Is Libertarian Government Equipped to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century? [Paul]

[COLMustard159]

That's the question above and Ron Paul is certainly a Libertarian. Small government, low taxes, minimal regulation, and no foreign entanglements (which means no involvement with the U.N.).

Come on Libertarians! I need an answer because I am not convinced.

Bonus question: If the government hardly taxes and therefore hardly has a share of your income to use as they see fit, what, if any, should motivate citizens to participate in democracy and stay informed?

[sunken]

I have the same questions of the Libertarians and Ron Paul. I've listened to his speeches and while it all sounds good on paper, I can't seem to get away from the notion that a lot of the ideas are rooted in the 1900's, not the global system that is in place today. I would be interested in hearing the answer as well.

[Mike_115]

The whole of libertarian thought is more complicated than I can get into here, at least now without more specific questions. But yes it can work. Human nature is the same, and the problems we face now aren't that different than those we have faced for eons. We still have limited resources, threats to our life and liberty, wars, religious strife, treaties, and trade to deal with. We used to have trouble getting food, now it's oil. We used to be threatened by mother nature, now it's other humans.

There is a reason that the USA got as powerful as fast as it did, and why it is now in decline. Given freedom people work as hard as they can to get as far ahead as they can, and they pull the entire society along with them. People like to attack "greedy corporations" for the ills of society, blaming the rich for abusing their workers. But it is that "greed" that creates technology, medicine, jobs, and food for everyone else.

I'm not sure if that answered your questions because I'm not sure exactly what you are curious about. If you have anything in particular you would like to know about, I'll try to oblige.

Bonus answer: Are you implying the average citizen participates and stays informed now? With less government meddling it won't matter as much if they stay informed. Anyway what they are informed by is all sound bytes designed to sound good, and with no real information to back it up. If you got Ron Paul in a serious one on one debate with any of the other candidates (from either side) and listened to the whole thing they wouldn't stand a chance (the problem is that this would take hours). But when you have four candidates spewing sound bytes that agree with conventional wisdom you don't see the truth.

[COLMustard159]

Mike_115 Wrote:The whole of libertarian thought is more complicated than I can get into here, at least now without more specific questions. But yes it can work. Human nature is the same, and the problems we face now aren't that different than those we have faced for eons. We still have limited resources, threats to our life and liberty, wars, religious strife, treaties, and trade to deal with. We used to have trouble getting food, now it's oil. We used to be threatened by mother nature, now it's other humans.

"Big government" theories score over Libertarian theory because it acknowledges that people working in their rational self interest do not necessarily lead to the society's self interest. Easy example: pollution. It is more profitable to do whatever it takes to make a buck than to worry about cleaning up your mess. How do you solve problems like global warming? If you don't believe global warming (which would be far too convenient), then consider any problem on a global scale that crosses borders. For the company making profit, it is good, but not so good for the society who has to deal with the increased costs of sickness, cleanup, etc.

Under a Libertarian government, the Internet would have never been created. The Internet was funded by the government as an experiment and no one at the time could foresee how profitable it would be. It took some years before the profit margin became "obvious." Under a Libertarian government, my proposal for an experiment in computer information would have been handily rejected as pork barrel spending for programmers desperate for work. I reject any assertion that companies acting as free agents would have created the Internet on their own...they invest in what is profitable in the foreseeable future.

I would really like to see some concrete examples of Libertarian success stories. Every time I run into their proponents, I only get criticisms of the status quo.

[Mike_115]

COLMustard159 Wrote:I would really like to see some concrete examples of Libertarian success stories. Every time I run into their proponents, I only get criticisms of the status quo.

Isn't the first one hundred and fifty years of America a good enough success story for you? Isn't the fall of communism enough of a failure of "Big Government" for you? Every system of government falls on that scale from little control to full control. Time and time again the free countries rise to the top while the oppressed falter. China for all it's exports does not have the quality of life that we do.

Global warming is an entirely different debate, and I am as of now unconvinced that it is our fault. But I won't take the easy road out of saying it doesn't exist. If we had true libertarian views that we all have property rights, and they can't be infringed by others, you could only pollute your own land. If you built a factory next to my house, and had smoke blowing all over my land, then you would be violating my property rights, and I could sue. The tragedy of the commons is that it is in no ones interest to keep it clean. But it is in your interest to keep your private property clean. Our courts need to respect property rights and these issues would go away. If global warming is a issue carbon dioxide would join the list of things you will be sued for spreading. If china won't stop then place an embargo on their products.

Since you stated that you reject any theories as to how the internet would have developed privately I don't see much sense in getting into it. You've just stated that you aren't open to new ideas, and will reject them flat out. So you have fun with the government taking your rights away and killing the economy while you sit there rocking back and forth telling yourself it's all for your own good. But yes it easily could (and would) have developed.

[COLMustard159]

Mike_115 Wrote:Since you stated that you reject any theories as to how the internet would have developed privately I don't see much sense in getting into it. You've just stated that you aren't open to new ideas, and will reject them flat out. So you have fun with the government taking your rights away and killing the economy while you sit there rocking back and forth telling yourself it's all for your own good. But yes it easily could (and would) have developed.

I think you grant me far too much power in keeping you from convincing me. Defeatist? How, pray tell, would the Internet have been developed? Remember, companies and individuals seek profit that is feasible in the immediate future.

Also, I do not have fun "rocking back and forth" while the "government [takes my] rights away." I don't understand how you made such a conclusion from my criticism of the shortcomings of your political ideology. The success of a libertarian government rests on the assumption that most citizens are responsible and rational. Although I haven't convinced you that libertarian government doesn't work (which was never my goal), your thoughtless response has convinced me that you are unfit to live under a libertarian government.

