Libertarians

Jeanwah wrote:

No way. I don't associate myself to any one party but like some aspects of a few parties (green, working families, Independant). I have a thing against hard core Libertarianism, but won't bore you guys with details.

Too much freedom = the wild west?

RW81233 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

No way. I don't associate myself to any one party but like some aspects of a few parties (green, working families, Independant). I have a thing against hard core Libertarianism, but won't bore you guys with details.

Too much freedom = the wild west?

maybe it could be that, in practice, the unfettered, free-market economic system has failed spectacularly in every place it has ever been tried.

When do you think this was actually tried? I wasn't there, but the last time any type of system resembling free markets was in place (in America anyway) was probably when this land still belonged to the natives.

RW81233 wrote:

New Zealand, Argentina, and especially Chile tried using it with massive influences coming from Milton Friedman and the Chicago school...basically it worked well for a minute then imploded. Of course nothing is a perfect free-market economy, but the things that we got closest to it broke. To keep pushing for it is akin to a communist saying that if we didn't have corrupt individuals then our system would work...maybe we should all just learn from Scandanavia.

I don't know enough about any of those countries' economic histories to be able to agree or disagree with you, or be able to agree or disagree whether or not they were really as "free-market" as you say. But, you've got me highly interested to do some research. Thanks, actually. I would like to know what the pitfalls were in this system, if it has any that are truly significant. It is true that free markets are prone to adjustments, but they are just that, adjustments, unlike the huge fake bubbles that are created and manipulated through over-regulation as you see here in America, which in turn leave half the country jumping on the bandwagon when it's ready to collapse.

RW81233 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

New Zealand, Argentina, and especially Chile tried using it with massive influences coming from Milton Friedman and the Chicago school...basically it worked well for a minute then imploded. Of course nothing is a perfect free-market economy, but the things that we got closest to it broke. To keep pushing for it is akin to a communist saying that if we didn't have corrupt individuals then our system would work...maybe we should all just learn from Scandanavia.

I don't know enough about any of those countries' economic histories to be able to agree or disagree with you, or be able to agree or disagree whether or not they were really as "free-market" as you say. But, you've got me highly interested to do some research. Thanks, actually. I would like to know what the pitfalls were in this system, if it has any that are truly significant. It is true that free markets are prone to adjustments, but they are just that, adjustments, unlike the huge fake bubbles that are created and manipulated through over-regulation as you see here in America, which in turn leave half the country jumping on the bandwagon when it's ready to collapse.

Obviously this comes from and/or helps form my point of view (which is why I always say I'm 50% libertarian), but check out A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. He basically criticizes how the free-market has been bastardized by various nations (China, US, England, and so on), and even when it's been taken on more openly it goes wrong (NZ, Argentina, Chile). I believe he is known as a "critical geographer" (he did a famous study of Baltimore), and definitely comes from a leftist perspective just as fair warning.

To me, whether something is considered a free market is very black and white. "Bastardized" definitely disqualifies it instantly. What I'm willing to wager, without knowing 100% factually is that none of NZ, Argentina, and Chile had truly sound money in their attempts at a real free market economy. That is, money that is 100% backed by gold, silver, or some other stable commodity that has endured the test of time as having actual value. This is one of the major cornerstones of a real market economy, and to my knowledge, no country has had this type of system in place for years.

Jeanwah wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

No way. I don't associate myself to any one party but like some aspects of a few parties (green, working families, Independant). I have a thing against hard core Libertarianism, but won't bore you guys with details.

Too much freedom = the wild west?

The freedom thing I tend to love but think it's completely unrealistic. Hard-core Libs I've talked to basically want to live where they want and do whatever they please, including shutting off the rest of society and humankind. They're basically mad at not only gov't intervening with their lives and money, but also neighbors, community and society.

Jeanwah wrote:

Now, I'm not one for rules or laws, in fact I tend to break them sometimes (an instinct I tend to have) and also have issues with authority. That said, I believe in community, sharing, and taking care of one another. The Libertarian idealism of "I don't want anyone to interfere with my life"...well, what do they plan on doing, living in a hole? Granted, this is extreme Libs, but that's what it would come to in a nation that had a Libertarian style gov't, not being involved at all. Also, I agree with SS:

I admit that this sounds a bit extreme, but if they're that isolated, who cares? They obviously aren't hurting anyone, they aren't having any impact on anybody, really... Life doesn't change for you, and how you do things because these people want to be hermits, right? If our nation had a Libertarian style government everyone would be living in the way they saw fit, whether they wanted isolation or not. Libertarians have no problem with other people being straight communists. I would go so far as to say that we don't care if other people in the same country lived under communist conditions localized to their town / city if that's what the people in that town / city determined was best for them. Just don't let it infringe on my liberty and my wallet.

soulsinging wrote:

I think we let corporations and banks and the like have far too much power and influence and it's absurd that we allow them to have rights and engage in practices that a regular citizen would be arrested for doing. That's bullshit. You can't trust industry to regulate itself.

I also think national health care is a pretty good idea and think we should phase out most other federal programs to fund it... like medicare, medicaid, the dept of education, 3-4 of our 20 diff intelligence agencies, etc.

Jeanwah wrote:

He's right, corps and banks will never regulate themselves. They need guidelines that follow covering environmental and human health sustainability. If we don't have rules prolonging the health of our own species, we're screwed and our time here is much shorter overall. I'm also for nat'l health care and set guidelines for businesses pertaining to worker health and time off (America is the most over-worked and stressed out country; we do not take care of ourselves). Some would call this Socialist behavior...It's simply recognizing who we are (social animals) and emphasizing human care. We can't live in a hole and prosper.

The problem is, is that the "regulators" are as corrupt as any business they attempt to regulate-- or in their attempt to "regulate" they only end up writing and enforcing laws that on the surface appear to be keeping these companies in check, but are really only stifling competition, and lining their own pockets. Their is this huge misconception that Libertarians are for anarchy. This is not true. Libertarians don't believe in lawlessness, they want just laws that ensure that people can do pretty much whatever they want so long as someone else isn't being harmed by these actions. Sounds fair doesn't it? I am of the belief that business can be "regulated" fairly enough under basic laws against theft and fraud. "Regulation" has legalized fraud in this country. "Regulation" has allowed banks to counterfeit money. Having an-all powerful authority capable of overseeing business is inherently corrupt. The business being regulated only needs to grease the palms of it's overseer so much for it to be completely ineffective. What are we left with then but paying more money to the government so they can reap the rewards of falsely overseeing corrupt big business? It is only the people and the market place itself that should 'police' business with their choices. The reason this never gets to happen is because too many of these conglomerate businesses have deep roots in a crony-capiltalistic system for far too long. Too many advantages have been thrown their way by way of government to ensure that they will always survive, namely at the expense of the people.

PearlJain wrote:

"Vinnie Goomba" That is such a funny "user name." You sound all "mafia."

"What" "mafia" "are" "you" "talking" "about?" "I" "don't" "know" "anything" "about" "this" "mafia" "you" "speak" "of..."