Can someone succinctly explain to me Libertarianism?

[presence]

Thanks for the reply.

Re what is in bold: See this is what I have trouble understanding. If we were to theoretically break up into 'nation states' what would prevent the wealthier, hi-tech, better armed states from conquering their neighbors?

Well armed populous.

 

[pessimist]

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of zero regulations. That seems to me like it would lead to a corporate dystopia.

(I am economically illiterate)

 

[presence]

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of zero regulations. That seems to me like it would lead to a corporate dystopia.

(I am economically illiterate)

Perhaps what we should do then is create thousands of regulations and have corporate lobbists write them.

 

[RJB]

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of zero regulations. That seems to me like it would lead to a corporate dystopia.

(I am economically illiterate)

Who do you think lobbies for these regulation that put the little guy out of business?

 

[pessimist]

Perhaps what we should do then is create thousands of regulations and have corporate lobbists write them.

Yeah, I realize that corporations and government are engaged but they're not married yet. I'm afraid they'll get married, divorce, and one will walk away with all the money.

 

[HVACTech]

This goes here.



Sing it...say it...

methinks, thou art just playin nice..

 

[pessimist]

Who do you think lobbies for these regulation that put the little guy out of business?

But wouldn't they put them out of business if there was no government oversight anyway? The big guys would crush the little guys without restraint.

 

[presence]

Yeah, I realize that corporations and government are engaged but they're not married yet. I'm afraid they'll get married, divorce, and one will walk away with all the money.

Hence: Reduce scale and authority of the state => Reduce power of special interest lobby => Prosperous Middle Class

 

[presence]

But wouldn't they put them out of business if there was no government oversight anyway? The big guys would crush the little guys without restraint.

In practice... you'll find the restraint is all on the little guy. Have you ever attempted to start a small business?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of zero regulations. That seems to me like it would lead to a corporate dystopia.

(I am economically illiterate)

OK, so if you are economically illiterate, why on earth would you dare to suggest that you think its OK to forcibly regulate other people?

I'm not the best at economics either. Better than some, but not great. But that's OK for me, because I don't advocate regulating other people.

If you do advocate such, you had DARN WELL better know why.

I hope that doesn't come across as too harsh, but its something that needs to be understood.

 

[acptulsa]

Thanks for the reply.

Re what is in bold: See this is what I have trouble understanding. If we were to theoretically break up into 'nation states' what would prevent the wealthier, hi-tech, better armed states from conquering their neighbors?

That Constitution you refuse to read. Only the ancaps want to eliminate the federal government, and they want to get rid of all governments. Most of us are constitutionalists, and we believe in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Because competition between the states will keep them from individually becoming tyrannies. Because Europe was a nicer place before the EU. Because the Original Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, was right...

"I do verily believe that..a single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson

And because if your local fire department is run by the federal government, and it isn't performing well, you have to convince some odd twenty million voters that your fire department is more important than gay marriage, abortion and their own fire departments combined. And if you don't, improvements do not get made.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of zero regulations. That seems to me like it would lead to a corporate dystopia.

(I am economically illiterate)

You don't have to be economically literate to understand that you can't sue a corporation for damages for dumping lead in your back yard if they're dumping it there in compliance with EPA regulations. You don't have to be economically literate to understand that if regulations are so thick on the ground that it takes five CPAs and three lawyers to remain in compliance, Wal Mart won't mind a bit but the Cherry Street Bead and Candle Shop will never survive. You don't have to be economically literate to understand that just as soon as the federal government, in the mid 1970s, began insisting that cars become lighter (fuel economy CAFE ratings) and heavier (safety regs) at the same time, and less efficient (oxide of nitrogen restrictions) and more efficient (CAFE again) at the same time, Rambler went out of business, Chrysler nearly did, and the hope of anyone like a John Z Delorean popping up and showing Detroit how it's done became close to zero.

Do you?

Yeah, I realize that corporations and government are engaged but they're not married yet. I'm afraid they'll get married, divorce, and one will walk away with all the money.

Corporations can't steal without monopoly power, and that comes from government. Congress can't raise its own salaries to the stratosphere without getting fired, but it can remove all the restrictions on corporations giving them brib--er, I mean campaign contributions.

But wouldn't they put them out of business if there was no government oversight anyway? The big guys would crush the little guys without restraint.

Corporations are not nimble. They have economies of scale, but until government made it impossible for small business to comply and compete, they could run circles around the giants just like Jeeps can run circles around tanks. Competition has ways that government cannot duplicate. And then there's this:

'What does the experience of the railroads tell us about the American way of competition and regulation? Obviously it suggests that the usual time lag between policy and reality has grown steadily worse over the years. Regulatory policy, like old generals, seems doomed always to fight the last war, partly because in our system it takes so long to recognize new problems and then to build a concensus for change. At bottom regulation involves a quest for some viable equation reconciling economic efficiency, social justice, and political acceptability. The more complex regulatory mechanisms become, the more difficult it is to adjust them or get rid of them when necessary, let alone tie them to these objectives.

'Since the pace of change wrought by new technology continues to gain speed, the gap between policy and reality widens daily despite all efforts to close it. In the modern world policy cannot possibly keep pace with change of all kinds.'

