Intellectual consistency can be overrated

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When we write about libertarianism, most liberals feel compelled to say something like, you know, I disagree with that viewpoint, but I respect that it's principled and intellectually consistent.

I say balderdookey. Libertarianism is kookoo. There can be no such thing as a basically stateless society (except for national defense and barest administration of law, I think are the exceptions they typically allow for). It's just ridiculous. Civil society would collapse without the state.

I've written this before, a few months ago. Conservatives, and libertarians, seem to think that we have regulations in this society because we have a bunch of underemployed pencil pushers sitting around dreaming up ways to make small business people's lives miserable.

It's ridiculous. We have regulations because throughout history people in various pursuits did really sleazy and unethical things. They swindled investors, they dumped toxins into bodies of water, they made children work long hours for slave wages. Et cetera. And so laws were passed and regulations were written.

And unfortunately such is man's endless capacity for sleaze and unethicality that this process will never end: as technology presents new ways to be sleazy, we'll always need to invent new ways to prevent sleaze from happening.

Yes, fine. Some regulations are onerous. Liberals should always be sensitive to legitimate concerns along these lines.

But you need a state. Time and history have proven no one else will perform these tasks.

So there's nothing in the least inellectually respectable about libertarianism. Intellectually consistent? Great. So was Goebbels. That doesn't mean much to me.

We all support a few libertarian-ish principles; we all agree that the state should have some limits. For example, I think it's perfectly fine for the state to make fast-food joints post nutrition information. But I would oppose the state having the right to ban the Quarter Pounder. So we all get that kind of thing.

But big-L Libertarianism is vapid. I hope in the next few months it is properly exposed as such.

Link

[The_Dude 1,142]

Libertarians have some good ideas, such as abolishing the IRS and instituting a flat tax and things like privacy. But, then there are issues like decriminalizing marijuana and suddenly you've got John Stossel proclaiming that all drugs, including heroin and crack should be decriminalized. Then there are some issues, where they seem to just go completely off the deep end. Don't believe me? Suggest any sort of regulation on our financial system to a true Libertarian.

[Heracles 417]

I've written this before, a few months ago. Conservatives, and libertarians, seem to think that we have regulations in this society because we have a bunch of underemployed pencil pushers sitting around dreaming up ways to make small business people's lives miserable.

Also ignores the reality that small business is still thriving in countries like Canada and Australia, where there is adequate regulation.

[mawilson 2,133]

Suggest any sort of regulation on our financial system to a true Libertarian.

We wouldn't need any regulation of our financial system if it conformed to the

libertarian free-market principles.

Unfortunately, we have entities like the Federal Reserve loaning banks money at 0% so they

can loan it back to the government at 3% and to you at 5-30%; Fannie/Freddie acting as a

backstop for losses on mortgage-backed securities, government bailouts at the taxpayer's

expense and numerous other forms of moral hazard.

The game is rigged and regulations are needed to make it (look) less rigged.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I've written this before, a few months ago. Conservatives, and libertarians, seem to think that we have regulations in this society because we have a bunch of underemployed pencil pushers sitting around dreaming up ways to make small business people's lives miserable.

Also ignores the reality that small business is still thriving in countries like Canada and Australia, where there is adequate regulation.

But regulations in those countries are made to protect both the business and consumer from themselves, the government, and outside influences. Our regulations seem to be geared more laissez faire, which is why our corporations and our economy have grown to the size and wealth that they have, but it is also the reason that in dire times that they fell to the depths that they have.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Libertarians have some good ideas, such as abolishing the IRS and instituting a flat tax and things like privacy. But, then there are issues like decriminalizing marijuana and suddenly you've got John Stossel proclaiming that all drugs, including heroin and crack should be decriminalized. Then there are some issues, where they seem to just go completely off the deep end. Don't believe me? Suggest any sort of regulation on our financial system to a true Libertarian.

Decriminalizing is not the same as "legal" Marijuana should be legal like alcohol so our kids would have as hard a time getting it as they have getting alcohol. Other drugs should be decriminalized. People using them and possesing them should be hospitalized, not imprisoned. We need room for real criminals not someone poisoning their own body. People selling drugs (which will go down in number when they are legal and/or decriminalized) should be imprisoned for long periods of time. 200-300 years would be a good start. We have spent 1 trillion dollars on the war on drugs and drugs are easier for our kids to buy than cigarettes. Stupid. It is cheaper to CURE the problem than punish it.

