Right-Libertarian perspective of the State.....

[RadioRaheem84]

Why do right libertarians think of the state as some abstract entity that functions as a means to "destroy" liberty?

For instance, the whole notion that if we mandate healthcare to be free then we'll open up the avenue for the a mandate on free cars, free televisions, free yachts, etc.

How do right libertarians make this vast jump from healthcare to cars, tvs? That would be a crazy slippery slope.

So what is their interpretation of the state or "government"? I really do not think they see it as a means in which is can be a tool for public power, rather they see it as something that is just in competition with the market, a regulator or something that should work in sync with it.

[Belleraphone]

Their philosophy is basically to allow people to do whatever they want as long as they don't use violence, direct theft, fraud in its conventional sense. The state only exists to protect private property and to carry out justice (crime.) The free market and competition will increase living standards and lower prices. Their interpretation of the government is that it gets in the way of things, even if it is well-meaning. Their aim is to reduce public power as much as possible. I wouldn't say they think it's in "competition." They just want it to stay out of economics all together.

[UnknownPerson]

I see where you're coming from, and I know what you mean.
The answer is simple - because they're stupid idiots.

[syndicat]

the rightwing socalled "liberarians" are not against the state in itself. what they are against is democracy. they have this idea that whatever you are able to suck down by hook or crook in the market is yours. this ignores the way that pure luck or social supports for your development of your abilities or others you work with affects your ability to make market gains. but that's what you get with an extreme individualist outlook.

what they want in regard to healthcare can be summed up by a sign at a Tea Party gathering: "Your health care. Your problem."

they are against democracy because it can be used to set up restraints on the predatory behavior of companies or market actors or can require contribution to the support of public goods. to the extent republican institutions allow the masses to force thru concessions, which include various systems of social supports for working class people or various restraints on business behavior, they are against this...because of the restraints of the power and income of better off market agents.

they are not against the state because they need the state to protect their property. but they don't want the state being forced to make concessions to the working class, for a bigger slice of the pie or restraints on business and property.

[Psy]

So what is their interpretation of the state or "government"? I really do not think they see it as a means in which is can be a tool for public power, rather they see it as something that is just in competition with the market, a regulator or something that should work in sync with it.
Their view is the state is a bureaucracy that just leaches profits out of the market as they refuse to admit the state is a very large consumer moping up surplus production.

They view of economics is totally fictional where they contradict themselves in the same talk. There was one talk where a libertarian was talking about public transit is just a waste of tax dollars and roads pay for themselves then later stated road budgets are greatly underfunded and the governments needs to pump billions more just to maintain current capacity (thus in his mind road for themselves yet the state needs to throw billions at to maintain free-markets as roads can't pay themselves).

[syndicat]

Their view is the state is a bureaucracy that just leaches profits out of the market as they refuse to admit the state is a very large consumer moping up surplus production.

They view of economics is totally fictional where they contradict themselves in the same talk. There was one talk where a libertarian was talking about public transit is just a waste of tax dollars and roads pay for themselves then later stated road budgets are greatly underfunded and the governments needs to pump billions more just to maintain current capacity (thus in his mind road for themselves yet the state needs to throw billions at to maintain free-markets as roads can't pay themselves).

there are some conservatives in the U.S. who support rail transit (such as Paul Weyrich). what it comes down to is that the pro-car, anti-development restraints right (the position of the right-libertarians) and the pro-transit, pro-smart growth right are supporting different factions of capitalist developers. there are factions that prefer to build out on the edges of cities where land is cheap and they can push infrastructure costs onto local governments versus the smart growth types who are shills for the developers who do in-fill development in cities where transit support is needed.

[Psy]

there are some conservatives in the U.S. who support rail transit (such as Paul Weyrich). what it comes down to is that the pro-car, anti-development restraints right (the position of the right-libertarians) and the pro-transit, pro-smart growth right are supporting different factions of capitalist developers. there are factions that prefer to build out on the edges of cities where land is cheap and they can push infrastructure costs onto local governments versus the smart growth types who are shills for the developers who do in-fill development in cities where transit support is needed.
The problem is roads don't pay themselves, yes the libertarians bring up user fees in gas taxes but leaving behind gas tax includes the gas not used by road traffic they go off how road capacity or not meeting demand meaning they need more money. They fail to see that the US after the 1970's started investing in public transit as a way to off set ballooning road expenses or rather ignore it.

