Thread: I finally realized why I don't call myself a libertarian

Ah yes, it's too hard, so why bother at all? I didn't criticize effectiveness, I criticized motivation.

I'm pretty sure I didn't just offer up the textbook definition for anything.


What were you saying about offering up definitions? Anyway, if you offer up an example of a market failure, idealist libertarians will almost certainly complain that it's not a free market, therefore the failure doesn't count. Which, you're right, is a denial of the existence of market failures, but they do have a reason for taking that position.

Anyway, I don't think we're in disagreement on anything and I'd rather not spend the thread sniping at you.

David Ricardowned

People that believe the United States should be a leading producer of everything don't understand that by trying to do, the United States will instead become a leading producer of NOTHING and ultimately such an effort would irreparably harm our economy.

Not all nations have the same resources. Some countries have a huge labor pool of unskilled workers willing to work for extremely low wages (relative to American wages). We don't have that. Why should we try to compete with them when instead we can reap the benefits of their competitive advantage in that industry to free up our own resources for an industry that we have an advantage in?

This is pretty much where I stand on the issue. I am very socially liberal, fairly liberal in terms of my international political stances and decently libertarian/conservative/moderate in my economic stances.

There are really only a couple of areas that I really like to see government involvement into the marketplace and I usually support things such as free trade, privitizing social security, even sweatshops.

In fact the guy I wanted to vote for in the last primaries (who dropped out before the PA primaries though) eventually joined the libertarian party.

I liked both Kucinich and Gravel who were both more libertarian than the other democrats.

I just can't get on board with ideologies like anarcho-capitalism.

Yes, but there is no such thing as a just punishment for a huge environmental disaster, because the scale of the event and its repercussions can potentially harm thousands for years to come. Instead, a system that seeks to secure as best it can the prevention of such catastrophe's is absolutely in order. And is not in any way a violation of even the strictest interpretation of the constitution.

Whats the punishment for killing thousands from toxic seepage, the destruction of a local economy, and the displacement of thousands of individuals? These are real threats experienced in nations around the globe, including our own. Regulation should serve to protect U.S citizens from those companies who's business is potentially life threatening and who's mechanisms or devices used to prevent these consequences are subject to maintenance and performance standards, and certainly to establish a standard of health and safety.

The phrase is often used that your liberty to swing your fists stops at my face. If i may expand upon that anology and suggest that some businesses express their liberty by swinging blades on chains. Unlike fists (for analogy sake) which are strictly under the command of the owner, the swinging of blades on chains has some mechanical feature, the reliability of which is dependent upon some attribute of the chain, or perhaps the hilt of the blade. I think it is completely fair to assume that the government has the right to say that if your business is to swing blades on chains, then we have the right to tell you the minimum gauge of chain that can be used to perform your business. And if as a business you had intended naturally through your own belief of necessity to use an even stronger chain, or to use the minimum gauge of chain required, then you'r liberty is no infringed. However, if you had chosen a gauge of chain seen to put others in too great a danger, then by placing them in unnecessary danger, you have already committed an unacceptable transgression on their liberties.

I should add to that that what I mean is that it seems likely to me that being an asshole could cause one to become a libertarian, not that being a libertarian causes one to become an asshole.

It's really not libertarianism's fault.