im wondering

[Marcelina24]

im always trying to learn new things, and im quite young. but i really like politics and everything. i lean towards communism over many other political stances.

i was wondering what a libertarian is or stands for

(stupid question probly)

[John Galt]

Small government and capitalism.

The freedom to err.

[Y2A]

Laissez-faire capitalists.

[Nobody]

Libertarians, in America at least, tend to be strict constitutionalists. If the constitution does not overtly state that the government is given the right to do something, be it healthcare, roads or the fire department, the responsibility is in the hands of the citizenry. And as Y2A stated that means venture capitalists provide services that the government would normally provide. House on fire? That's two hundred dollars please.

This whole concept was driven on mainly because of government waste ($200 toilet sears anyone). The idea is if I want to make a buck I can provide better fire protection better and cheaper because I have an incentive to do so. If I don't get to your house quickly some other fire company (in the truest sense of the word) will get there first, or other fire company will advertise lower prices so I get to the scene only to be told to get lost, they want the discount fire fighters.

If you're wondering what responsibilities the government would have you would be looking at negotiations with other countries, levying tariffs on goods, providing for an army and providing a court system.

[Y2A]

The problem with it is that it inevitibly self destructs because unregulated trade leads to monopolies since the government is unable to get involved and breakdown corporations that have no competition.

[Nobody]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:34 PM
The problem with it is that it inevitibly self destructs because unregulated trade leads to monopolies since the government is unable to get involved and breakdown corporations that have no competition.
Y2A, I am not a libertarian per say… however a libertarian government would be nice, because as you say it would melt down within a decade, maybe even lead to a revolution!

On a more humorous note I heard that Jesse Ventura, governor of Minnesota (I think) will be their Presidential candidate in 2008.

[Y2A]

I like the social aspect of American Libertarians. Such as no borders and legalization of drugs. However there economic outlook seems quite irrational to me.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:51 PM
I like the social aspect of American Libertarians. Such as no borders and legalization of drugs. However there economic outlook seems quite irrational to me.
There's nothing wrong with the economic outlook. The can economy run itself without the governments help.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:51 PM
I like the social aspect of American Libertarians. Such as no borders and legalization of drugs. However there economic outlook seems quite irrational to me.
I agree, remember their policy on roads?

[Capitalist Imperial]

What is their policy on roads?

[lucid]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 05:25 PM
What is their policy on roads?

We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads, and the national highway system.

I don't see whats so funny about that. Government agencies are always poorly ran and hardly effective. Why pay some government employee some rediculous wage to sit there and spin the stop/slow sign while sucking on a cigarette.

[Marcelina24]

thank you everyone!

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 27 2004, 03:38 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 27 2004, 03:38 PM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 10:51 PM
I like the social aspect of American Libertarians. Such as no borders and legalization of drugs. However there economic outlook seems quite irrational to me.
There's nothing wrong with the economic outlook. The can economy run itself without the governments help. [/b]
The thing that I like about capitalism is competition. Once corporations monopolize it destroys the purpose of capitalism, and that is what libertarianism inevitibly creates. That is why I am against it.

[Bradyman]

Government agencies are always poorly ran and hardly effective. Why pay some government employee some rediculous wage to sit there and spin the stop/slow sign while sucking on a cigarette.

Do you not vote? The incentive for efficency in a government agency is not money, but rather, not getting voted out. If someone is not doing anything then we'll have to kick them out of there.

Do you honestly believe that businesses are efficent? I know that I've done jack crap when I was supposed to be working. And if you've ever worked you've probably done the same.

Competing businesses create a much larger bureacracy than governments. Take a look at the New York skyline or the LA skyline, do you see all those buildings? All those offices with all those computers, each trying to coordinate things here and there, trying to make sure nothing gets lost. It's like thousands of smaller governments each with their own bureacracy. I would say that's not too efficent.

[Y2A]

That's a lie. Businesses have historically been more efficent then government agencies. That is a fact. But the thing is that some things can not be left up to investors to support such as police, firemen, etc... things that need to be available to the entire public. What makes me laugh about these republicans is that they claim to be all patriotic and "support nyc firefighters" but when it comes down to it aren't willing to pay the figefighters to save on taxes.

