Interesting point, how does a Libertarian system handle a monopoly? Wouldn't that be the free market at work or intruding on the liberties of the corporation?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Aren't you a Libertarian?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
With all government there will be intrusion.
The question is when, how, & to what extent.
A free market can result in a monopoly, but then the market isn't free?
So if free markets are the goal, some regulation & police power is useful.
IMO voters are too easily influence by the political sound bite. The masses swayed by political ads. People in power control the money control the media. People with money control the politicians more than the folks who vote for them. Sure you can occasionally replace the talking head but that doesn't mean anything is going to change.
In a capitalist system, the individual can still vote with their pocket book. This has seemed more effective in bringing about change than which political party happens to be in power at the time.
Jollybear
Hey
Why would it lead to more oligarchy?
When it was partly implemented in chili, what specifically did they do or not do that caused the poor and middle class to suffer?
Saying that money influences the vote more than the voters does not instill me with much confidence that capitalism makes it better considering venture capitalism is what made the wealth inequality so strong. If money talks to politicians more than votes, then it stands to reason that only the interests of the super wealthy would matter. And it stands to reason we should limit corporate lobby power and campaign funding rather than give the corporate lobbyists more freedom to abuse the power they have.
Isn't the government a monopoly?
I think Bezos and Musk are doing a better job at innovation, supporting the economy, giving people what they what than the government is.
Trump promises jobs but I don't think their is really a lot he can actually do other than sounding positive to try and encourage folks to trust the economy.
Jollybear
Hey
Im not that kind of libertarian.
Sure, get the politicians to cut the purse strings. Good luck. I'd support you in every way possible.
There will inevitably some government monopolies because of practicality,
eg, most roads, some utilities. As we've seen, service can suffer when a
monopoly fears no competition. So our goal should be to minimize their
number, apply good judgement when enacting them, & prevent them where
they'd be dysfunctional.
Few if any are.
One reason...
Pollution by one party will affect others, causing them harm.
This would be anti-libertarian.
So our friend is creating a worst case straw man.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
The platform lacks details stating goals with minor references to methods. I am not impressed by platforms anyways as the details tend to make or break policy in my view. Considering the party is tiny in comparison I expect to see something regarding political alliances as necessary. More so the party needs to establish some sort of plan regarding "growing" pain if it hopes to transition to a majority party thus accomplish their goals. Short term goals are required which I see little of in the platform of long term major party goals. This to me is putting the cart before the horse.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I haven't read that platform in many months. It has some planks that I agree with and a lot that I don't.Here is a link to the Libertarian platform.
https://www.lp.org/platform/
Sorry to those who don't like to go to links but it's a bit much to post the entire platform here.
I'm just curious what specifically folks dislike about the libertarian platform that would cause people to vote against a Libertarian.
I suppose the main concern would be a lack of political power of the party but wouldn't that mean you are more concerned about political power than principle?
I think the core problem is that Libertarians don't understand that a society is a cooperative endeavor which means that, in the inevitable conflicts between the welfare of the group and the rights of the individual, the welfare of the group must prevail. So, a cooperative effort of any kind involves trading in individual rights for greater benefits.
Mountain Man, living in the wilderness, has the right to poop anywhere he likes, but if he moves into town, he's entering a cooperative endeavor. So, he has to trade in that right for the greater benefits offered by a cooperative society.
The below is the OP of a thread I posted in October 2016. All of the statements that I critiqued in the Platform then remain in the current Platform, and they represent the reasons that I do not agree with or support, or, in some cases, cannot even decipher the meaning of, the LP Platform.
Presumably few people would object to the fundamental principles of the political philosophy of libertarianism, commonly denoted as seeking to “maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.” Libertarianism - Wikipedia However, the Platform of the US Libertarian Party contains a number of outrageous and confounding statements that seemingly few people could or would want to try to defend: http://www.lp.org/platform
For instance, in the introductory paragraph of its first section, “Personal Liberty,” the Platform asserts, “No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.” The police can't use force to arrest known or suspected criminals? Is that what that sentence means? If not, what does it mean?
