Question for libertarians

Post Reply New Topic

The game BIOSHOCK dealt with that kind of idea. Rapture was an undersea city made for all the people who wanted to be masters of their own destiny, but like any other place, there had to be those who ran the place and those who did the work. Most quickly found out they were not better off, and the guy who started the whole thing became the very monster he preached against in order to retain control.

that is the whole thing, without the safety net benjamin disraeli spoke of, without a state most people will find themselves in the s**t and as slaves. The very thing libertarians say they are against!

I... I can't even... that level of misunderstanding the free market is...

People aren't going to work for someone when they can go live a better life homesteading - and with modern technology, that would be a very comfortable life indeed, if somewhat basic. That's a lower bound on the standard of living, and anyone looking to employ them is going to have to prove that they'll be better off than that by working for them. Do remember, in a free market the state isn't going to be around to stop people building a house and farming unused land, or starting their own business using the capital and equipment they have available (and most people have cars, ovens and mobile phones). I suggest you take a break from the forums and go read some of the stuff written by Roderick Long and Kevin Carson. Maybe even add in some Samuel Edward Konkin III.

or driving down the value of labour. Or continually imposing harsher working conditions on their employees. Or engaging in retalitory behaviour against employees for union membership. etc etc

before you say, "if workers have it so bad they can vote with their feet" blah blah its demonstrably so where there is less goverment intervention the standard of average living goes down. Compare the USA to Europe (sub par minimum wage in USA compared to generous levels in Europe), or even compare the west to south east asia where there is no workers rights at all protected at a legislative level.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any land that isn't owned by some entity or another. And even if we sold off all of the government-owned land, it would be bought up in an instant by one giant corporation or another (probably to preserve it, for the sake of PR). So in terms of land acquisition, you've got to have a significant amount of capital ready to invest in your new farm. As for starting a business, you're going to be entering a market dominated by massive conglomerates who can easily afford to undercut your prices until you're out of the game. Nevermind all the people starting shady, dangerous businesses because there's no oversight or standards anymore. Even illegal immigrants could easily start a business, or use one to launder money. I live near a number of places right now that are notorious for being fronts for drug traffickers or money laundering, and that's WITH government bureaucracy.

And then there's the infrastructure. Who's going to maintain it? Who's going to sweep your floors, paint your buildings, stock your groceries? There's no incentive to do it. Rational self-interest suggests that nobody will want to do it.

Yes, you do seem to be obsessed with Americans. Personally, I could care less what you all do across the pond. I haven't spent enough time over there to take an interest and I certainly don't think much of it from over here. Out of sight - out of mind.


They don't guarantee anything. About the only tax payed service where I've seen any real competence is with the fire/rescue and EMS services. The cops only serve to keep general order and they are becoming less adept at that. Despite all the bluster and tactical toys, most cops are dickless. Public schools are run by bureaucratic idiots who don't know right from wrong and couldn't find their own asses in the dark with both hands.


And there are too many able bodied/ able minded slackers soaking up that wellfare money even in the best of economic times. It's meant to be a safety net and nothing more.


Because we have more control with the insurance companies. Incompetent as insurance companies are, the goveremnt is even more so and less accountable.

In a nutshell, conservatives and libertarians simply want to drastically limit incompetent and expensive goveremnt intrusion in our lives. Don't look for that to ever change.

If you don't understand English, would you like to switch to a different language?



Actually, most libertarians (and classical liberals etc.) would like to reduce the military in size and use it for defensive purposes only. Do you even know what it is you are arguing against?

So THAT'S why I've never seen a conservative acknowledge the effects of Globalism on the American economy.



Actually, America's exploding food service/retail sector encourages its full-time employees to use social welfare programs to augment the income they won't be receiving for working at their businesses. Wal-Mart knows you can't afford anything if you work for them. That's why they encourage employees to sign up for food stamps.




lel

You. Just. Don't. Get. It. You really don't. You're asking a question contingent upon statist land ownership, in the context of there not being a state. Do some research, please.

No, I specifically outlined a scenario where all public land fell under private ownership. And if that were to happen, it would undoubtedly all go directly into the hands of massive private companies. So unless you have a time machine to go back to the dawn of human commerce, this mystical realm of nomadic farmers selling their wares free from government or corporate intervention isn't feasible.

You're describing a scenario under which the state grants a few people "ownership" of land which they have not worked to gain any right in. You are *not* describing a free market, neither a non-proviso Lockean system, a georgist system, or a mutualist usufruct system. You are describing a statist system.

Okay, I am now Monsanto. I just bought entire states worth of land, and hired a ruthless militia to shoot any unauthorized persons on sight. The borders of my property are enforced by the strength of my army, not by law. All of my workers are beholden to me for food, water, and shelter. Now your libertarian world has become a feudalist world.

Exactly, thats what its about -revoking the freedom of the many under the false flag of the liberty of the individual.

Fascism is statism corrupted by libertarian motives.

if 1984 by Orwell is a criticism of Stalinism, Brave New World by Huxley is an analogous attack on libertarianism.

Wow, you think describing the hypothetical re-emergence of the state as being somehow evidence libertarianism is wrong. You're crazy. You can't buy land that doesn't belong to anyone, because there is no-one to buy it from.

Of course you can buy land from the state, as long as the government that is willing to sell it is in power.

In the 1980's the the 'right to buy' program was the proudly held crowning glory of the British government.

statism =/= communism

One only has to examine the cannibalistic nature of businesses to see how dangerous it would be to replace governments with these people. Like with the world of computer operating systems, you will end up with a Microsoft of authorities.