|
AlternateAccount posted:I would say that taken as a whole, as in, including people who don't post on this dumb forum, libertarians in general are not a group to say that Every drat Thing Must Be Privatized. Hence the "small-l libertarians" who are just trying to push policies more toward personal freedom and individual self determination, not actually get an [L] on the ballot or elected President. (Gary Johnson 2016, though!) You're correct, most libertarians are ignorant of the implications of their ideology, and are also ignorant of the beliefs of all the leading thinkers in their movement. They began to call themselves libertarians out of an inchoate desire for accountable government, and if they ever learn anything beyond slogans they'll cease to be libertarians.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
"We should privatize everything!" "We should make sure your PROFIT AND YOUR POTENTIAL IS NOT TAMPERED WITH!"  "Why do you let the government limit you!?"  "You are wealthy and white and you own a business! YOu should be able to do what you want, in your grace people get to work for you!"  "You should not pay taxes, you should be able to keep your money!"  And then... "We should take the law enforcement and fire ems away. If poor people want to burn your house for the unsatisfactory service you provided or bad business decisions, the market can let them do that!" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Since some of you are these supposed "small l" Libertarians, just what do you think will happen when your dreams of a destroyed regulatory system are realized? Do you really think the people who control your movement give one single poo poo about your supposed freedoms instead of just higher untaxed profits and poors who "know their place" like their sainted grandpappies did?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Since some of you are these supposed "small l" Libertarians, just what do you think will happen when your dreams of a destroyed regulatory system are realized? Do you really think the people who control your movement give one single poo poo about your supposed freedoms instead of just higher untaxed profits and poors who "know their place" like their sainted grandpappies did? Is that question loaded? It's so hard to tell. Anyone else think maybe it's loaded? I can never be sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Ask the DRO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I don't know, I figure the easiest thing to do with the non-subscriber but unowned properties like you mention would be to attach something like the Universal Service Fund for phones, where a small portion of an owner's bill to cover their own property also covers situations like that. AlternateAccount posted:But to belabor the point, "What about fire departments?" is only slightly less cliche and functionally useless to a discussion of libertarianism as "What about ROAAAAAAAAADS?!" They represent a statistically insignificant amount of taxation and no direct utilization of force. If statist whining about roads and fire departments is so negligibly easy to solve, why don't libertarians ever have actual workable solutions to those things? Even the most naïve anarco-syndicalists actually put effort into their responses beyond repeating questions they can't answer in a mocking tone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Is that question loaded? It's so hard to tell. Anyone else think maybe it's loaded? I can never be sure. I generally just think it's laughable that you actually believe those people when they speak. "Why yes Mr. Energy Tycoon, I sure do agree with you that it'll be great FREEDOM to eliminate all of the Environmental regulations. Surely I, the white upper-middle class male with no hard assets, will benefit."
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
You're talking about a fully privatized fire department, which is a difficult to justify concept for all but the most hardcore anarcho-caps. I am merely discussion a more direct means of paying for it. If you live in the range of Fire Department 12, then you pay your dues to FD12 and FD12 covers all unoccupied or derelict buildings. Roads are funded by excise taxes on gasoline via the smallest governmental entity with jurisdiction over that space. Still built by private contractors via open bid for construction and maintenance. But by all means, let's discuss more bullshit edge case nonsense that literally no libertarians are discussing amongst themselves while the government proceeds to engage in nonsensical and aggressive wars, continues a drug policy that's oppressive in the extreme, murders Americans abroad without trial, and wastes billions of dollars a year. Rather than that, let's nitpick some bullshit about loving roads so that you can feel smug and invalidate an entire ideology that you probably agree with more than you'd be willing to admit on large scale issues. Talmonis posted:I generally just think it's laughable that you actually believe those people when they speak. The government has shown itself to be not only a massive contributor and enabler of environmental pollution, but generally a pretty lovely and ineffectual steward, as a whole. The argument is less about FREEDOM and more about "you're not accomplishing much, and you're wasting a shitload of money." OK, serious answer: environmental issues are also private property issues. In the same way I can't just run up and take a poo poo on your doorstep, I can't dump toxic chemicals upriver from you or dump horrible things into the air that you breathe. Privatizing a lot of the general management of public lands and slicing down a lot, if not all, of the EPA is not working toward a "free for all" goal where there are no repercussions or enforcement. AlternateAccount fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Do the districts send engines to other districts to help in MCI's and multiple alarm fires? Why should district 3 get to mooch on the engines I paid for at district 7?