If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The question libertarians just can't answer   (salon.com) divider line 611
    More: Obvious, members of the United Nations, industrial society, advanced countries, political philosophy, infant mortality, open borders, Fraser Institute, economic freedom  
•       •       •

9966 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jun 2013 at 4:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



611 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-04 04:49:23 PM

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)


That's true.  But it's still weird. :|
 
2013-06-04 04:49:24 PM

cman: All political spectrums are full of shiat

Libertarianism doesnt get a free pass just because I like it. For one to be truly openminded one needs to have an unbiased eye.


That's rather sensible of you. The heck you doing on FARK?

;-)
 
2013-06-04 04:50:32 PM

gameshowhost: [msnbcmedia.msn.com image 423x135] 

libertarian free-market competition


But I thought Taco Bell won the franchise wars?
 
2013-06-04 04:50:33 PM
If you were snorting coke off a hookers ass would you care that a pimp was forcing her to be there?
 
2013-06-04 04:52:29 PM

Somacandra: dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations.

War has a lot to do with it. It was hard in the U.S. for the North to fight its war with the South without asserting a number of expansionist powers, especially economically. There are important reasons why the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 were passed during the Civil War.


The laws that created the railroads and land grant colleges were passed during the Civil War too. That's because yesterday's small government racists wouldn't let reasonable legislation through when they were in the congress. Much like today.
 
2013-06-04 04:52:58 PM

kvinesknows: If you were snorting coke off a hookers ass would you care that a pimp was forcing her to be there?


Of course, without that forcing you get no tears and everyone knows its better with tears
 
2013-06-04 04:53:07 PM

gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|


well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.
 
2013-06-04 04:53:19 PM
Why aren't you this strawman?
 
2013-06-04 04:53:27 PM

phenn: Tigger: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Care to name one?

The US?


Again, the US as a federal government was vaguely libertarian (i.e., minimal) under the Articles of Confederation.  It'd be hard to argue that any of the states were particularly so (hell, most of them had established churches at the time, restrictions on free speech, etc).  But, by the Constitution's time, we were already well into forming the high-tariff interventionist 'American System' government of Washington and Henry Clay.  Let alone, as Queeq above mentions, the slavery question.

Jefferson was a libertarian dreamer, like so many libertarian theorists of today.  This doesn't mean the US was at any point anything close to a particularly libertarian state.  Attributing any sort of ideological purity to US history is retconning.
 
2013-06-04 04:53:30 PM

gameshowhost: gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy

Odd how the libertarian notion "laissez-faire" is the driving force that tanked our economy over the past 3+ decades.


I love it when they make an argument that's easily as valid for the Communist Party of America.
 
2013-06-04 04:54:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: phenn: Tigger: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Care to name one?

The US?

[memory.loc.gov image 687x713]


Touche.

But, remember, not all of the founders were slave-owners or even cool with slavery. But, I'm not even trying to defend them. I'm an anarchist these days.
 
2013-06-04 04:54:34 PM

skullkrusher: I have never understood how SIASL was a novel about libertarianism as a political or economic system


I was about to ask this... I don't see how a church that offers orgies and telekinetic powers is somehow a model of libertarianism.
 
2013-06-04 04:54:49 PM

efgeise: gameshowhost: [msnbcmedia.msn.com image 423x135] 

libertarian free-market competition

But I thought Taco Bell won the franchise wars?


Ah, but does Taco Bell take Bitcoins?  I think not.
 
2013-06-04 04:55:11 PM

Lawnchair: Jefferson was a libertarian dreamer, like so many libertarian theorists of today.


And yet governed as one of the least libertarian early Presidents.
 
2013-06-04 04:55:48 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Capitalism is an economic system. Not a system of Government.

If you understood that, you (and the country) would be better off.


Economic systems and governmental systems are not mutually exclusive of each other, nor do they exist in separate vacuums.