In the subsection “Self Defense,” it states, “We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.” But such a statement certainly doesn't reflect judicial precedent on the Second Amendment. The courts have upheld numerous laws restricting certain persons from purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition, requiring registration and background checks, tracking sales and interstate commerce of firearms and ammunition, and prohibiting the sale of certain types of firearms and other dangerous weapons. The Platform doesn't suggest a method for circumventing these constitutional and presumptively constitutional laws--obviously a radical rewriting of the Constitution would be necessary.
Under the section, “Economic Liberty,” the subsection, “Government Finance and Spending” makes the astonishing announcement: “We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors.” Eliminating the individual income tax, payroll and corporate income taxes would wipe out about 80% of federal revenue: Federal Revenue: Where Does the Money Come From How will we pay the utility bill for the White House? Will members of Congress and state legislatures have to work for free? Will we have to do without roads, bridges and sewer systems?
Disposing of “all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution” would do away with basically every federal program, department and service. E.g., the Constitution does not require that there be any other court than the Supreme Court.
It would seem difficult to come up with a more effective way of putting an end to a functioning modern society as we know it than to implement the provisions of the “Government Finance and Spending” subsection.
I can't even decipher some of the assertions found in the subsection “Environment”: “Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife.”
What does the first sentence even mean? If anyone can give examples where “free markets and property rights . . . protect[ed] our environment and ecosystems,” please do.
In any case, there are no “individual rights” to natural sources of water except by permit issued by the government according to statute. There are no “individual rights” to air. Wildlife that subsists on public lands belongs to everyone, according to the Court. And certainly the government is not restricted in protecting species from the destructive forces of individuals engaged in “free market” “technological innovations”.
Moreover, obviously private landowners often have a direct vested interest in entirely depleting or destroying the natural resources on their property.
These are just a few of the items in the Platform that I find to be patently absurd. I wonder if this Platform--which, even though revised regularly, is about the same as in recent years--is one of the primary reasons that so few Libertarians are elected.
For instance, in the introductory paragraph of its first section, “Personal Liberty,” the Platform asserts, “No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.” The police can't use force to arrest known or suspected criminals? Is that what that sentence means? If not, what does it mean?
In the subsection “Self Defense,” it states, “We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.” But such a statement certainly doesn't reflect judicial precedent on the Second Amendment. The courts have upheld numerous laws restricting certain persons from purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition, requiring registration and background checks, tracking sales and interstate commerce of firearms and ammunition, and prohibiting the sale of certain types of firearms and other dangerous weapons. The Platform doesn't suggest a method for circumventing these constitutional and presumptively constitutional laws--obviously a radical rewriting of the Constitution would be necessary.
Under the section, “Economic Liberty,” the subsection, “Government Finance and Spending” makes the astonishing announcement: “We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors.” Eliminating the individual income tax, payroll and corporate income taxes would wipe out about 80% of federal revenue: Federal Revenue: Where Does the Money Come From How will we pay the utility bill for the White House? Will members of Congress and state legislatures have to work for free? Will we have to do without roads, bridges and sewer systems?
Disposing of “all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution” would do away with basically every federal program, department and service. E.g., the Constitution does not require that there be any other court than the Supreme Court.
It would seem difficult to come up with a more effective way of putting an end to a functioning modern society as we know it than to implement the provisions of the “Government Finance and Spending” subsection.
I can't even decipher some of the assertions found in the subsection “Environment”: “Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife.”
What does the first sentence even mean? If anyone can give examples where “free markets and property rights . . . protect[ed] our environment and ecosystems,” please do.
In any case, there are no “individual rights” to natural sources of water except by permit issued by the government according to statute. There are no “individual rights” to air. Wildlife that subsists on public lands belongs to everyone, according to the Court. And certainly the government is not restricted in protecting species from the destructive forces of individuals engaged in “free market” “technological innovations”.
