Why Aren't you a Libertarian?

[Nakosis]

I am not a libertarian because I favor regulation.

Lack of regulation in work standards brings us unfair labor practice and unsafe working environments. We have seen this film before.

Lack of regulation in environmental standards brings us pollution, endangered species, and loss of common space for fishing, hunting and outdoor recreation. We have seen this film before.

Lack of regulation in the financial sector brings us monopolies, market crashes, and wealth disparity. We have seen this film before.

Lack of regulation with foods and drugs brings us poison and snake oil.

Libertarians are not against regulation. They are against regulation that is detrimental to the common good. They also accept that government intervention is sometimes necessary to prevent monopolies that act against the common good.

I am not a libertarian because I favor social welfare. I believe that reducing poverty, increasing education, providing basic living standards and increasing the well being of all actually benefits our society more. Doing these things is what decreases crime rates, improves technology, helps economy.

In short, I want to better our system and increase the pie. Libertarians want to dismantle our system and grab whatever bits of pie they can.

Libertarians see charity as a virtue. There is nothing that prevents you from taking on as an obligation to help the poor. However they do see an enforce welfare state as a contradiction in terms. You are not being charitable. You are passing that responsibility off to the government hoping they will be responsible for the poor and disadvantaged in your stead. If they fail at that, oh well, it's no longer your responsibility.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't think that I see the purpose of Libertarianism as a political force.

In my mind, the very reason for being of politics is the establishment and caring for a social contract of some form.

Sure, there is such a thing as an excessively big government. But it seems to me declaring Libertarian principles in an actual political party misses the point. It is not for the political candidates and office holders to address that matter, but for the grassroots.

The grassroots, the individual.

 

[Curious George]

Libertarians are not against regulation. They are against regulation that is detrimental to the common good. They also accept that government intervention is sometimes necessary to prevent monopolies that act against the common good.

Really? What regulations do libertarians think are unnecessary?

Libertarians see charity as a virtue. There is nothing that prevents you from taking on as an obligation to help the poor. However they do see an enforce welfare state as a contradiction in terms. You are not being charitable. You are passing that responsibility off to the government hoping they will be responsible for the poor and disadvantaged in your stead. If they fail at that, oh well, it's no longer your responsibility.

Sounds to me like an excuse. Education is a common good. Environmental restoration is a common good. Medical care is a common good. Welfare is a common good. We all benefit from decreasing poverty, and increasing education and well being.

Charity is virtuous, but charity is not an excuse to ignore national problems.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you still an anarchist?

I have never been an anarchist.

 

[Curious George]

I have never been an anarchist.

Don't you believe we would be better off without laws?

 

[LuisDantas]

Don't you believe we would be better off without laws?

Actually, no, although the distinction is fairly subtle yet IMO significant.

I do not think we should value law.

Mainly, I don't think we should allow ourselves to confuse law with "justice", since the two things are inherently different and will often be at odds even in an utopic society.

Above all, we should refuse to lend either law or arbitration any significant levels of status and wealth, because that amounts to begging those activities to become corrupt and spread their corruption.

In my mind, there is a constructive and very much necessary role for laws. But that role is not related to "improving" society (which laws can't do) but rather to solving conflicts. And for the good of both individual and society, it is far more important that those resolutions of conflicts be quick instead of attempting to be "fair".

Why? Because unresolved conflicts prolong uncertainty and harm society, far more so than a wrong or unfair arbitration tends to. I truly believe that very often we would have better overall results if arbitrations were decided by a die roll instead of years of lawyering and posturing. By maintaining a rather unjustified mystique of law as an instrument for improving society, we end up causing a very harmful arms race among different social perspectives that hope at some level to subjugate the others instead of attaining a functional understanding among themselves.

 

[Nakosis]

Really? What regulations do libertarians think are unnecessary?

Any regulation determine detrimental to the common good. I'd imagine each regulation would have to be looked at, evaluated and determined if it is actually helpful.

For example in Calif we have environmental regulations which prevent the removal of dead wood from our forests. Considering the disasters caused by many recent fires, this is one that should probably be removed.

Sounds to me like an excuse. Education is a common good. Environmental restoration is a common good. Medical care is a common good. Welfare is a common good. We all benefit from decreasing poverty, and increasing education and well being.

Charity is virtuous, but charity is not an excuse to ignore national problems.

Right, Libertarians just see these things should be taken on as individual responsibilities. Not rely on Big Brother government which may or may not actually do anything about it.

