Any libertarians here?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I think the ideal would be a world where humans were enlightened to the point that there was no need for money. Considering that we have the resources on this planet to provide for everyone's basic needs, I think it's absolutely disgusting that so many of our species live in poverty. And I feel that the existence of money, which, ignoring it's practicality, is really just a way to keep score, is greatly to blame for this.

To explain how this meshes with my ACist leanings, I would compare it to my general gun-rights argument. I hate guns, but as long as they exist, I think the best course of action is to make gun ownership as free and deregulated (by the government at least) as possible.

I hate money, but as long as it exists, I think the best course of action is a purely free market (something we can't really even conceive of within a capitalist paradigm). I view the government (all governments really, but the US government is especially guilty) as a criminal mob.

Reminds me of communists who want the government to eventually melt away, and to that end try to give the state absolute power.

I think anything vital should be run by the government - schools, roads, fire, police, utilities, health care, etc - because private business is all about profit and people will be priced out. I'm against regulation of any personal behavior that doesn't harm or potentially harm others (and I don't consider being offended harm.) I am also against allowing civilian ownership of guns other than single-shot rifles or shotguns. I also think what private business does exist should be very heavily regulated - especially as to how they treat employees.

Conservative Libertarian

I support libertarian policies but do not support the radical hastily infusion of these changes but rather a more measured change in shrinking the federal government over time. I'd really like to see the "fair tax" used on consumption and the income tax go away.

And government is about power and domination. I think the yen for an honest profit is by far the less dangerous motive. People go into government with the objective of telling other people what to do and what not to do. It is a necessary evil for parents to do that to their children. It is an unnecessary evil for adults to do it to other adults.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Doesn't that strike you as being self-contradictory?

ruveyn

The "fair tax" is anything but - it's a very regressive tax. I think income tax is the most fair - but it should be even more changed by income than now - someone making under 30K a year shouldn't pay any, and someone making millions a year should pay at least half their income in tax.

Wrong - unless you don't object to being mudered, robbed, rundown by cars since there wouldn't be traffic laws, etc.

We have had government since God Invented Dirt and we are still being murdered and robbed and run down in the streets. Sometimes we are robbed and murdered by the government we have hired to protect us from being robbed and murdered.

If we must have government, and I suppose we must, we should have as little of it as we can manage and still keep some peace and order in the society.

ruveyn

I think we need a lot more regulation of business and a lot less regulation of personal behavior. No government at all would be a situation similar to Somalia. The government of the US doesn't "rob and murder" citizens - unless one subscirbes to the downright insane idea that taxes are stealing and people who shoot at those enforcing the law shouldn't expect any repercussions.

You have a very skewed view of freedom if that's what you think.

I have a solution I think we can both agree on though. Eliminate the income tax, legalize and tax all drugs, end our empire. We'll have more money than we do now, with no income tax, and we can actually improve our safety net.

I understand the realities of consumption taxes, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a scaled income tax.

Yes, that was my point.

The idea of a "free market" is an abstraction which seems particularly difficult to actualize. Ignoring, as you probably agree with, all claims of "free markets" in any developed society either by the rightwing or leftwing (all first world countries subsidize business extensively), is a "Free Market" even possible in a stateless society? In Somalia, for instance, there is extortion. The population is not perfectly educated. Even in a more stable system, would not a society in which consumers have imperfect information and be manipulated extensively by advertisers undermine Free Market Theory? It depends, after all, on a rational consumer, which is quite far from the reality.

Good post.

Indeed, an informed consumer is a prerequisite for a free market. My belief is that if we were to, slowly, move in the direction of smaller and smaller government, we could achieve this. I'm definitely not for an immediate overhaul. It would take a few generations to go from our current selfish, consumer-based society to one where we were properly informed and cared for others. I believe it is possible, but I also realize it's far from likely to happen. But does that mean I should just give up on the idea?

I don't really like the comparisons to Somalia, because that's not ACism, that's just pure anarchy.

Well, in dealing with Somalia, there are a number of issues:
1) How bad is the background nature of nations in Africa? I mean, there was a study done a few years back by economist Peter Leeson that argued that stateless Somalia was not particularly bad compared to a number of African nations. http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
2) Do cultural matters, matter? The FAQ that vibratetogether linked to seems to hold that Somalian culture does not have the developments that would allow for a free market period, and as such the workings of society are irrelevant for the question at hand. If one takes the capitalist elements of anarcho-capitalism seriously, then the cultural development of property rights is necessary.

As for the matter of imperfect consumers, there are a number of criticisms that can be made against that issue as well:
1) Is perfect information necessary? The average anarcho-capitalist is influenced by Austrian economic theory, which upholds the imperfect nature of information and pushes for freedom on that ground, arguing that what is necessary is entrepreneurial action to find this information and bring it out to be used by the market for the good of all.
2) If rationality is false, then what system can work despite that? After all, "people are irrational and therefore cannot buy and sell properly" also allows for criticisms of other aspects of society, such as the argument "people are irrational and therefore cannot vote properly". The latter argument has actually been advanced before as well, as people do not gather information as they ought about the workings of the world and voting often seems to be on grounds of group identification rather than intellectual concerns. It is true that the two arguments can be separated, but I see more reason to think that higher rationality would work in the economic sphere than the political sphere, given that more personal incentive exists to manage one's own well-being properly.

But governments in other countries do. The U.S. government is not as bad as several and sundry other governments. There are no good government anywhere (and there never have been) however some governments are worse than others. And if you think government regulation (and or ownership) of business is a good idea, just consider what the people of the former Soviet Union suffered. Governments can barely run themselves, they are a disaster if they try to run businesses.

ruveyn