/if you YOU understood that, you (and the country) would be better off  :P

vygramul: Depends on which Libertarian you ask. Some Libertarians, in the face of overwhelming historical contradiction, insist the free market is a panacea, and that: corporations that are not transparent would not get any investors; companies who don't put ingredient lists on their products wouldn't be able to make as much money as those who do; that lawsuits will keep companies from poisoning their consumers (but ask a Libertarian what they think about tobacco lawsuits); that restaurants that discriminate against colored folk will make less money than restaurants that do, and so won't do it (despite 100 years of watching that experiment fail).


You fail to recognize the overwhelming role that governmental failure played in any of that (federal subsidies of tobacco farmers, STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.). This shows that your blind faith in government bureaucrats to regulate the market better than underlying market forces just exposes your lack of understanding of what a market economy even is.

A market is simply a means of coordinating productive activity among large, genetically unrelated populations of humans. If we were all still part of small tribes of 20-35 like we were for most of our history, most of the problems of central planning go away since economic information can reasonably be gathered by the central decision-making authorities. Every person's wants and needs (read: their demand) and relative productive contribution to the group (read: supply) can easily be known, tracked, and calculated. Thus, some sort of (semi-)rational allocation of resources can take place. Expanding this relatively accurate economic calculation to a large population of thousands - let alone millions - without some sort of coordination mechanism (read: money and prices) and achieving rational economic allocation of resources is impossible.

Not just really hard. Literally impossible.

This was the valuable insight that Ludwig von Mises had in his famous essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth." The common polemic levelled against socialism is the free rider problem. While that is certainly a very destabilizing factor in the operation of the system, it is not sufficient to cause total system failure like we saw with the history of the USSR. Even if you take the socialists' assumptions about people at their face value, socialism is STILL impossible to implement rationally in a large population of people due to the information problem (for more on how prices convey information, watch this short video). Friedrich Hayek expanded on this idea in his essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society." Google it and read up on it if you want to learn something new.
 
2013-06-04 04:56:31 PM

Wendy's Chili: Somacandra: dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations.

War has a lot to do with it. It was hard in the U.S. for the North to fight its war with the South without asserting a number of expansionist powers, especially economically. There are important reasons why the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 were passed during the Civil War.

The laws that created the railroads and land grant colleges were passed during the Civil War too. That's because yesterday's small government racists wouldn't let reasonable legislation through when they were in the congress. Much like today.


Created the railroads?
 
2013-06-04 04:56:41 PM

gameshowhost: gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy

Odd how the libertarian notion "laissez-faire" is the driving force that tanked our economy over the past 3+ decades.


well.......

right libertarianism is opposed to fractional reserve banking. It is also opposed to the Fed's existence but specifically, in this context, the Fed's impact on interest rates. No FRB, no artificially depressed interest rates, no housing bubble.

Of course no restrictions on financial transactions, no attempts to preempt fraud via regulation and reporting requirements... different set of problems.

Our economy was doing rather well for much of 2 of the past 3 decades though
 
2013-06-04 04:58:24 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Lawnchair: Jefferson was a libertarian dreamer, like so many libertarian theorists of today.

And yet governed as one of the least libertarian early Presidents.


Libertarians are often like that. Right-libertarianism is "for me, but not for thee" in convenient pablum form.
 
2013-06-04 04:58:33 PM

gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy


Well then maybe we should turn let dead people make all the decisions since living people have screwed things up so much...
 
2013-06-04 04:58:55 PM

Garble: skullkrusher: I have never understood how SIASL was a novel about libertarianism as a political or economic system

I was about to ask this... I don't see how a church that offers orgies and telekinetic powers is somehow a model of libertarianism.


It's not. I am pretty sure someone somewhere said that Stranger in a Strange Land is a libertarian book and that's just been repeated since by people who haven't read it.
It certainly talks of breaking the taboos against sexual freedom and hedonism but there's really nothing there about any libertarian politics or philosophy as we understand it and are discussing it here. Hell, Martian Mike was an anarcho-socialist if anything
 
2013-06-04 04:59:26 PM
This sounds like another thread where the libtardtarian faithful come to protect the purity of their perfect political/economic concept. And, just like their ideological bedfellow Republicans, the libtardtarians are going to claim that the Founding Fathers (and later Saint Reagan) agree with them.