You hold such a political system with such high regard and yet you have shown that you are unworthy to reap its merits. I suggest you find another system better able to cope with the deficiencies of your...thinking abilities.

[Mike_115]

Nice strategy: start by acting like you are interested, then lay out a challenge while stating that answering it is pointless, then attack me for not answering it. Very dogmatic, very predictable, and very shallow. I guess I expected more open mindedness and open discussion on here. How was my response thoughtless? I see no point in laying out a rational response when you are proud of your ability to ignore it. If anything you have show yourself to be incapable of being responsible for yourself, needing others to tell you what to do and think.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? - Thomas Jefferson

It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people to govern others. Every man is the best, the most responsible, judge of his own advantage. - Lord Acton

Before the internet there where networks within companies. These networks where mostly proprietary, with each solution being different from the next. At the start of the internet almost everything was dial up, even servers transferring mail from one to another at scheduled intervals, instead of exactly when you click send. Over time this evolved into the internet we have now. The internet wasn't developed to perfection and then turned on, we are using Internet Protocol version 4 now, and working on 6. Without government involvement it would have went similarly. Ford has their network, and the company that makes gas pedals has theirs, and they want to work together. Then Chevy wants to get in on it, so they make their network join too. And you have the "geeks" that are finding ways to connect and communicate for the fun of it and not for profit. Over time this evolves into the internet.

But congratulations you did what you wanted, and got a reaction. Go troll somewhere else.

[Jed K]

All opinions are welcome at VQTE; however, please be considerate when giving them. No personal attacks will be tolerated.

That being said, I think this topic raises a lot of interesting points, so let's get it back on track so we can avoid closure.

Thanks!

[COLMustard159]

How does Libertarian Government handle Tragedy of the Commons? Does it handle this issue better than any other system of government?

Examples of Tragedy of the Commons:
1) Global Warming
2) The Great Depression, the race to the bottom.
3) Predatory lending which as we have seen leads to rapid economic downturn.
4) Congress. (Each Member represents his/her own district. Therefore, it is in each member's interest to get as much money from the federal government as possible for their district. Each member acts in his/her own self interest, but inevitably, the whole does not apportion resources in the best way for the collective. Here, self interest fails the collective interest. See Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere and the needs of New Orleans.)
5) Any other situation where all actors operating on self interest fail to serve the collective interest.

You speak of the creation of the Internet as 'inevitable,' but your remarks aren't very convincing. You speak of a hypothetical and I think you give the companies and geeks too much credit. (The companies being too kind and the geeks too powerful.) If it was created by companies, I think that net neutrality would be moot, because the companies would set up the rules to benefit them. (For their own self interest and not the interest of a start up small business. As a Libertarian you must grant this!) And the geeks you speak of would be a fragmented and loose coalition without the resources and organization to stop them before this happened. So PERHAPS we would have the Internet in your Libertarian world, but it would not be the neutral Internet that we know of today. On the other hand, the Internet as a government project in the interest of the public interest guarantees net neutrality from the start. Everyone, little people, big companies, gets a stab at it. In short, the big government, which you may fear in the wrong instances, acts as a referee and has ensured a level playing field. As of late, however, net neutrality is being threatened. You should do some research on this. I'm sure your mental faculties can handle the strain.

I suggest you fiddle around with the Tragedy of the Commons question. I'm more interested in the answer to this question.

[Mike_115]

If we keep this up long enough I'm sure you will be able to find something I'm not familiar enough with to answer, but you haven't reached that point yet. And you don't seem to be able to refute my points, you just bring up new ones.

A libertarian government solves the tragedy of the commons very simply, there are no commons. Now I'm sure you're going to bring up all the wonderful commons that we have, and what would happen to them. Parks and nature preserves and such. Privately owned parks that charge a small admissions fee would work just as well and probably better. It would fall upon the park owner to keep the grounds nice, or no one would want to go. Besides you're paying for it anyway with taxes, and that's less efficient because of the layers of bureaucracy.

Only one example you brought up is truly a tragedy of the commons, and that is global warming. It's also probably the only one that libertarianism isn't capable of handling, but then neither is any other system of government. To solve global warming (as it is commonly understood) we would need one world government that oppressively punishes any carbon emissions, and I hope we can agree that the cure would be worse than the disease.

Besides global warming the rest of your examples are really examples of big government failings, not vice versa.
1) Already addressed
2) The great depression was caused by monetary manipulation. Create a large money supply. Everyone borrows from that, and the stock market booms. Restrict the money supply and people have to start paying back loans, everyone pulls out of the stock market and it crashes. Don't forget that the roaring 20's followed by the great depression happened right after the creation of the Federal reserve bank in 1913.
3) Same as number 2. Enlarge the money supply, people buy homes they can't afford. When the easy money stops the bubble busts. Without creating new money banks can't loan money they don't have. This would force them to be more careful of who they lend to. Predatory lending happened in the 1920's also with marginal lending.
4) This one is so simple I'm not even sure how you could think it helped your cause. Without having a big government that has the power to tax and spend outside of the limits of the constitution the congress wouldn't be able to do pork barrel spending. If the government wasn't robbing us in the first place our congressmen wouldn't need to take the money back.
5) Too generic to answer

The government didn't create the internet to serve us, they created it as a defense network (btw defense is one of the legitimate functions of government). And I'll admit that I have mixed feelings about network neutrality. I feel that it is important, but not that the government can solve it. Not many people are going to accept paying for a crippled internet connection. Companies would spring up that offered un-crippled access for a higher price. If you can get connection A which has speed restrictions and some sites barely function for free or nearly so. Or connection B which is full speed for all sites for more money, how is that a bad thing? I pick full on speed, my parents pick free.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. - Alexander Tyler

That is why this country is (was) a Republic, not a Democracy. Don't let anyone fool you.