Why I'm Not 100% Libertarian Anymore
 

[Aimless Rant]

Ten years ago, I was equally (if not more so) libertarian that FastPat.

Then I took Econ 101 in college. I came to the realization that some government regulation was required to keep markets efficient. Specifically, government (the only entity capable) has to ensure that information is public, timely, and accurate. Without this basic regulation, markets would be manipulated for personal gain; insider trading if you will.

I still believe that government intervention should be kept to an absolute minimum, be the issue assisted suicide, abortion, illicit drugs, public smoking, speeding, religion, social security, medicare, or whatnot.

Much legislation today seeks to "create a level playing field". While warranted in some rare cases, I believe that overall this creates the same kind of atmosphere where every kid in baseball gets a trophy, regardless of contribution and acheivement. I believe that in order to let people succeed, we also have to be willing to let them fail. While the idea of a safety net seems fine in theory, it also often creates a "safety ceiling"--an artificial barrier that is difficult to rise above.

Some will contend that cutting back on government involvement will necessarily lead to corporations dominating our everyday lives. I say not so. It will lead to individuals being forced to take control (and responsibility for) their lives. We've bred a lazy society because individual do not have to be concerned with meeting their basic needs. I have friends who are on welfare. They live in a small apartment, but they have cable, and Xbox 360, two cars and are never at lack for food, water, and heat. A generation ago this would have been called middle class. They are also exceedingly comfortable in their situation, and do not feel particularly motivated to get jobs. The safety net has become a ceiling.

[/Aimless Rant]

Edited to reveal tags...

Reading FastPat's posts will make many people who think they're libertarian just walk away shaking their heads.

George Will says something like everyone thinks being a libertarian is a good idea until the guy next door does not cut his grass all summer and his dog barks all night long..

"You're just not asking the right questions..."
:rolleyes:

Yep, yep. I thought the Libertarian position was a reasonable alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. Now, you can remove the adjective 'reasonable'.

Legion, occasionally you sound like a reasonable man.

Nobody remains 100% Libertarian very long. Well, almost nobody. Still, it is an intriguing set of postulates.

The final projection of pure libertarianism is anarchy. Bad stuff, that. I've always had libertarian leanings, but when they talk of selling the national parks, eliminating public police services and eviscerating the federal government, I begin to think they are not really libertarian, merely contrarian.

I had never heard of Libertarianism until I was invited to a book event at BMW's local gov't. rel. office for David Boaz, then VP of the CATO Inst. He gave out and signed free copies of his book "Libertarianism". He signed mine, "Peace and prosperity." I read the book and was very intrigued by it until it got to discussing drug legalization and the draft. Some of their stuff would be awesome. All of it would be hell.

Some of my friends are card-carrying, dues-paying Anarchists. They envision a great deal more order than full-on Libertarian ideologists.

Sometimes I wonder if Libertarians and Atheists mostly just want us to see how unimaginably brilliant they are.

Reading FastPat's dialogue, I wonder what the difference between his Libertarianism and Anarchy is?

Is fastpat to Libertarians as Pat Robertson is to Republicans as Mayor Nagin is to Democrats?

No, because Fastpat is actually dead on with what the ideals of the libertarian party actually are. Take a look at their website and you can confirm this.

Actually the bulk of the libertarian party don't seem to go along with what the party actually states that their goals are. Perhaps they think calling themselves libertarian is cool or something, I don't know.

I'm just trying to believe there is a real alternative to the Donkey/Elephant regime. The Libertarian platform isn't very palatable.

I think everyone looks at Libertarian as viable until you apply their reasoning to your neighbor. My neighbor adds an addition to his house without permits and inspections. During an earthquake the addition collapses because he really did not know about shear walls. In helping him to remove the debris, someone plugs a saw into one of his new outlets but gets electrocuted because of miswiring. Everyone believes they know enough to be in charge of their own destiny and should be able to do what they want if it doesn't affect others. but the sad truth is that we need codes and enforcement to protect you from your neighbor's actions.

The principal basis for curtailing your neighbor's license to do anything he wants is for safety of others.

After that it becomes a rationale of cost benefit, such as requiring seatbelts and helmets in order to reduce cost to society for someone's reckless behavior.

I live in the "Live Free or Die" state and I think our state govn't does a great job. I could see why a more Federal system (where states have more rights, fed gov has less) might be better because my more efficient state government would be doing things that the feds do now.

However, I think the view that "If the government just left me the f*** alone, everything would be better." is childishly shortsighted. If you were able to get rid of the government that we have some control over, some other entity (that you have no control over) would flow into the power vacuum be it war lords, oranized crime, or big business.

Pick your gang: the ones with a social contract or the ones without it. Opting out isn't really an option.
-Chris

Calling fastpat ...

Legion, what you're saying sounds quite logical. We need SOME control, but the 'safety net' causes people to not try very hard, or at all, or do things they really shouldn't, because the risk is reduced.

This reminds me, for some reason, of another forum, where a poster related an experience in his Economics class. He asked about 'economic justice', which of course related to welfare and related idealisms. It of course turned out that he was the only conservative in the room, and was berated and insulted for his views...

anyway, one reply to the post related how many people SAY they want 'equal opportunity', but what they really want is 'equal results'.

I think many people are unknowingly, ignorantly, or naievely supporting 'equal results', but they call it 'equal opportunity'.

Anyway...

Here you go:

This is where you are quite wrong. I or anyone else, does not owe you or anyone else anything for your kindness or compassion if we are hurt. Otherwise you control what we choose to do to ourselves and we control what you choose to do for yourself. Abortions can be dangerous, therefore you cannot have one. Sex can cause children, therefore you cannot have sex without our permission. Cost benefit you know. What we choose to give others does not oblibate them to us. This is not libertarian crap, but just plain basic freedom.

Are you willing to give your life to back your statement? I am.

So when you get seriously sick or injured, I suppose you'll provide your own medical care.

No resorting to insurance, ambulance services, public hospitals, or any other sort of public or private risk-spreading arrangement. You'll find your own private doctor and pay him with cash.

Because once you do start relying on services that are funded by the group - whether that group is the State, the nation, the insurance pool - then your actions start resulting in costs to the group.

By the way, what is the meaning of boasting statements like "Are you willing to give your life to back your statement? I am."? You live in a state that already violates most of your supposedly-cherished beliefs, and you obediently knuckle under to that state every day as you obey their traffic laws, pay their taxes, and so on. If you're so willing to give your life for your beliefs, how come you're not already dead?