Moreover, obviously private landowners often have a direct vested interest in entirely depleting or destroying the natural resources on their property.
These are just a few of the items in the Platform that I find to be patently absurd. I wonder if this Platform--which, even though revised regularly, is about the same as in recent years--is one of the primary reasons that so few Libertarians are elected.
On political compass I generally score very close to Gandhi.
I am very distrustful of any permanent (and even temporary) organizations consisting of more than...what, say...a dozen adults? Certainly not more than a hundred...
doesn't matter if it's for profit, not for profit, government...large organizations are automatically and inherently untrustworthy, because an such organization represents power, and a small fraction of individuals are attracted to seek out, use, and abuse any power they might get...
the larger the organization, the larger the attraction and the potential, nay, the inevitability, of corruption by and for the few.
At the same time, individuals do not get to do just whatever the heck pops into their minds, as even most 'personal' actions have ramifications to others (the example of a resident of an apartment block deciding to play their music REALLY LOUD every night from 11 pm to 4 am, while everyone else in the building is trying to sleep...) the individual's freedom is constrained by the freedom of everyone else...but notice in that particular example, the "government" composed by the neighboring residents is automatically suspect, because such a group might act to limit others' individual freedoms beyond what is actually necessary...
I am very distrustful of any permanent (and even temporary) organizations consisting of more than...what, say...a dozen adults? Certainly not more than a hundred...
doesn't matter if it's for profit, not for profit, government...large organizations are automatically and inherently untrustworthy, because an such organization represents power, and a small fraction of individuals are attracted to seek out, use, and abuse any power they might get...
the larger the organization, the larger the attraction and the potential, nay, the inevitability, of corruption by and for the few.
At the same time, individuals do not get to do just whatever the heck pops into their minds, as even most 'personal' actions have ramifications to others (the example of a resident of an apartment block deciding to play their music REALLY LOUD every night from 11 pm to 4 am, while everyone else in the building is trying to sleep...) the individual's freedom is constrained by the freedom of everyone else...but notice in that particular example, the "government" composed by the neighboring residents is automatically suspect, because such a group might act to limit others' individual freedoms beyond what is actually necessary...
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
If i was to vote for any political party it would be enviromental green party.
This statement seems to be ignorant of certain realities.
I don't trust the government either, which is why I demand transparency and accountability from my government... things that I can't demand from private individuals or businesses.
What kind of libertarian are you?
So you don't feel people can cooperate without government involvement?
I think if you are going to characterize libertarians as mountain men you might be barking up the wrong tree. Don't know of any libertarians who want to go about pooping wherever they please. This would be in violation of section 1.7 in any case.
averageJOE
zombie
Let's see...the biggest issues for me (off the top of my head):
End the wars/Massively cut military spending
Living wage
Medicare for all
Free public college
Combat climate change/Green New Deal
End the drug war
Criminal justice reform/De-militarize the police/end for profit prisons
Common sense gun control
Rank choice voting
Show me a Libertarian who stands for these things first.
End the wars/Massively cut military spending
Living wage
Medicare for all
Free public college
Combat climate change/Green New Deal
End the drug war
Criminal justice reform/De-militarize the police/end for profit prisons
Common sense gun control
Rank choice voting
Show me a Libertarian who stands for these things first.
Last edited:
As I've posted more than once, I'd be a libertarian when the human race has evolved enough to make it practical. Because then people would automatically help those who need it instead of using a political platform as a justification for selfishness which SOME do.
My ideal is the logo of an organization out here "All of us taking care of all of us". I think that's both an individual and collective responsibility.
I'm not going to debate that with you as there are many more who are very articulate on the subject such as http://thoughtsonliberty.com/what-is-left-libertarianism
Monopolies and oligopolies constrain freedom. So I take it as antithetical to freedom to have too much concentration of economic and thus political power in gigantic corporations. So we'd be debating where to draw the line.