Libertarianism-The Unwitting Ally of Tyranny

[Matt W]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 Nothing. The market in Somalia was free from any regulation.

And this made Somalia 'fine' how? I'm curious.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Most people don't want to have to eat the cookies to determine if they are drug laced

No, I would say that all people don't want to have to eat them to determine that.


And, of course, the government isn't required to determine that without eating them.

most people realize that the Chesapeake Bay is not really anyone's private property

Right now it's not.


It certainly could be, though.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: Matt W And this made Somalia 'fine' how? I'm curious.

Somalia didn't "spiral out of control so quickly that it wouldn't have time to make the poor rich" simply from lack of regulation on its market.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 No, I would say that all people don't want to have to eat them to determine that. And, of course, the government isn't required to determine that without eating them. Right now it's not. It certainly could be, though.

Are you suggesting that we all purchase equipment capable of tox-screens for our personal food supply so that we can make informed choices of what food to purchase, not to mention having equipment to screen for biological agents that might be dangerous? Or do we all just have to grow our own to be safe? But then, what about the fertilizer? Have our own cows to make that, too? But, again, this exercise is silly. Unless you post a detailed explaination of how these issues can be practically handled under your system, I'm not going to respond any more.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Nigh Eve If everyone follows the rules then no, you're wrong.

And there lies the problem, many people don't follow the rules if they believe that they can profit by bending or breaking them. It is my belief that if government intervention in buisness were to come to an end price fixing and monopolies would become common place. maybe I am wrong, but until we have a state whose government ceases interventionist policy I guess we will never know.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Are you suggesting that we all purchase equipment capable of tox-screens for our personal food supply so that we can make informed choices of what food to purchase, not to mention having equipment to screen for biological agents that might be dangerous?

No, none of that would be necessary.

Or do we all just have to grow our own to be safe?

No, of course not.

how these issues can be practically handled under your system

Exactly like they are now, except without the government running the show.

[lsbskins1]

So, you are suggesting that the regularory agencies should be privatized? The EPA would be a for profit organization, as would the FCC, the FAA, the courts and the police and fire departments? If you don't like the verdict in K-Court, you then go to Wal-Court? Fire Departments -R- Us buys too few fire engines, you contract with The Water Boys? I said you need to explain how this will work, not give pithy responses that mean nothing. How does it WORK? How do you achieve any accountability? If there are laws, you have to have people enforcing them who are independant. Say I choose to contract for my police services with Blue Beat Enterprises and it ends up that the person who is having the wild party that is disturbing the peace is a "better" customer, owns 3 houses and 2 very large businesses in the same "jurisdiction". What keeps Blue Beat from making a bottom line calculation and choosing to ignore the violation so that it's shareholders can maximize returns on their investment? What will keep that from happening? Explain how it will be better for me to introduce those kind of calculations into the justice system? Or into the business of protecting the enviroment? Or the business of Airline regulation and safety. Explain it, don't dodge it.

[Nigh Eve]

Quote by: lsbskins1 If everyone followed the rules, communism would work. Cause the rules of communism say that each will work according to their ability and each will take according to their need. The problem is, people tend to want more than they need and work as little as they can get away with. When those people move themselves into the power stucture, they have to force others to take up their slack, when they stay in the masses, they create a situation where productivity is lost. It is precisely because a significant portion of any population WILL NOT follow the rules that both pure communist systems and pure free-markets fail.

But that's my point. It is so with EVERY form of government. The argument is thus ineffective against libertarianism.

Quote by: Chris the Chees And there lies the problem, many people don't follow the rules if they believe that they can profit by bending or breaking them. It is my belief that if government intervention in buisness were to come to an end price fixing and monopolies would become common place. maybe I am wrong, but until we have a state whose government ceases interventionist policy I guess we will never know.

A monopoly on food, I suppose, is possible and could be used as control. Would that be unlawful in a libertarian state? I'm not libertarian myself.

But this would lead to no gain. Control cannot be had within the laws of such a state. 1) It would lead to a revolt in the worst of situations. 2) They would simply be losing their money if pushed too far. And unless they had all land bought up food can be found or made elsewhere. Even in gardens and backyards.

This is one benefit of not depending on others. Life sources are not restricted.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Nigh Eve But that's my point. It is so with EVERY form of government. The argument is thus ineffective against libertarianism.

If you are claiming that it will work "because" people will follow the rules, it is very effective. It is doubly effective because that is the heart of the libertarian philosophy, that people and markets will self regulate. You seem to be circling back on your own point, even if it is simply a "devils advocate" position.

[Chris the Chees]

A monopoly on food, I suppose, is possible and could be used as control.

Its not about control but money. The gap between rich and poor would become vastly larger, not just because the rich would get richer but because the poor would be poorer because commidities would be more expensive and wages reduced.

But that's my point. It is so with EVERY form of government. The argument is thus ineffective against libertarianism.

To an extent, yes. But some forms of government are more stable than others and are far less reliant upon people following the rules because there are safeguards in place (the police and government intervention) which make breaking the rules either a risky or unwise thing to do. Libertarianism has no such intervention and no way to stop people breaking the 'rules'.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: lsbskins1 How does it WORK?

If a quantity of a good or service is demanded, that quantity will be supplied for a price corresponding to the laws of supply and demand.


Fairly simply, really.

[Chris the Chees]

Exactly like they are now, except without the government running the show.

