idiocy in my signature for a while. Maybe I should use it again.
As for your suggestion that I'm obsessed, the reason you're acting so snotty now is because you are still upset over the discussion we had 2 years ago, well boo-hoo.

Dr Strangelove -

Are you serious?

You didn't answer my question.

During the "dust bowl" and the great depression millions died of starvation.

Where's your proof? And we are talking about famines caused by a free market where many starved to death, not government induced famines.

What do you think swept FDR into power?

The dustbowl began after FDR was elected and the Depression was not fixed by FDR nor did it reach it's fullest impact until after he was in office.

There was a major famine during the 1870s in the east and in the 1880s in the west.

How many people starved to death?

Then there was the Potato famine in Ireland. In a classic example of laissez-faire gone beserk the royal government actually refused to allow American aid societies to send food to Ireland because they thought that giving the starving masses food would interfere with the "forces of nature" which would rectify the situation by forcing the Irish peasents to grow a different crop.

First, your claim that the potato famine was caused or occured in a lasseiz faire system is false and you even provided evidence for that. It was a result of British stupidity or malice, the mercantile system, and the feudal system before it. Why do you think those people had "landlords" in the first place? Not because those landlords bought up land in the marketplace, but because they were handed the land from prior corrupt systems. We are talking about US history, so don't try to include every famine the world has seen, and don't give me examples of government created famines. This debate is about the marketplace and if it can prevent mass starvations.