 

[Valjean]

Libertarians are not against regulation. They are against regulation that is detrimental to the common good. They also accept that government intervention is sometimes necessary to prevent monopolies that act against the common good.



Libertarians see charity as a virtue. There is nothing that prevents you from taking on as an obligation to help the poor. However they do see an enforce welfare state as a contradiction in terms. You are not being charitable. You are passing that responsibility off to the government hoping they will be responsible for the poor and disadvantaged in your stead. If they fail at that, oh well, it's no longer your responsibility.

so libertarians are... socialists?

 

[Revoltingest]

Should a factory owner be permitted to dump his waste into a river used by others downstream?

Excellent question.
One Libertarian's take on your hypothetical.....
Factory owner (FO) would cause harm to downstream people (DP).
It's likely that DP would suffer more injury than FO could compensate them for.
So we cannot depend upon tort remedies.
Thus, regulating how FO handles toxic waste protects DP's rights.
Limits on FO's behavior is reasonable, maximizing liberty for all.

 

[Valjean]

Any regulation determine detrimental to the common good. I'd imagine each regulation would have to be looked at, evaluated and determined if it is actually helpful.

For example in Calif we have environmental regulations which prevent the removal of dead wood from our forests. Considering the disasters caused by many recent fires, this is one that should probably be removed.

But isn't this to ensure environmental health, biodiversity and the continuation of life?
Dead trees and logs are essential parts of a forest ecosystem. They are homes, shelters, food and fertilizer. They are needed by organisms, large and small, essential to maintain the forest. They are part of the cycle of life.

 

[Nakosis]

so libertarians are... socialists?

Libertarians and individualists but they recognized the need for cooperation between individuals to succeed.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Excellent question.
One Libertarian's take on your hypothetical.....
Factory owner (FO) would cause harm to downstream people (DP).
It's likely that DP would suffer more injury than FO could compensate them for.
So we cannot depend upon tort remedies.
Thus, regulating how FO handles toxic waste protects DP's rights.
Limits on FO's behavior is reasonable, maximizing liberty for all.

Yes, making everyone face the full costs (and benefits) of their actions of their actions rather than being able to selectively externalize costs and internalize benefits would be a good thing, something in the public interest.

 

[Nakosis]

But isn't this to ensure environmental health, biodiversity and the continuation of life?
Dead trees and logs are essential parts of a forest ecosystem. They are homes, shelters, food and fertilizer. They are needed by organisms, large and small, essential to maintain the forest.

I'd think a forest destroyed by fire to be more detrimental to this ecosystem.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd think a forest destroyed by fire to be more detrimental to this ecosystem.

The trick is to have more fires which are less destructive.
Forests have evolved to endure this cycle. Some trees'
seeds won't germinate without fire.

 

[Valjean]

Excellent question.
One Libertarian's take on your hypothetical.....
Factory owner (FO) would cause harm to downstream people (DP).
It's likely that DP would suffer more injury than FO could compensate them for.
So we cannot depend upon tort remedies.
Thus, regulating how FO handles toxic waste protects DP's rights.
Limits on FO's behavior is reasonable, maximizing liberty for all.

careful -- you're starting to sound a bit...socialist.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'd think a forest destroyed by fire to be more detrimental to this ecosystem.

fires are a natural part of any ecosystem, some more frequently than others. Humans have disrupted the natural system by practicing fire repression for decades, allowing for an unnatural buildup of flammable detritus, which then erupts into oversized conflagrations made worse by humans building homes in such environments.

 

[Revoltingest]

careful -- you're starting to sound a bit...socialist.

NooooooOOOOOoooOOOOooooOOOOOooooOOOOoooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will it help if I say how I oppose minimum wage laws?

 

[Valjean]

Libertarians and individualists but they recognized the need for cooperation between individuals to succeed.

Very good -- but, given human tribalism and reluctance to extend moral consideration to those outside immediate acquaintances, how would one ensure such co-operation?

 

[Revoltingest]

Very good -- but, given human tribalism and reluctance to extend moral consideration to those outside immediate acquaintances, how would one ensure such co-operation?

If I may butt in.....
Libertarianism isn't about ensuring cooperation.
It's about allowing & encouraging cooperation.
People do that naturally in business & charity.

 

[Valjean]

NooooooOOOOOoooOOOOooooOOOOOooooOOOOoooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will it help if I say how I oppose minimum wage laws?

Yes, that would go a long way toward cementing your villainy.