[Bradyman]

hat's a lie. Businesses have historically been more efficent then government agencies.

Historically? I think that you'll find that during times of crisises, government seems to take the upper hand in efficency.

[Y2A]

That's because it's not a planned economy.

[Guest1]

Maybe the disagreement stems from the fact that we have different definitions of "efficiency".

For you it may be, cost-effectiveness. For us, it may be the most good for the most people. With the least catering to the rich and the most following the will of the people.

Not that it matters, cause in the end, neither one should do it.

[Y2A]

Yes, I'm evil and am refering to benifiting the rich and not lower inflation. You are indeed correct and I commend you on acknowledging my profound "evilness".

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:26 PM
Yes, I'm evil and am refering to benifiting the rich and not lower inflation. You are indeed correct and I commend you on acknowledging my profound "evilness".
Bah, don&#39;t get your panties in a twist. I didn&#39;t say that. <_<

Besides, haven&#39;t alot of countries proven that government spending doesn&#39;t hurt the economy?

Canada? Your very own US with the new deal?

[Y2A]

I never said that government spending hurts the economy. I said that since it is inefficent that is should only be used for things that matter, such as schools, police, firemen, and possibly.......dare I say.....healthcare?

[Y2A]

The problem is that government agencies are indeed inefficent but they do make services available to the complete public even if they are poor. But if you use this concept on every aspect of industry it will be a complete failure and lead to a struggling economy and huge inflation rates.

In other words I am simply saying that there must be a balance of power. Complete privatization only leads to rich benifiting, but complete socialization only leads to inefficentcy and inflation, and nobody wins. So some things should be socialized to a certain degree and other things should remain privatized.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:33 PM
I never said that government spending hurts the economy. I said that since it is inefficent that is should only be used for things that matter, such as schools, police, firemen, and possibly.......dare I say.....healthcare?
Glad you say healthcare.

I personally don&#39;t disagree with you much, government is inefficient when it comes to things beyond that.

However, I don&#39;t believe either corporation or government should run anything :D

[Y2A]

Anarchism is not yet possible nor is communism because it is impossible to satisfy the needs of everyone on the planet. Simply, Anarchism is beyond us. But I do believe that one day the world will be stateless.

Free Trade isn&#39;t so bad either, but it must work both ways. Americans should be able to get medicine from the Canadian&#39;s, this lie composed by the American pharmacutical industry that Canadian drugs are "dangerous" is ludicrous. However some would say that protectionism is necessary since the U.S pharmacutical industries would lose money on research and development.

[Guest1]

I&#39;m happy to hear you do believe the world will be stateless one day.

Anarcho-Communism does not seek to "satisfy the needs of everyone on this planet".

It&#39;s one of few ideologies that understands the how impossible that is, and seeks to harmonize people&#39;s self-interests with the interests of others. Only when people are liberated from hierarchy and wage slavery can they pursue their own interests freely.

The only limits on your self-interests is the well-being of others. Try to enslave or harm another, and you may find yourself under the heels of everyone else in the community.

It&#39;s a balance that admits humanity is imperfect.

A nice quote I like:

Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey

[Y2A]

What I am saying is that Anarchism is beyond our years. And I did not say that it would be Communist but simply that there would no longer be a need for a state once we reach a certain point in technological advancements.

[Professor Moneybags]

Y2A, you still haven&#39;t told me what the hell your avatar is.

[Y2A]

"It&#39;s a stupid little green dildo-a-saurus"

http://www.aestetix.net/wtfdance/buffer/index.html

Found it on CyM&#39;s sig a while back.

[Hoppe]

Y2A, just out of curiosity. You think that libertarians are crazy because in your opinion a free market leads to monopolies. Monopolies are bad so the libertarian free market will collapse. Yet you propose government monopolies in certain vital industries such as healthcare, schools, policemen.

How come free market monopolies are bad and governmentmonopolies good?

[DaCuBaN]

How come free market monopolies are bad and governmentmonopolies good?

The goal of a government run monopoly differs greatly from that of a private enterprise monopoly. The former is purely providing a service, whereas the latter has an agenda behind it&#39;s service - the creation of wealth.

This is unnecessary in my opinion.