Ah, okay. I misunderstood where you were coming from.
-
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
Ok, that's just not in my experience. I seen large groups able to cooperate. It takes leadership, certainly a willingness to drive cooperation but not a government.
What freedom of others do you think might be impacted on by a libertarian agenda?
You didn't comment on this statement in my previous post. In which case I simply assumed you didn't take issue with it.
No one is talking about burning the whole thing down, well except maybe the Anarchist. Certainly not a libertarian position.
I should point out that Libertarians could be called
"minarchists", but definitely not "anarchists".
What I meant is your assumption that the "Party" platform is what it is and not subject to change from people with different priorities and ideas who still accept the basic philosophy of the party. Trotsky was kicked out of the Communist Party for opposing the official, Stalinist, platform and policy.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Well for a start, it looks to me like a step back to the Stone Age in terms of welfare for the poor and disadvantaged. This for example:
Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become even more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.
I could never imagine supporting a political party with such an attitude. We would be right back in Dickens's Victorian age.
I think it stinks.
I usually vote Conservative in the UK, by the way.
A party platform is an unchanging thing?
I'd never claim such a thing.
But it will have strong tendencies.
One of the first thing mentioned is the accountability of the individual and they are against fraud and misrepresentation of any kind. Transparency would be IMO essensential for this.
Different time, different place. Americans on the whole are pretty generous. I suppose I see politicians being more generous to their donors than the poor. The poor are getting poorer. The government in Calif keeps trying to fix the homeless problem in Calif and that just keeps getting worse.
The government has failed in this respect. I don't see it coming up with a solution that works anytime soon.
No but you said that left libertarian priorities are not compatible with the platform which implies that the platform can't reflect a change in priorities.
I find Libertarianism to be... oddly out of touch with this world. That's not to say there aren't elements that have their wisdom, but a philosophy that is so telescopically (or perhaps pathologically) individualist isn't tenable because this world doesn't work that way. Their economic philosophies - particularly their implications for non-human persons, welfare, science, and education - I find downright disturbing.
It might work for a band of hunter-gatherers, but people are not wired to live in the massive groups we do today without regulation compelling co-operation and good behavior. We're not altruistic enough. We're too tribal, anti-social and self-serving; too willing to exploit others for our own gain or to act in such a way as to harm the interests of others.
A libertarian society means no public education, no public fire or police services, no pollution regulations or food inspection services, no Medicare, Medicaid, 'food stamps' or any public safety nets, no national parks, no building codes, nothing ensuring the safety and effectiveness of drugs, &c, &c, &c.
With everything privatized, nothing gets done that someone can't make a buck on, and what services do get organized will cut whatever corners they can to minimize costs and maximize profits. Moreover, you won't get such money losers as rural mail delivery or electrification.
Even with regulations, we get Enrons, Bernie Madoffs, predatory pharmaceutical companies, industry ignoring safety and pollution regs to save a buck, &c.
With no regulation or oversight and everyone out for themselves, I'm afraid we'd get a predatory, 'wild West' society of wolves and sheep.
The linked Libertarian Platform is nicely crafted to sound hopeful and avoid calling attention to the full picture and its ramifications.
David Koch learned this lesson back in 1980, when he ran for vice president as a Libertarian, but made the mistake of coming out with a clear outline of what libertarianism involved.
That didn't work out well at all.
The unvarnished 1980 platform: David Koch 1980 Libertarian Party Platform - look familiar? - Democratic Underground
A libertarian society means no public education, no public fire or police services, no pollution regulations or food inspection services, no Medicare, Medicaid, 'food stamps' or any public safety nets, no national parks, no building codes, nothing ensuring the safety and effectiveness of drugs, &c, &c, &c.
With everything privatized, nothing gets done that someone can't make a buck on, and what services do get organized will cut whatever corners they can to minimize costs and maximize profits. Moreover, you won't get such money losers as rural mail delivery or electrification.
Even with regulations, we get Enrons, Bernie Madoffs, predatory pharmaceutical companies, industry ignoring safety and pollution regs to save a buck, &c.
With no regulation or oversight and everyone out for themselves, I'm afraid we'd get a predatory, 'wild West' society of wolves and sheep.
The linked Libertarian Platform is nicely crafted to sound hopeful and avoid calling attention to the full picture and its ramifications.
David Koch learned this lesson back in 1980, when he ran for vice president as a Libertarian, but made the mistake of coming out with a clear outline of what libertarianism involved.
That didn't work out well at all.
The unvarnished 1980 platform: David Koch 1980 Libertarian Party Platform - look familiar? - Democratic Underground
Conservatives who want to get high and screw around...
Fewer wars, yes, but with social services you'd lose economies of scale and bargaining power. In fact, you'd lose many social services altogether if no-one could figure out how to make a profit from them
Regulated government can deliver services wholesale, directly to the public as a non-profit -- cheap, transparent and efficient.The same services delivered retail, by for-profit corporations, would be both more expensive and less transparent.
I don't understand this.
Setting aside the idea that economy of scale works well for government (eg, IRS, Obamacare)....
I'm proposing that government deliver social services.
Of course, where out-sourcing would be better, I'm up for that.
Spontaneous Order. A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It’s easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society — language, law, money, and markets — all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society — the complex network of associations and connections among people — is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.
Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
It was a bit more complicated than that, but that's an acceptable simplification.
I was objecting to the assertion that lower taxes = cheaper social services.
yes, I understand you're not a 'fundamentalist' type libertarian.
But, the capitalist system has worked the best so far? Or what economic system do you think would work better?
Here's the reasoning.....
If the poor were taxed less, they'd keep more
earned money, & need less from government.
They pay some unreasonably high rates.
On top of that, benefits are reduced as they
earn more money, at discouraging rates.
This keeps them on the dole, which is not
just expensive, but horridly immoral.