No government regulation is needed. People will regulate it themselves by informing themselves and investing/buying/acting wisely. Those that do not inform themselves and invest/act/buy foolishly will lose money...as they should. People should be rewarded for educating themselves and acting wisely. Fools will reap the reward of being fools. Trying to protect people from being fools only dumbs down the population. My family should not be held back because someone else is too stupid to move ahead. I do not wish to lower the standards to a common level, I want to raise them. The only way the government can make things "equal" is to hold back the people who excell. They CAN force failure on clever, enterprising people, they CANNOT force success on stupid, lazy people. I strongly support each person's inalienable right to be stupid at their own expense. Leave ME out of it.

It is simple. When boiled down, we "need" the government for very little, almost nothing. Where they are cost or work effective, such as picking up my trash every Monday or plowing the streets, we should use them by mutual consent of the people.

The government does not employ people to push pencils. The government employs people to control the lives of other people by force. We need to control the government, not the other way around. The government should exist ONLY to serve us and protect us and for no other reason. EVERY law is a restriction on your life (laws never say what you CAN do, they say what you CAN'T do) and we need to be cognizant of that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I've written this before, a few months ago. Conservatives, and libertarians, seem to think that we have regulations in this society because we have a bunch of underemployed pencil pushers sitting around dreaming up ways to make small business people's lives miserable.

Also ignores the reality that small business is still thriving in countries like Canada and Australia, where there is adequate regulation.

Which is WHY we are a free country and our citizens are free to pick and choose what laws and regulations they want to live under. For example, if I want to live like people in Australia or Canada, I can get on a plane (or my bicycle in the case of Canada) and GO THERE, start a business, and become wildly wealthy, IF they will let me (my country won't hold me back)

We set up our country to be specifically different than UK, Canada, Australia, etc. We never intended and never wanted to be that way. We could have just skipped the whole revolution thing and stayed part of UK. I am not saying it is impossible to live the way they do...obviously 30 million Canadians seem to live OK, and some, probably, smaller amount of liberated criminals in Australia, but so what?

Is it a "love it or leave it " attitude. Well, yes. But why is that bad and "Hate it and change it" is not? We offer the alternative...LEAVE, go to live wherever your ideal is and be happy. what is wrong with being unique? What is wrong with being different? Why on earth do we need to be like "them"? We already have them. I mean should McDonald's offer the same food as Taco Bell? If you want taco Bell, go to Taco Bell. Don't go to McDonalds and complain they don't have a super-burrito. Don't buy a Ford and complain it isn't a Chevy...BUY the Chevy.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Decriminalizing is not the same as "legal" Marijuana should be legal like alcohol so our kids would have as hard a time getting it as they have getting alcohol. Other drugs should be decriminalized. People using them and possesing them should be hospitalized, not imprisoned. We need room for real criminals not someone poisoning their own body. People selling drugs (which will go down in number when they are legal and/or decriminalized) should be imprisoned for long periods of time. 200-300 years would be a good start. We have spent 1 trillion dollars on the war on drugs and drugs are easier for our kids to buy than cigarettes. Stupid. It is cheaper to CURE the problem than punish it.

Started off strong. I absolutely agree with every point you make above.

No government regulation is needed. People will regulate it themselves by informing themselves and investing/buying/acting wisely. Those that do not inform themselves and invest/act/buy foolishly will lose money...as they should. People should be rewarded for educating themselves and acting wisely. Fools will reap the reward of being fools. Trying to protect people from being fools only dumbs down the population. My family should not be held back because someone else is too stupid to move ahead. I do not wish to lower the standards to a common level, I want to raise them. The only way the government can make things "equal" is to hold back the people who excell. They CAN force failure on clever, enterprising people, they CANNOT force success on stupid, lazy people. I strongly support each person's inalienable right to be stupid at their own expense. Leave ME out of it.

Starting to drift off into never never land, where much like true communism, people are so altruistic that they can self regulate, never seeking profit through abusing others, the environment etc.

It is simple. When boiled down, we "need" the government for very little, almost nothing. Where they are cost or work effective, such as picking up my trash every Monday or plowing the streets, we should use them by mutual consent of the people.

It isn't that simple. We need the government for many things, and while it often may not seem like it at times, especially when those in power don't share our particular political views on a given issue, the government is us.

The government does not employ people to push pencils. The government employs people to control the lives of other people by force.

And the finally, a rant about the government seeking to control the lives of the people by force. This is where Libertarians tend to slip the tracks a bit...

We need to control the government, not the other way around. The government should exist ONLY to serve us and protect us and for no other reason. EVERY law is a restriction on your life (laws never say what you CAN do, they say what you CAN'T do) and we need to be cognizant of that.