[syndicat]

The problem is roads don't pay themselves, yes the libertarians bring up user fees in gas taxes but leaving behind gas tax includes the gas not used by road traffic they go off how road capacity or not meeting demand meaning they need more money. They fail to see that the US after the 1970's started investing in public transit as a way to off set ballooning road expenses or rather ignore it.

yeah, well, as usual you ignore the fact this is capitalism. the capitalists will try to use the state to help them make profits.

the tax system in the USA has become ever more regressive, so why would the plutocrats care if the working & middle classes have to support roads with their taxes? the sections of capital in the USA that benefit from the auto-road dependency are very powerful -- auto manufacturers, tire manufacturers, gasoline refiners, developers who do greenfield suburban developments, big box retail chains like Wal-Mart.

this is an example of how the right-libertarians are not against the state as such. they're just against those parts of the state that are more useful to the working class -- health care, Social Security, public transit etc.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The problem is roads don't pay themselves, yes the libertarians bring up user fees in gas taxes but leaving behind gas tax includes the gas not used by road traffic they go off how road capacity or not meeting demand meaning they need more money. They fail to see that the US after the 1970's started investing in public transit as a way to off set ballooning road expenses or rather ignore it.

There are several of those right-wing types that advocated total road system being turned into premium toll roads (there's one of those scum that run a blog called tollroadsnews or something); although the more prevalent scheme is these days to have government partially fund a roadway and then basically give a concession for toll income for an absurd amount of time (99+ years); the purpose of this is mostly to assure a positive flow for the owning company to extract value from increased property value (which in turn is increased by their own prospective & future toll income) on the property and speculate this on the stock market). Some of the propertarians even go as far as to say that there need to be a massive reduction in infrastructure (a good example of this insane type is the vile despicable scum you can find on youtube with the confusing name "confederalsocialist"), as well as plenty of those propertarians that are of the perception that government road expenditure was unfair competition with the early 1900's private railways and seek to return to the late 1800's type of railway industry; those however also fail to recognise the important role that the state in many countries played in establishing private and state railways even as early as the 1850's.

[Psy]

yeah, well, as usual you ignore the fact this is capitalism. the capitalists will try to use the state to help them make profits.

the tax system in the USA has become ever more regressive, so why would the plutocrats care if the working & middle classes have to support roads with their taxes? the sections of capital in the USA that benefit from the auto-road dependency are very powerful -- auto manufacturers, tire manufacturers, gasoline refiners, developers who do greenfield suburban developments, big box retail chains like Wal-Mart.

this is an example of how the right-libertarians are not against the state as such. they're just against those parts of the state that are more useful to the working class -- health care, Social Security, public transit etc.
Right but when you argument is "The public sector can't do anything right" followed by "Give more to this particular public sector" that is called a contradiction, same with "Roads pay for themselves" followed by "Roads are totally underfunded and we need to raise taxes to pay for them"

[syndicat]

Right but when you argument is "The public sector can't do anything right" followed by "Give more to this particular public sector" that is called a contradiction, same with "Roads pay for themselves" followed by "Roads are totally underfunded and we need to raise taxes to pay for them"

but they argue that their solution is more efficient and that rubber tired transport allows for more entrepreneurial initiatives...van pools, small truck and transit outfits, jitneys etc.

[Red Commissar]

Well, personally I always view them as "lolbertarians", or at least the types that seem to have come out of the woodworks in the past few years. There is little consistency in their political arguments which amount to little more than politics of fear in their substance.

[Psy]

but they argue that their solution is more efficient and that rubber tired transport allows for more entrepreneurial initiatives...van pools, small truck and transit outfits, jitneys etc.
Yet that depends on gas the tax paying 100% of the cost of roads, when they point out that roads are underfund and needs more subsidies it debunks their own argument.