I think the author of TFA started with an interesting idea, but lost it with the explanation. IMHO, there are no Libertarian countries because the idea cannot exist in the real world; it was and will always be an abstract.

Stated in a much better way:

Rev.K: I think my biggest problem with Libertarianism is that it seems to constantly deny the existence of society and boils everything down to the individual.

Sure, it sounds great, until you project that individual behaviour across a whole society, and that's when it becomes pretty obvious that Libertarianism would be a pretty epic fail.

 
2013-06-04 04:59:41 PM
CSB: My libertarian friend (who supports Rand and left a sweet programming gig in manhattan to work on Ron's presidential campaign) recently posted an article on Facebook that had to do with the Megyn Kelly/Erick Erickson deal.

The comments morphed in to pointing out how Megyn was partially right but using hyperbole to support her position. Then, the posts shifted to admonishing regulations in adoption and how big government is horrible (one size fits all fits no one) and local adoption regulation would be much better. (In regards to gay adoption)

I asked how local adoption regulation would be better if local regulations could still discriminate against gays.

The two responses were-
A) Move. I said that's not always logistically possible and the further response was "if you have two feet, you can move".
B) With localized discrimination, less people are discriminated against and it would be easier to fight. Now, I ignore the idiocy of going with a scale argument and pointed out that a huge amount of social change happened at a federal enforcement level and dragged states forward...but that was deemed horrible and not fair for states that didn't agree with it.

When it got to the point where I had to explain why "suck it up and move" is not a valid response to discrimination against gays, I stopped responding and went back to watching the Braves game.

Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.
 
2013-06-04 05:00:05 PM
vygramul:

Created the railroads?


www.raremaps.com
 
2013-06-04 05:00:14 PM
abortionsforall.files.wordpress.com\

libertarian highway patrol.
 
2013-06-04 05:01:17 PM

Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.


Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.
 
2013-06-04 05:02:06 PM
The article seems to assert that since no country has adopted purely libertarian structures, that lebertarianism has no place in the public marketplace of ideas - and yet at the same time, seem to use the existence of large scale socialist states to support the concept that socialism is a valid approach - and yet all states that have employed socialism as the exclusive philosophy have failed mightily - and most if not all that are leaning that way are in some level of decay that suggests a slide towards becoming a failed state (20+% structural unemployment in the EU for example).

I don't want a pure libertarian system - and I am not dissing you lefties in FARKland - just pointing out that the author's logic is extremely flawed - I think that some of my braincells have perished from reading this.
 
2013-06-04 05:03:35 PM

bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.


Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.
 
2013-06-04 05:03:54 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Why are you calling yourself a libertarian when you're really a neo-confederate?


When the GOP was searching for a term to use for their latest rebranding effort, "libertarian" polled higher than "neo-confederate". That doesn't mean they won't consider using it at some later time.
 
2013-06-04 05:04:25 PM

vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.


you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.
 
2013-06-04 05:04:42 PM
bulldg4life: ...it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

DING DING DING

Funny, I have the people I really disagree with on FARK in hot pink, usually "Douche" or some similar moniker. The amount of hot pink really, really disappeared as the comments went on. It really is tough to defend certain ideals when faced with logic.
 
2013-06-04 05:05:22 PM

justadadX3: most if not all that are leaning that way are in some level of decay that suggests a slide towards becoming a failed state


like germany?
 
2013-06-04 05:05:37 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.


What's stopping you from volunteer firefighting in Somalia?
 
2013-06-04 05:05:49 PM

Gecko Gingrich: vygramul: Oh? What commodity backs it?

Hanukkah Gelt.


Wax chocolate is the....oh nonononono....
 
2013-06-04 05:06:39 PM
People in power don't give up power. That's why.
 