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:The government has shown itself to be not only a massive contributor and enabler of environmental pollution, but generally a pretty lovely and ineffectual steward, as a whole. The argument is less about FREEDOM and more about "you're not accomplishing much, and you're wasting a shitload of money." Cool. And private business will totally and voluntarily pay money to clean up after themselves because...? Edit: I mean, you straight up admit that the government is enabling pollution, and your answer to this is to... remove regulation. Rhjamiz fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Is that question loaded? It's so hard to tell. Anyone else think maybe it's loaded? I can never be sure. We have the freedom to ask you loaded questions. AlternateAccount posted:But by all means, let's discuss more bullshit edge case nonsense that literally no libertarians are discussing amongst themselves while the government proceeds to engage in nonsensical and aggressive wars, continues a drug policy that's oppressive in the extreme, murders Americans abroad without trial, and wastes billions of dollars a year. Sorry, which libertarians? The ones on Strike The Root? Ron Paul forums? Antiwar.com comments? The Scott Horton show? Lewrockwell.com where every single libertarian who played a role in creating the movement posts essays? Etc. etc. etc. times a million? Is this another case of us knowing libertarians better than you do? woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Cool. And private business will totally and voluntarily pay money to clean up after themselves because...? Good job selectively editing everything that followed that. One of the best roles of government is to enforce private property rights. This would include issues regarding pollution. SedanChair posted:We have the freedom to ask you loaded questions. I guess, I didn't specify that it was a loaded dumbass question. I guess you have that right, to, but your outright hostility is kind of tacky and juvenile. And yeah, I guess I have just been totally head-in-the-sand and somehow missed all the meetings where we plotted the overthrow of socialist fire stations and dreamt of the days when we could become private road-barons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Of course you would not. You need them. What you have not clarified is why we are to remove all these things that benefit the weak and limit the powerful?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:And yeah, I guess I have just been totally head-in-the-sand and somehow missed all the meetings where we plotted the overthrow of socialist fire stations and dreamt of the days when we could become private road-barons. This may be intended as snark, but it's just factual. I, and others here, have been at those meetings and you have not. You do not represent libertarianism, unless you are deliberately choosing to specifically represent ignorant and easily manipulated recent converts who have no understanding of the movement's history or goals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:What you have not clarified is why we are to remove all these things that benefit the weak and limit the powerful? What specific things? I think you're confusing my posts with someone else's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Good job selectively editing everything that followed that. But to respond: private property laws didn't stop them from making GBS threads on my doorstep and dumping toxic chemicals into my river and into the air beforehand. I see no compelling reason that a suddenly much weaker government is going to stop them now. And anyone who thinks that a stateless Libertopia could stop them is straight-up delusional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This may be intended as snark, but it's just factual. I, and others here, have been at those meetings and you have not. You do not represent libertarianism, unless you are deliberately choosing to specifically represent ignorant and easily manipulated recent converts who have no understanding of the movement's history or goals. I believe that if this were true, I would find myself at odds with this more "hardcore" sect more often. Perhaps this is a function of geography or demographics, but outside of the internet, I don't find this to yet be the case. I mean I think the proper Libertarian Part is often a clownfilled shitshow, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:You'd be congratulating yourself, then. I quoted your post and only deleted everything above that line, buddy. I have at no point advocated for a stateless Libertopia, whatever people are imagining that to be. I would agree that in the wide-reaching interest of protecting private property rights, the government must have the necessary authority and wherewithal to do so effectively. Hold on your butts, but yes, in this case I would advocate for stronger government. Your specific example of governmental failure could just as easily be used to justify disbanding the EPA as ineffectual as it could indict the idea of private property rights being used to justify enforcement of environmental protection.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:I'm an ex-libertarian, so maybe I can answer that with some sincerity. I sort of suspected that some change had taken place given the tone of your posts, and I'm glad to hear that I was correct. This post didn't get nearly enough love considering I recall you circa 2012 making some of the exact same sort of posts as Jrod. Another poster asked and I'll through my question in as well, what caused you to abandon libertarianism, and where do you fall now in the grand scheme of things, if you fall anywhere at all. Also you'll be happy to know I've edited the OP to reflect your new status.  