Every law is not a restriction, some actually empower choice, think abortion, minority and gay rights protection laws.

And some restrictive laws are actually important such as laws that restrict corporations from fouling the planet, selling tainted products etc.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which is WHY we are a free country and our citizens are free to pick and choose what laws and regulations they want to live under. For example, if I want to live like people in Australia or Canada, I can get on a plane (or my bicycle in the case of Canada) and GO THERE, start a business, and become wildly wealthy, IF they will let me (my country won't hold me back)

We set up our country to be specifically different than UK, Canada, Australia, etc. We never intended and never wanted to be that way. We could have just skipped the whole revolution thing and stayed part of UK. I am not saying it is impossible to live the way they do...obviously 30 million Canadians seem to live OK, and some, probably, smaller amount of liberated criminals in Australia, but so what?

Is it a "love it or leave it " attitude. Well, yes. But why is that bad and "Hate it and change it" is not? We offer the alternative...LEAVE, go to live wherever your ideal is and be happy. what is wrong with being unique? What is wrong with being different? Why on earth do we need to be like "them"? We already have them. I mean should McDonald's offer the same food as Taco Bell? If you want taco Bell, go to Taco Bell. Don't go to McDonalds and complain they don't have a super-burrito. Don't buy a Ford and complain it isn't a Chevy...BUY the Chevy.

Erm.... Unless you're talking about somewhere like Burma or North Korea how exactly is this any different from any other country?

Even us Brits can get on a plane, go anywhere, become wildly wealthy, IF they let us (our country won't hold us back).

[Heracles 417]

Erm.... Unless you're talking about somewhere like Burma or North Korea how exactly is this any different from any other country?

Even us Brits can get on a plane, go anywhere, become wildly wealthy, IF they let us (our country won't hold us back).

It's amazing how so many people here that actually assume none else has this.

[Heracles 417]

Which is WHY we are a free country and our citizens are free to pick and choose what laws and regulations they want to live under. For example, if I want to live like people in Australia or Canada, I can get on a plane (or my bicycle in the case of Canada) and GO THERE, start a business, and become wildly wealthy, IF they will let me (my country won't hold me back)

We set up our country to be specifically different than UK, Canada, Australia, etc. We never intended and never wanted to be that way. We could have just skipped the whole revolution thing and stayed part of UK. I am not saying it is impossible to live the way they do...obviously 30 million Canadians seem to live OK, and some, probably, smaller amount of liberated criminals in Australia, but so what?

Is it a "love it or leave it " attitude. Well, yes. But why is that bad and "Hate it and change it" is not? We offer the alternative...LEAVE, go to live wherever your ideal is and be happy. what is wrong with being unique? What is wrong with being different? Why on earth do we need to be like "them"? We already have them. I mean should McDonald's offer the same food as Taco Bell? If you want taco Bell, go to Taco Bell. Don't go to McDonalds and complain they don't have a super-burrito. Don't buy a Ford and complain it isn't a Chevy...BUY the Chevy.

You missed the point entirely. The things that numerous libertarians and so on assume is a failure is actually working quite well (in practice) in various first world countries. Furthermore, libertarians and the tea-party type pick countries like Greece and use it as an example but fail to acknowledge Canada or Australia; countries that actually have a number of social programs that are evermore generous than those in various Europeans countries. Funny how they are far from being bankrupt. When this little fact is brought to light, you guys then go off on a 'who cares, move there if you like it' response. That is not only disingenuous but also cunning. Basically you guys pick foreign countries when it suits your agenda but downplay those that do not.

As I have pointed out many many times before, the libertarian/tea-party economic ideology is nothing new - hardly groundbreaking. It can be found in action in a hell of a lot of third world countries. Which the usual response is but but but the Constitution.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Booyah!

[rsn 135]

Decriminalizing is not the same as "legal" Marijuana should be legal like alcohol so our kids would have as hard a time getting it as they have getting alcohol.

huh? I agree that marijuana should not be illegal. It is not hard for kids to get their hands on alcohol, and making marijuana legal will not make it any harder for them to obtain that either. Regulating marijuana does not make it harder to obtain.

[Peikko 1,575]

Libertarianismis a steaming crock of #######

.

[mawilson 2,133]

.

[Peikko 1,575]

Humans work better as individuals than within regulated communities? Point me in the direction of a country that does that successfully. America is not a nation of personally responsible rugged individuals who never need assistance, and never was - even the pioneers relied on neighbours and friends to succeed. This idea that every relationship is based on simple trade transactions and that everyone can have enough knowledge about every subject to make good decisions is total bull.