2013-06-04 05:06:53 PM

Jim_Callahan: I can only conclude that the author of TFA thinks that the Big Mac is the world's finest dining


No, that's just what The Invisible Hand of the Fee Market determines it to be.
 
2013-06-04 05:07:42 PM
Not sure if serious.

Does Salon really not understand why a philosophy that opposes state power in general does not control any large states?

It's kind of like saying "The one question atheists can't answer is why they don't run any religions."

It's one of those things where you are either stupid to say it, or you are pretending to be stupid.
 
2013-06-04 05:07:43 PM
If you're looking for examples, portions of the early U.S. were fairly libertarian (though that was highly variable depending on the state/locale).  But libertarianism as a political philosophy is extraordinarily new, so it's not really surprising that you don't have historical examples.  Certainly, it was pretty bloody unlikely any libertarian utopias were going to come out of the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the Holy Roman Empire, or, well, you get the picture.  It would be like asking an Englishman in 1214 why he thought a constitutional monarchy might be such a great idea given that it hadn't been tried, ever.

And yes, I know the Magna Carta wasn't a true constitution.
 
2013-06-04 05:08:30 PM

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy

Odd how the libertarian notion "laissez-faire" is the driving force that tanked our economy over the past 3+ decades.

well.......

right libertarianism is opposed to fractional reserve banking. It is also opposed to the Fed's existence but specifically, in this context, the Fed's impact on interest rates. No FRB, no artificially depressed interest rates, no housing bubble.

Of course no restrictions on financial transactions, no attempts to preempt fraud via regulation and reporting requirements... different set of problems.

Our economy was doing rather well for much of 2 of the past 3 decades though


Deregulation creating more opaque markets... that's causal.  The Fed's toodling is just an attempt to limit the destructive path(s) of said cause, not a cause in and of itself.
 
2013-06-04 05:08:50 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.


And yet you still wonder why FDR was elected over Hoover...
 
2013-06-04 05:08:54 PM
It's been tried, though not under that name. The Articles of Confederation could be considered one such attempt. But much like communism, libertarianism never lasts long in its pure form. Someone always rises to take state-like power, sometimes by dishonest means, sometimes to counter a dishonest attempt, and sometimes to counter an honest large-scale screw-up. However it happens, it's never long before it stops being only state-like.

The reasons for this are also more or less the same: they depend on virtue without accounting for vice. Both set up systems where dishonesty is the only rational move, and then they ask the people to be honest anyway. Some people could manage that, but not enough to hold a society together. If we could, neither of these systems would ever have been invented, because there would have been no need for them. But because we can't, they always end the same way: they lose sight of their goals, start breaking their own definitions, and produce some really, really nasty parts of the world.
 
2013-06-04 05:09:02 PM

Garble: Jim_Callahan: I can only conclude that the author of TFA thinks that the Big Mac is the world's finest dining

No, that's just what The Invisible Hand of the Fee Market determines it to be.


ohsnap.gif
 
2013-06-04 05:10:43 PM

skullkrusher: right libertarianism is opposed to fractional reserve banking. It is also opposed to the Fed's existence but specifically, in this context, the Fed's impact on interest rates. No FRB, no artificially depressed interest rates, no housing bubble.


So how do they explain the bubble in gold, or the bubble in bitcoins?
 
2013-06-04 05:10:45 PM

ManRay: I can answer FTA question (assuming the author is aware of the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian): In general, people are assholes, especially to people they don't know. There have been libertarian societies, but they were small groups of people that interacted with each other regularly. The self regulation comes in to play when you know people personally. It's hard to screw over someone you know, easy to do to a faceless crowd. Past a certain point in population and some person or group will always arise to exert power over everyone else.


A question liberals have problems with:

Is there anything that you think is a good idea that the government should not be involved in?



Actually I have an answer to that, at least from my perspective.

The government is for things you want less of- sick people,illiterate, criminals,death; and to accomplish this they implement preventative programs- hospitals, police/law/rehabilitation, schools, regulations.