BrandorKP posted:Do you know what liability insurers do to control risk? (at-least in heavy industry and transportation) I think a lot of libertarians fail to understand the bolded section. They think far too often that each and every regulation is some pointless endevor into the market, when in reality many, perhaps even most regulations have some sort of tragedy behind them. I like to point to lawn darts as the primary example. You can't sell them in Canada, even old ones at a garage sale. A local libertarian threw a shitfit over this and I had to explain to him multiple times that lawn darts are banned because they are essentially weighted metal throwing knives marketed as a children's toy. The US had five deaths and thousands of hospitalizations over a ten year period before they were banned because, while the product was being used as intended, it turns out kids like to throw them as hard as they can sometimes, which leads to them flying over fences and killing six year old girls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I believe that if this were true, I would find myself at odds with this more "hardcore" sect more often. Perhaps this is a function of geography or demographics, but outside of the internet, I don't find this to yet be the case. I mean I think the proper Libertarian Part is often a clownfilled shitshow, but whatever. Maybe you can become the champion of this new, moderate, "just the tip I promise" form of libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
I trust that they pull out in time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Your specific example of governmental failure could just as easily be used to justify disbanding the EPA as ineffectual as it could indict the idea of private property rights being used to justify enforcement of environmental protection. That would be like advocating for the permanent dismantling of a city's Police Department because they failed to adequately stop crime. No law is not better than weak law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Maybe you can become the champion of this new, moderate, "just the tip I promise" form of libertarianism. Hey, maybe. Is it less fun to beat up on self-identified libertarians who aren't TOTAL frothing zealots? Only mildly foamy enthusiasts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Cool. And private business will totally and voluntarily pay money to clean up after themselves because...? This guy is the small-l libertarian, so presumably he expects that when environmental regulations are repealed pollution will be dealt with by the victims filing class-action lawsuits against polluters. The problems with this that immediately occur to me are (A) Without a regulatory regime that inspects potential polluters for compliance with regulations and passively monitors air and water quality, pollution would only be discovered after it had already occurred and harmed people, probably very seriously and in enormous numbers; (B) Large corporations have dramatically more resources available to retain legal counsel, both for potential lawsuits and to craft preemptive defensive strategies such as shell companies, meaning that the victims will probably be at an insurmountable disadvantage in any litigation. e.g. lawsuits against tobacco companies by private plaintiffs almost invariably failed due to this disparity, and it was only after state governments took up the lawsuit that any progress was made. (C)There is also the issue that limited liability corporations could easily cause environmental damage massively in excess of their ability to cover losses, so they would simply declare bankruptcy and be purchased by another entity, as happened with the Elk River spill in West Virginia earlier this year. I suppose that the state could require them to carry enormous amounts of insurance, but if you're allowing that level of state intervention then why not just have an actual regulatory system? Additionally, as was pointed out up-thread, these insurance companies work hand-in-glove with government regulators to control their own liability, and without that they would likely be unable to operate. Also since we're deregulating everything, maybe we'll deregulate insurance as well, opening the possibility of an AIG-like collapse where an insurance company underwrites polluters willy-nilly and just goes bankrupt itself when a disaster actually occurs. The likely result to that would be all the executives at the polluting company and all the executives at the insurance company walking away with the money they accumulated in salaries from fraudulent behavior and negligence, while all their employees would lose their jobs and be destitute, as would the victims of the environmental disaster; (D) The historical reason that government assumed responsibility for environmental regulation was the complete failure of the free market to create and kind of solution, which had resulted in dramatic environmental degradation throughout the country. This is also leaving aside environmental crises that arise from a large number of sources, as in the example of motorists that was brought up recently. Let's say you're in a city that is severely afflicted by smog caused primarily by heavy traffic, and the government is barred from making regulations to protect the environment because it is properly the job of the free market. How does the free market deal with this problem? I imagine that eventually the city will be so unlivable that people will flee in droves until the economy collapses and the population declines, eliminating the source of the smog.