So who does regulate and inspect, say food, in order to ensure that companies are not cutting corners to reduce operating costs but as a side effect increasing the risk of food poisoning? From what I can gather you are suggesting that they regulate them selves, an obvious recipe for disaster.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 If a quantity of a good or service is demanded, that quantity will be supplied for a price corresponding to the laws of supply and demand. Fairly simply, really.

The laws of supply and demand do NOT address the issues of public health and safety. Another pithy non-response. One more chance to address the actual issue. I will not respond if you can not address how, specifically, private industry, whose focus is profit and not public protection, will EFFECTIVELY protect my non-commercial interests.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: Chris the Chees So who does regulate and inspect, say food, in order to ensure that companies are not cutting corners to reduce operating costs but as a side effect increasing the risk of food poisoning?

The market will only supply quantity that is demanded.


IE, there will only be an inspection done if such a thing is demanded.



Consumers can certainly demand such a thing, but they're going to have to pay for it.




Perhaps, at the grocery store there would be a section with only food that has gone to an inspection company and passed their tests and then another section with only food that has not gone to any inspection company.


Sort've like now there's an organic section and a non organic section.




It would be up to you as the consumer to buy what you wanted.






But that's just one possible scenario that I came up with right now off the top of my head.


There's an unlimited number of ways things could happen.







But the bottom line is this:

the market will only supply quantity that is demanded.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: lsbskins1 how, specifically, private industry, whose focus is profit and not public protection, will EFFECTIVELY protect my non-commercial interests.

If you want something done to your definition of effective, you're going to have to pay for it yourself.



If you have the money, the service will be supplied.

[Nigh Eve]

Quote by: Isbskins1 If you are claiming that it will work "because" people will follow the rules, it is very effective. It is doubly effective because that is the heart of the libertarian philosophy, that people and markets will self regulate. You seem to be circling back on your own point, even if it is simply a "devils advocate" position.

I claim Libertarianism not working because of susceptibility to corruption and thus it turns into Tyranny is false. It's not about care-bear politics. It will work exactly as it's meant to work as long as no one attempts a coup or votes for it which is the only possible way to gain Tyranny. Why would libertarians give up their freedoms to Tyranny in the first place? Tyranny was a stretch and every government is susceptible to it. Libertarian gov'ts may seem an easy target but your talking about an overthrow nonetheless.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Its not about control but money. The gap between rich and poor would become vastly larger, not just because the rich would get richer but because the poor would be poorer because commidities would be more expensive and wages reduced.

And they're supposed to aid these poor people why? They should be looking after themselves as per the libertarians. I don't think people yet realize the fact that populations have the power. They CAN control commerce and politics. If these monopolies are only on material wealth then why does it matter? If it's on something more vital, people have the ability to handle that on their own. There's no way around this. Commerce aids life, it doesn't define life. And if people can't survive without these things monopolized then they obviously can't live.

Quote by: Chris the Chees To an extent, yes. But some forms of government are more stable than others and are far less reliant upon people following the rules because there are safeguards in place (the police and government intervention) which make breaking the rules either a risky or unwise thing to do. Libertarianism has no such intervention and no way to stop people breaking the 'rules'.

So there are no defence systems in a libertarian gov't? No police to protect the basic rights? No military to protect against outside invasion and inside revolt? I would say that there is and that's all that matters. Why should there be anything else?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SDBest Libertarianism-The Unwitting Ally of Tyranny

To the original question, I offer this analogy.


Athoritarianism-The Unwitting Ally of Liberty


I figured I would would have to completely turn it in on itself for you to understand just how absurd the original premise seems to some of us. ( Lord knows I'm having trouble coming up with an anaology of my own that was equally preposterous. )

[Osborn F Enready]

Libertarianism and Tyranny are like oil and water...... they don't mix.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Libertarianism and Tyranny are like oil and water...... they don't mix.

The problem with Libertarianism is that as individuals or companies become more powerful, those with less power are subject to greater exploitation and abuse. Also as individuals or groups of individuals become more powerful, it is easier for them to crush opposition and acquire more power. It's easier for a rich man to make a million than a poor man.

Under Libertarian philosophy it would be wrong to prevent the acquisition of economic power through money, land, or economic influence. The government's role in the Libertarian view would be not to prevent the powerful from exploiting the less powerful unfairly but rather to make sure that the powerful were not restrained. That the less powerful were not restrained too is, in a practical sense, quaint because being free and having no power is no different than not being free.

As the powerful become more powerful, and as they oppress the less powerful (with full government protection) an oligarchy or monopoly is created which would have no interest in doing anything other than exploiting the less powerful. Wherever we see no constraints on the powerful, this is the course societies take. Much of Latin America exhibited the effect of Libertarianism leading to tyranny.

The huge error in Libertarian philosophy is that as long as an individual is free he or she can compete with the powerful. All they have to do is make the choice to do so. This is pure nonsense. If a weak person takes on the powerful, he or she will surely lose. The fact that a few from time to time may succeed doesn't alter the general fact. By way of analogy, the fact that some people win and a few win big doesn't alter the reality that Las Vegas was built on losers.

The rich get richer and the poor poorer because, in part, of the libertarian nonsense that the powerful sell to the weak to make them believe that their lack of success is their fault. The tragedy is that so many well-meaning fools buy this self-harming silliness.

Regards
S.

[lsbskins1]

Libertarians would give up their freedom to tyranny because tyranny would take their freedom. They would give up their freedom because they surrender the one power that ensures they have any at all. That power is to thwart concentrated power through shared regulatory power. A democratic electorate is not fullproof against corruption and must constantly struggle and find ways to counteract the power of big business, but it is the only effective counterballance to the tyranny.