The private sector is for things you want more of- consumer goods, food, inventions/innovation. And they accomplish this through businesses, research and development, farming profits.

I think this type of balance works well as a framework for going forward. It allows the back and forth of responsibility while keeping each side in check.
 
2013-06-04 05:11:11 PM

BunkoSquad: Dancin_In_Anson: BunkoSquad: That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.

Because anything other than total government control of the process is anarchy.

I'm actually trying to picture a Libertarian approach to health care and all I can come up with are the smoking crater where the CDC used to be and the "Bring Out Your Dead" cart from Holy Grail.


Yeah and that's why I view Libertarianism with the same jaudiced eye as Pol Pot's political/econonic system he implemented in Cambodia.
 
2013-06-04 05:11:55 PM

gameshowhost: Deregulation creating more opaque markets... that's causal. The Fed's toodling is just an attempt to limit the destructive path(s) of said cause, not a cause in and of itself.


however, over a decade of artificially depressed interest rates and virtually "free" money lent itself quite nicely to a drive in home demand and the subsequent bubble along with the explosion in MBSs freeing that same capital to be lent again at artificially depressed rates.
 
2013-06-04 05:12:19 PM

gimmegimme: Gecko Gingrich: dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations. It is the unfortunate nature of organizations (and government is an organization) to expand as much as they possibly can.

Yeah, that and the whole Triangle Shirtwaist Factory thing.

No government know-it-all is going to tell me I can't lock the doors of MY factory to keep MY employees inside.


Technically, the captains of industry who ran Triangle locked the doors to keep their valuable goods inside, not the employees. After the fire started, the bosses climbed to the 10th floor and jumped to safety across the alley to another building; the employees could have escaped too if they really wanted. But they didn't and the market decided their value*.

/*sarcasm.
 
2013-06-04 05:12:38 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.


Yeah, nice way to start wars that end of your floating islands reduced to rubble.
 
2013-06-04 05:12:43 PM

Hydra: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Capitalism is an economic system. Not a system of Government.

If you understood that, you (and the country) would be better off.

Economic systems and governmental systems are not mutually exclusive of each other, nor do they exist in separate vacuums.

/if you YOU understood that, you (and the country) would be better off  :P

vygramul: Depends on which Libertarian you ask. Some Libertarians, in the face of overwhelming historical contradiction, insist the free market is a panacea, and that: corporations that are not transparent would not get any investors; companies who don't put ingredient lists on their products wouldn't be able to make as much money as those who do; that lawsuits will keep companies from poisoning their consumers (but ask a Libertarian what they think about tobacco lawsuits); that restaurants that discriminate against colored folk will make less money than restaurants that do, and so won't do it (despite 100 years of watching that experiment fail).

You fail to recognize the overwhelming role that governmental failure played in any of that (federal subsidies of tobacco farmers, STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.). This shows that your blind faith in government bureaucrats to regulate the market better than underlying market forces just exposes your lack of understanding of what a market economy even is.

A market is simply a means of coordinating productive activity among large, genetically unrelated populations of humans. If we were all still part of small tribes of 20-35 like we were for most of our history, most of the problems of central planning go away since economic information can reasonably be gathered by the central decision-making authorities. Every person's wants and needs (read: their demand) and relative productive contribution to the group (read: supply) can easily be known, tracked, and calculated. Thus, some sort of (semi-)rational allocation of resources can take place. Expanding this relatively accurate  ...


You should read a book called debunking economics by a professor named steve keen. Here is a link to a youtube video of him speaking:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZKjQtrgdVY
 
2013-06-04 05:13:18 PM
All the Libertarians I'm friends with on Facebook are just conspiracy nuts. You can't even engage with them on any particular issues because most of them speak exclusively in 20 minute YouTube videos or oversimplistic meme pictures.
 
2013-06-04 05:13:39 PM

Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.


That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?
 
Displayed 50 of 611 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report