[syndicat]

Yet that depends on gas the tax paying 100% of the cost of roads, when they point out that roads are underfund and needs more subsidies it debunks their own argument.

why? they claim there is more total want satisfaction and entrepreneurial freedom with a road oriented approach.

[jake williams]

"Right libertarianism" is really sort of two ideologies.

First and foremost, and I think this is the key point, it's the ideology of the petty bourgeoisie - that part of the bourgeoisie which does not control the state, which benefits relatively little and in many cases even faces destruction at the hands of the state of more powerful parts of the bourgeoisie, and which at any rate has a very low level of class and political consciousness, and is given no opportunity to acquire a healthy respect for the necessity of state power to the maintenance of capitalism. It is in fact possible within capitalism to own a "small" or even a "medium" sized business without at any point acquiring anything other than a narrow understanding of the political conditions affecting one's own business.

Secondly, while the sophisticated, class-conscious vanguard of the bourgeoisie does recognize the necessity of state power, they're also very good at lying. Right-libertarianism, if carefully controlled, is an extremely effective weapon for all kinds of things - regulations which hurt big businesses, regulations which hurt favoured small businesses, welfare programs, taxes, and others. Containing as it does populist appeals both to small business and in fact workers, both of which are clearly and demonstrably oppressed by the bourgeois state, and both of which are aware of it, it contains a substantial allure. Now, the problem of control is a key one. I think it's quite clear in the US right now that the politically conscious big bourgeoisie is very concerned about the Tea Party and the more populist, petty-bourgeois (or simply petty), anti-bourgeois-state elements which surround it. Whether or not this dominant faction of the bourgeoisie will be able to maintain a dominant position within the right-libertarian movement is, I think, an open question, and a key one in contemporary American politics.

[Psy]

why? they claim there is more total want satisfaction and entrepreneurial freedom with a road oriented approach.
No their claim is roads pay their own way through user fees, their argument is the public transit takes money from tax payers for the same service they get for free from roads. Yet to admit roads are underfunded contradict that roads pay their own way as they are admitting they would need to double the gas tax in the USA just to maintain the same road capacity and that is with 100% of the gas tax going to roads.

[syndicat]

Secondly, while the sophisticated, class-conscious vanguard of the bourgeoisie does recognize the necessity of state power, they're also very good at lying. Right-libertarianism, if carefully controlled, is an extremely effective weapon for all kinds of things - regulations which hurt big businesses, regulations which hurt favoured small businesses, welfare programs, taxes, and others. Containing as it does populist appeals both to small business and in fact workers, both of which are clearly and demonstrably oppressed by the bourgeois state, and both of which are aware of it, it contains a substantial allure. Now, the problem of control is a key one. I think it's quite clear in the US right now that the politically conscious big bourgeoisie is very concerned about the Tea Party and the more populist, petty-bourgeois (or simply petty), anti-bourgeois-state elements which surround it. Whether or not this dominant faction of the bourgeoisie will be able to maintain a dominant position within the right-libertarian movement is, I think, an open question, and a key one in contemporary American politics.

at present they certainly do so thru their various think tanks that are heavily funded by billionaires...Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Heritage Foundation and so on.

[syndicat]

No their claim is roads pay their own way through user fees, their argument is the public transit takes money from tax payers for the same service they get for free from roads.

there is a popular argument of that sort spouted by some right libertarians...the more ignorant types. but the more sophisticated ones know that roads are not entirely funded from user fees. a large part of federal spending on transportation goes to roads for one thing.

but they still argue for rubber tired transport for the reasons i cited. also, they want increased user fee funding thru things like toll roads.

[Psy]

there is a popular argument of that sort spouted by some right libertarians...the more ignorant types. but the more sophisticated ones know that roads are not entirely funded from user fees. a large part of federal spending on transportation goes to roads for one thing.

but they still argue for rubber tired transport for the reasons i cited. also, they want increased user fee funding thru things like toll roads.
The CATO institute acts like Randal O'Tool knows what he is talking about.