And, at the end of the day, people can micromanage their own individual affairs better than a bunch of psychos in far-off and far out Washington can. Period.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

History has answered that question. Only those who are so infatuated with their own arrogance remain in denial about their inability to micromanage the lives of others--or the necessity of it.

 

[HVACTech]

Yeah, I realize that corporations and government are engaged but they're not married yet. I'm afraid they'll get married, divorce, and one will walk away with all the money.

that happened in 08.

get with the program.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I think that pessimist is just another one of eduardo's accounts.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Well, you can start here.

The Philosophy of Liberty (video)

 

[bolil]

I find some of the rhetoric appealing; individual liberty, freedom, yada yada. However, I've never really had it explained to me in plain English on what it actually is? "Just read the Constitution" is kind of lame to me. I mean, why should I care what a bunch of slave-owning misogynists with powder wigs had to say in an era that was radically different from the one we live in today? Isn't the Constitution interpreted in different ways and manipulated by cunning lawyers in business suits on a daily basis? Why the obsession with the Constitution? Is it even being followed anymore?

Anyway, I get the impression some of you folks want to take us back into the hunter-gatherer days. I'm not really into the whole 'tribal' thing, so that isn't cool to me. I'm a futurist who loves technology. I believe in safety nets, I'm not a fan of war, and I find the masses to be incompetent. I have a little bit of the 'nanny' state in me.

However, I am open-minded and I'm willing to listen. Anyone up to educating me on the philosophy of the movement? Is it simply "mind your own business" or does it go a bit deeper?

Please don't tell me to read the Constitution

Yeah, that whole tribal thing... what do you call nationalism? As far as safety nets, don't you think they would be more formidable if more than half their strands were not in the business of blowing shit up? You are the masses, pal. Go read the Bill of Rights and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Libertarianism: You own you, I own me. I have no right to you, you have no right to me.

As far as the nation state argument: The richer people who would wage war rely on poor people fighting them, without the phantom of "patriotism" there wouldn't be armies with which to attack. Also, the state as we know it is so incredibly powerful because if takes value from EVERYONE in the form of taxes. Without this crowd funding war is no longer profitable. Think about it, how long could Walmart wage war before the company went completely broke? Why would Walmart engage in a course of action that would result in their destruction? There would still be conflict, no doubt, but the loss of life and property would pale in comparison to what we see today in our... errr... non tribal nation state based world.

 

[otherone]

I find some of the rhetoric appealing; individual liberty, freedom, yada yada. However, I've never really had it explained to me in plain English on what it actually is?

For me it's very simple.
One is either an Individualist or a Collectivist.
Ask yourself two questions:
Do I, as an individual possess Rights?
Who determines what those Rights are?

 

[Shane Harris]

The basics are simple. However to answer your way through the deep rabbit hole of theory, succinct principles must be expounded upon and a basic understanding of free market economics is necessary.

The basic Principles/Axioms:

"The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another." - Murray Rothbard, 'War, Peace, and the State' (essay) http://mises.org/rothbard/warpeace.asp

Understanding the State:

"...We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the "organization of the political means"; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.[4] For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.[5] Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.[6] One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern "Ruritania," a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself "King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania"; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the "family of nations," and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm." - Murray Rothbard, 'Anatomy of the State' (essay) http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp



The Free Market:











'What Libertarianism Is' - Stephan Kinsella
http://mises.org/daily/3660

Great books on the subject:

A Bibliography on Libertarian Anarchy, assembled by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/12/hans-hermann-hoppe/anarcho-capitalism-2/

 

[acptulsa]

...and I find the masses to be incompetent. I have a little bit of the 'nanny' state in me.

Generally the difference between a liberal and a libertarian is, a liberal is arrogant enough to think the masses are incompetent at everything and think the thing through just enough to assume that their lives should be micromismanaged for them. A libertarian is both generous enough and selfish enough to be willing to give liberty if they get it in return, and thinks the thing through far enough to realize it would be stupid to let the incompetent masses micromismanage his life.

 

[Cleaner44]

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of zero regulations. That seems to me like it would lead to a corporate dystopia.

(I am economically illiterate)

Yeah, I realize that corporations and government are engaged but they're not married yet. I'm afraid they'll get married, divorce, and one will walk away with all the money.

But wouldn't they put them out of business if there was no government oversight anyway? The big guys would crush the little guys without restraint.

This is one of the most frustrating things to me with those of a liberal pursuasion. If you recognize that the corporations are in bed with the government, why would you want to strengthen that relationship? You need to realize that regulations and the regulators don't restrain corporations, but in fact restrain compotition and give the advantage to the corporations that are in bed with the government regulators.

The federal government and the regulators work to reduce compotition and increase monopolies.

The federal government and the regulators do not work to protect the consumers from big bad evil corporations as you seem to hope that they do.

Do you need proof of this?

 

[acptulsa]

This is one of the most frustrating things to me with those of a liberal pursuasion. If you recognize that the corporations are in bed with the government, why would you want to strengthen that relationship?

Because all you have to do is put the right guy in charge. You know, the guy they thought Obama was, but he wasn't. The guy we had for three years before the CIA shot him and blamed it on Lee Harvey Oswald. You know. That guy.

And if you let them make our lives a living hell for another thousand years, they might find him, too.