Libertarianism and autism

Post Reply New Topic

Some ASD people could live independently. Others would starve.


For some of us. Certainly not all of us.


Good for you! But autistic people are far from all alike.

What country do you live in?


Not all autistic people are good with arts, or good with math, or whatever. Many are not.


That's great for you. But please don't generalize from yourself to all other autistic people or even all "high-functioning" autistic people.


In some places, perhaps. Certainly not everywhere.

Do you live in a rural area?


What country is this?


Here in the U.S.A., and here in New York City in particular, billionaires should be taxed more, not less. Taxing billionaires is IMO a significant positive good in itself, regardless of what the money ends up getting spent on, even regardless of whether the money ends up getting spent on anything at all. Specifically, a progressive tax on property value would be desirable. We have way too much wealth inequality, and too many apartments that are being held off the market by real estate speculators.


At least here in the U.S.A., churches are far more likely to expect "worship" than the government, which certainly does not expect to be "worshipped."

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 31 Dec 2022, 8:00 pm, edited 5 times in total.

That is simply not true.

Do you think fire-fighting, for example, should be done solely by the private sector?

Lots of small towns have volunteer fire departments, but that would never work well in a big city like NYC. We need our professional fire department. Also, even in rural areas, the occasional wildfire needs to be handled by the government.

Also, public transportation is much better handled by the government.

Years ago here in NYC, we had some private bus lines, in addition to the government-run ones. The government-run ones generally had better on-time performance. Eventually the private bus lines were bought out by the government.

By the way, public transportation benefits the general public, not just the people who actually use it. Here in NYC at least, even the people who don't use public transportation benefit from the fact that the people who do use it are able to get to work without further clogging up the highways and streets with cars.

I prefer not to tell which country I'm from for my own reasons, sorry.

There is an infinite amount of needs to be accommodated while the resources are scarce. The free market is the best way to allocate resources according to the needs people have. A centralised economy even if partial, like the one that is being implemented right now basically everywhere is unable to deside which resources are allocated to which needs proportionally. Government intervention is only an obstacle to the correct allocation. Everybody is better off long term without such interventions, even the disabled. The free market has provided for billions of people that got out of poverty the last two centuries.

Can you at least tell us what general kind of an area you live in? Urban vs. suburban vs. rural? Things do work differently in different kinds of places.

I grew up in a large city, then I moved back to my birthplace, a town of about 80 thousand people, then moved again to a large city. I prefer the large cities actually.

No, it is not. A free market favors the frivolous desires of the wealthy over the desperate needs of the poor, for one obvious example. Also, many technological advances would never have been developed without government investment in scientific research, because otherwise these technological advances just would have taken way too long to become profitable.

There are also many kinds of market failure that are recognized, as such, by mainstream economists. (See Wikipedia article on market failure.)


It can never be perfect, yes.

However, all of the world's most successful economies have been mixed economies, neither purely free market nor purely government-controlled.

We know that pure Communist-style centralized command economy doesn't work well. But pure free market doesn't work well either. Pure free market would lead inevitably to more and more wealth getting concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and would also be a hindrance to technological development.

We need mixed economies. The only question is, what is the right mixture? That's a complex question, with no simple single-soundbite answer.


No, pure free markets are not what got billions of people out of poverty these last two centuries.

Which of the following kinds of large city do you live in? (1) a densely populated city, like New York City, or (2) a big sprawly one-gigantic-suburb kind of city, like Los Angeles?

Anyhow, there are a few specific ways in which I think most cities should become more libertarian than they are now. One of these is a loosening of zoning laws. One of the main causes of the housing crisis is overly strict zoning laws.

However, a total absence of zoning laws would be a disaster, resulting in things like severe water shortages in many places.

I support small government that doesn't involve itself abroad and leaves the people alone.

Maybe that's a form of Libertarianism maybe not. Unfortunately what some libertarians propose sounds more like wild west anarchy

At this point I do not see how we could possibly convince each other. At least we agree that Communism is no good, which for me is a good enough common ground.

I also support a small government. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. But judging by what you said in this thread sounds like you support a little more state intervention in the economy.

Just the basics, health, education, police, army & welfare protections

I don't believe the US or UK should involve itself with foreign wars or the internal affairs of other countries.

I also don't support big government.

I probably had the same views as Ron Paul & would have voted for him (senior i believe)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Ya I like Ron Paul myself too.

What are some examples of what you mean by "big government"?


No, you don't.


Re-read that Wikipedia article, and see also political positions of Ron Paul.

He opposes all government involvement in health care.

He opposes all government welfare programs including Social Security.

He also opposes any and all government funding of scientific research.

According to this article, he even opposes all government-funded education.

Basically he thinks a government should consist of nothing at all at all except police, a court system, and a small military.

His views, like the views of most libertarians in general, are much more radical than you apparently think they are.

I'm not a US citizen so never scrutinised or evaluated your political candidates in the same way you and other US citizens have.

We also have limited information on them here in the UK, of course there's the internet, but I'm not ever going to vote in any US election so why bother

I first saw Ron Paul about early 2000`s he was very much against the Iraq war & US meddling in foreign countries, something i supported and wanted for the UK as well.

Many of his views on the too big to fail bank bail outs of 2008, i supported too.

I wouldn't probably agree with many of his other policies but then again i generally dislike both Trump and Biden.

Ron Paul is not a standard Republican or Democrat so as the US political system is a form of financial lobbyist oligarchy he`s probably been the most interesting politician in recent years from an outsider perspective.

That's what being libertarian is. But it includes the belief that the state should stay away from all forms of interventions with society including education, healthcare, social securities etc. This stems from the belief that the state and it's bureaucracy are dangerous. Like George Washington said, "The state is like fire, it's a useful servant and a dangerous master".