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Except that it won't be. You're not winning a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar industry that would set a precedent for others to do the same. The "dumb" question was loaded for a reason. You're all snookered. The rich have you wrapped around their little fingers with their promises of free weed and no more war maaaaan. You think you'll be the ones to benefit when they finally get the "tyrannical" restraints of democracy off? Dream on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Hey, maybe. Is it less fun to beat up on self-identified libertarians who aren't TOTAL frothing zealots? Only mildly foamy enthusiasts? It's pointless because they eventually either go full Mises or become socialists
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:That would be like advocating for the permanent dismantling of a city's Police Department because they failed to adequately stop crime. No law is not better than weak law. Well, that's basically what you said. You pretty much said that since your case ended in failure, you had no hope of it working. I agreed that a suitable ability to enforce environmental protection was required.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:This guy is the small-l libertarian, so presumably he expects that when environmental regulations are repealed pollution will be dealt with by the victims filing class-action lawsuits against polluters. The problems with this that immediately occur to me are This is an excellent breakdown of the problem with expecting civil lawsuits and reactive private-property laws to somehow control pollution. Thank you for articulating what I was too lazy to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Except that it won't be. You're not winning a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar industry that would set a precedent for others to do the same. Are the objectives of ending drug nonsense and constant war somehow unobtainable without "unshackling" these rich tyrants? I think we could probably manage them regardless, so tying these fears together doesn't make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Well, that's basically what you said. You pretty much said that since your case ended in failure, you had no hope of it working. I agreed that a suitable ability to enforce environmental protection was required. No, you told me that private property laws would stop pollution. I told you that private property laws didn't do diddly squat to prevent it before, so there is no reason to expect them to suddenly do so now (now being your hypothetical deregulated market). What I advocate is stronger and stricter Environmental Regulation, not giving business carte blanche to just dump whatever and hope someone notices and then sues them ineffectually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Hey, maybe. Is it less fun to beat up on self-identified libertarians who aren't TOTAL frothing zealots? Only mildly foamy enthusiasts? So I am curious and I've yet to see you answer this. Why is some government intrusion, such as the armed forces or police or roads alright but things like medicare and social security must immediately be chopped and the budget balanced? Personally I suspect the reason is that you personally see benefits from police or roads but don't benefit from medicare or social security, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Which programs would you cut on your way to a small l libertopia and why? What is your position on the minimum wage, and how do you differ from JRodefeld on that matter. Why those programs and not others. Basically, what defines a 'good' government program in your books and what is 'bad'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Exercu posted:Wow, I remember your (relatively insane) posts from way back when you were a libertarian. This may be a bit of a derail, but what happened to convince you that libertarianism wasn't quite right? I'm an immigrant, and during 2013 and 2014, as debate over immigration reformed raged on in the US, I saw how extremely anti-immigrant the Republican Party was. It was so extreme I could only imagine intense racist fervor could inspire such zeal. I reluctantly switched over to being a single issue Democrat at first, but started to see everything from a more leftist viewpoint over time. Now I see the same racist fervor of the anti-immigrant right also underlying libertarian ideology. I realized libertarian dislike for welfare was actually driven by the fact that it was viewed as a transfer of wealth from rich whites to poor blacks. The people on Stormfront (the white supremacist forum) spouted the same nonsense conspiracy theories about the federal reserve system as the libertarians, but they colorfully included heavy anti-Semitic arguments that libertarians omitted. In short, I realized libertarianism was dog-whistle white supremacism. It's a racist ideology white-washed to remove references to race. Not being a libertarian anymore is a bit like leaving a religious cult, and seeing it from the outside perspective and realizing how much you were fooled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Could that be consider pre-emptive private property environmental enforcement? I don't think there's anything inherent to say that you must wait until a giant lovely mess has been made to do something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Why are dilletante libertarians so adamant that they are the only ones opposed to the drug war and the military industrial complex anyway? Oh right it's because libertarianism is literally their first