BF2S Forums The 24 Types of Libertarians

RAIMIUS wrote:

True, it is difficult to have a hard agenda when your ideology goes along the lines of "Let the people decide for themselves!"

True, but maybe that message should be their focus. Instead, many of their candidates prattle on about completely random shit in a manner you could choose from any number of the above illustrations, only with a more out-of-this-world delivery.

In some instances, I feel like I'm reading a caller transcript from Art Bell rather than the voter's pamphlet.

Thats the thing about preference voting, its not just a two party system.

i think libertarians get laughed-at by other people of political-philosophical persuasion because it's a largely independent and individualist outlook.

the partisan cry-babies that lack the spine to have opinions and stances of their own like to thus pick on ones that form their own thought.

that's probably because a libertarian's social views are ethical and moral...

... whereas a libertarian's economic views are utopian.

how can you expect any political realism from an individualist school of thought upon collectivist matters?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Thats the thing about preference voting, its not just a two party system.

We can vote for other parties as well. That's the part those who scream "the US is only a two party system" seem to always forget.

Uzique wrote:

i think libertarians get laughed-at by other people of political-philosophical persuasion because it's a largely independent and individualist outlook.

the partisan cry-babies that lack the spine to have opinions and stances of their own like to thus pick on ones that form their own thought.

Or is it just a third set of off-the-shelf no-need-to-think-too-hard political standpoints?

The 'I shall be voting Rep/Dep/Lib because I am a Rep/Dem/Lib' thing is for numbskulls.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Quite honestly, they're both utopian. Most people, when faced with true personal freedom both socially and economically would break down, curl into a little ball, and be completely useless. As much as people might say otherwise, most people want their choices limited and their path laid out before them. It's very rare to find a man or woman completely willing to stand on their own two feet and face the world on their own. It's also exceedingly rare to find people who are capable leaders rather than sheep. Both the latter and the former must be the same person for libertarianism to actually take root.

Well, that's pretty naive as well.  Someone can appreciate the concepts of freedom in both realms of policy, but that appreciation has nothing to do with willpower or self-reliance.  Perception does not imply resolve.

By the same token, some people who lack the perception to appreciate certain freedoms may have a lot of resolve to be self-reliant.

In other words, not all libertarians are self-reliant strong people, and not all non-libertarians are weak.  Ideology is only a matter of perceptions and ethics -- not a matter of actions.

Other examples regard religion.  Someone can be a Christian but still live a lifestyle that contradicts their own declared morality, while a nonreligious person can live very similarly to a Christian without actually believing in the mythos behind said morals.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Things like the church's banishment of gays, its views on abortion etc are all designed to keep the human race from disappearing off the face of the planet. So while we can sit here and take the stand and say they are immoral laws because they discriminate and degrade our fellow man, the laws are in place simply to make sure our species doesn't die out. Now, I'm not taking up the banner of social conservatism here, I'm merely pointing out that a belief in social freedom is as utopian as a belief in completely unfettered free market economics.

On some issues, yes.  The War on Drugs is more understandable regarding highly addictive drugs like crystal meth.  It's not so understandable regarding marijuana.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The true difference between someone with my belief set and those at the opposite end of the spectrum is simply fear. Be not afraid.

Well, it's quite more than that regarding economics.  The general flaw in libertarian economics is that they don't recognize that the pitfalls of government are directly related to flaws in human nature -- which can be applied to the private sector equally as much.

Having a distrust of government is a healthy thing, but so is a distrust of big business.

The only way to have a feasible balance of policy that represents the interest of the common man is to have the government take somewhat of a vigilant stance in regulation.  This also requires holding officials accountable.

The problem is that we don't hold our officials accountable enough.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, it's quite more than that regarding economics.  The general flaw in libertarian economics is that they don't recognize that the pitfalls of government are directly related to flaws in human nature -- which can be applied to the private sector equally as much.

Having a distrust of government is a healthy thing, but so is a distrust of big business.

The only way to have a feasible balance of policy that represents the interest of the common man is to have the government take somewhat of a vigilant stance in regulation.  This also requires holding officials accountable.

The problem is that we don't hold our officials accountable enough.

While not every Libertarian is an Austrian, Austrian economics makes it clear that humans are imperfect, do not have infinite knowledge, and cannot peer into the future. This is precisely why they feel economies should not be centrally planned and regulated to the extent that they are. If someone could make perfect judgment on what our economy should be based on, down to a micromanaged level, with perfect knowledge of what is worthwhile to invest it while disregarding investments that would fail, that might make sense, but this is impossible.

There is no risk-free method of making poor investments, however, the free market is the only method that is practical and most efficient at "separating the chaff from the wheat" (borrowed from the Bible, but in a different context) so to speak. It would be magic if it were risk free, but like you said, humans are fallible. We can expect corrupt politicians and businessmen and they will never go away.

No, the market is just as prone to abuse as the government.  Without regulations in place, oligopolies develop, as do monopolies.

It's just as naive to assume that the market can clear everything as it is to assume that the government can fix everything.

A happy medium is required for stability.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Tell me all the terrible things that have happened because of "monopolies" in the free market. Your happy medium of a government puts in place anti-trust laws to break apart the companies of so-called "monopolies" to punish their excellent innovation and efficiency in order to protect less innovative and less efficient companies. So you and everyone else can go on and believe the market is a beneificial monster that must be tamed and regulated, lest more harm than good happen to us.

Anti-Trust, Anti-Truth (Mises)

So much for the American Dream when the government punishes hard work and excellence. And Turq, most libertarians would agree with the statement that the market is not perfect, no matter how highly they speak of it. I wouldn't confuse the two.

And Austrians (and Mises types in general) basically have capitalism as their religion.  I wouldn't try to convert you out of that way of thinking anymore than I would try to convert a Christian to atheism.

You have your belief system, and I understand that it is impervious to contradicting evidence.  I suppose this is where we must agree to disagree.

Phrozenbot wrote:

I'm not trying to convert you. I was attempting to to prove some of your false accusations wrong. A quick way to end a debate I suppose.

The Mises Institute's revisionist bullshit proves nothing other than the gullibility of those who believe in it.  Seriously, don't use a crap source, and I'll actually debate with you.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-19 21:54:30)

Market forces do not always produce the best outcomes.  Anyone who has studied public goods can see that.  The problem is, when do government subsidies go too far?  When does regulation reach the tipping point and lessen the total efficiency of the market?

Cybargs wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Market forces do not always produce the best outcomes.  Anyone who has studied public goods can see that.  The problem is, when do government subsidies go too far?  When does regulation reach the tipping point and lessen the total efficiency of the market?

Shit happens with the economy, natural business cycles and shit. But when there is less government intervention with the economy, it usually produces better outcomes.

To a point, yes.  However, goods with public value, like the military, edcuation, infrastructure, etc would not be fully funded by market interests alone.