foray into politics, and they don't know any better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:Personally I suspect the reason is that you personally see benefits from police or roads but don't benefit from medicare or social security, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'd suspect that most of the libertarian view comes down to this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:I'm an immigrant, and during 2013 and 2014, as debate over immigration reformed raged on in the US, I saw how extremely anti-immigrant the Republican Party was. It was so extreme I could only imagine intense racist fervor could inspire such zeal. I reluctantly switched over to being a single issue Democrat at first, but started to see everything from a more leftist viewpoint over time. Now I see the same racist fervor of the anti-immigrant right also underlying libertarian ideology. I realized libertarian dislike for welfare was actually driven by the fact that it was viewed as a transfer of wealth from rich whites to poor blacks. The people on Stormfront (the white supremacist forum) spout the same nonsense conspiracy theories about the federal reserve system as the libertarians, but they colorfully included heavy anti-Semitic arguments that libertarians omitted. Yeah, that is a really good way to put it LolitaSama. A lot of the posters here are former libertarians and I know the exact experience you're talking about, where you look back and go... "Did I really think that the minimum wage somehow decreased wages for the poor? How the gently caress does that even make any sense?" To say nothing of the fact that they have their own words and definition of words for everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Are the objectives of ending drug nonsense and constant war somehow unobtainable without "unshackling" these rich tyrants? I think we could probably manage them regardless, so tying these fears together doesn't make much sense. Not at all. You were saying that your reasoning for being a Libertarian was due to these issues. And the reason those issues are brought up by libertarians is to draw in people just like you. They don't really care about drugs or war. Hell, they can probably make a profit off of drugs, and they already profit off of war. They just can't go about lamenting those horrible regulations like OSHA, the Americans with Disabilities Act or the EPA without everyone just pointing at their obvious financial interests and laughing. You know, like we (and the majority of the U.S.) do now. Hell, even worse we have the "new breed" of Libertarian "thought", with the Tea Party types. They're even easier to manipulate than even the Drug Legalization and Anti-War folks. All you need to do is pepper whatever proposal you have with "Founding Fathers", "FREEDOM!", "9/11" and/or "AMERICA!", and they'll gleefully slash and burn what little benefit they gain from government in an orgy of jingoism. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why are dilettante libertarians so adamant that they are the only ones opposed to the drug war and the military industrial complex anyway? Oh right it's because libertarianism is literally their first foray into politics, and they don't know any better. I was going to comment on that, but figure this works just fine. quote:I'd suspect that most of the libertarian view comes down to this. Its a big part of the reason that I was a libertarian, that and selfish and slightly race based anger that I felt as a young man that I've thankfully been able to work through. Oh, and speaking of race based anger and LolitaSama's last post. AlternateAccount does it concern you at all that the demographics of the libertarian party in the USA has demographics that are 93% non-hispanic white, or that they are 63% male? Do you think it says something about a political movement and its message that it is almost universally adopted by whites and primarily men? I mean, I can go dig up the reason.com stuff from the last Jrod thread to show you how the Libertarian Party has deep roots in white supremacist causes if you'd like. Does that concern you at all or do you simply pretend that it doesn't exist? Edit: Not calling you a racist btw, I just want to know if you are aware of and/or worried about the fact that your party has a deep and recent history of racism. Caros fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Could that be consider pre-emptive private property environmental enforcement? I don't think there's anything inherent to say that you must wait until a giant lovely mess has been made to do something. Well, for starters, you cannot pre-emptively sue a company for dumping chemicals in a nebulous future. Secondly, you would require prescience in order to stop a company who plans on secretly pumping their chemical waste into a hole in the ground out back, among other obvious examples. You lack a regulatory body, and good luck arranging an impromptu inspection on private company property!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Could that be consider pre-emptive private property environmental enforcement? I don't think there's anything inherent to say that you must wait until a giant lovely mess has been made to do something. Like I said, one of the key roles of the regulatory body is prevention through site inspection and pollution monitoring. If you get rid of the regulatory body, how does anybody know that the pollution is occurring until it becomes obvious, usually in the form of a giant lovely mess? For example, the victims of the Bhopal disaster discovered the extent of the problem there when a cloud of toxic gas floated through the city, killing thousands and injuring hundreds of thousands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:51
|
|