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

[COLMustard159]

Mike_115 Wrote:A libertarian government solves the tragedy of the commons very simply, there are no commons.

This is wrong. There will always be commons unless you go back in time where these aren't possible. Example: the limited frequencies for radio and TV belong to the public (the airwaves). Air, water, space. Did you know that the government even regulates the behavior of children and families? (Child labor is no longer legal! When this legislation first passed, there was much resistance from the families earning income off child labor. The people, acting through their government, made the collective decisions kids should be in school and not working in sweat shops and mines etc.)

Mike_115 Wrote: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.

What about endangered species? I don't think there is any immediate profit in saving endangered animals. But there is a collective interest in saving the wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Can you show me an example of a great privately owned park that rivals a National Park?

Mike_115 Wrote:Besides you're paying for it anyway with taxes, and that's less efficient because of the layers of bureaucracy.

You paint with a broad brush here. Yes, there are inefficient ones. But there are also efficient ones as well. Everything in moderation I say. Can you tell me how big is too big? Or maybe "big" isn't the problem.

Mike_115 Wrote: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.

You make several unsupported assertions here. You say no system of government is able to solve global warming. This kind of attitude reeks of "can't do, won't do, won't even try" mentality and is inherently defeatist. This is an insult to those scientists and those in industry and government trying to come up with solutions.
And then you contradict yourself by providing the ONLY solution as a "one world government that oppressively punishes any carbon emissions."
First, treaties (like the ones we've had before) can do exactly what you propose. It would be able to do this perhaps even better since each country could better police its own nation instead of one centralized power.
Second, you use the word "oppressive." This is a loaded word and you have not made clear what "oppressive" means with regards to solving the climate crisis problem.
Third, no solutions to global warming "punish any carbon emissions." It would be absurd to punish people for exhaling CO2, but perfectly reasonable to require automakers to higher environmental standards. We could debate "how much" government/collective intervention would be required to solve the problem, but you seem to favor no action at all for a problem that is a looming crisis.
Fourth, you declare "the cure is worse than the disease." If you mean cure as "solving global warming" and the disease, hurricanes, soaring temperatures, adverse weather conditions, mass death, then we disagree. I do not mind paying a little bit more out of my meager salary and altering my behavior slightly to save the planet. Hard to believe, but this is a majority opinion in America. We are a generous people willing to chip in to solve greater challenges.

Mike_115 Wrote:Besides global warming the rest of your examples are really examples of big government failings, not vice versa.

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

Nothing in the Constitution actually sets "limits" on spending. In fact, nothing in there says we can't borrow as much as we please from the Chinese. How is that for freedom?
Once again you use another loaded word, "robbing." Taxes are passed by laws via our representatives. However unpleasant you find this, it was all done legally.
Also, I don't mind my money being "robbed" if New Orleans needs it to rebuild. Most Americans have a sense of humanity and in times of crisis, are quite generous.

Mike_115 Wrote: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).

A defense network does serve the People. This isn't something you can rely the market to do. Armies and navies that serve the collective don't spring up naturally. On the other hand, mercenary companies like Blackwater do...but they are responsible to the shareholders not the citizenry.

Mike_115 Wrote: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

I don't know about this. There is more than one way for a democracy to fail. Caesar ended the Roman Republic when he brought the army into civilian territory. No nasty inflation there! Just a confusion of the role of commander in chief with head of state duties.

[ShelleyS]

We still have limited resources,

Yes, this is completely true. And a large part of the technology of the last hundred years was developed in order to process those resources. This is a major difference between 'now' and 'then': we have the power to do greater harm than ever. What do you think that a corporation would do, if it were suddenly freed of all environmental regulations?

I am all for personal freedoms; however, to me those freedoms include the freedom to live in a beautiful world, breathe clean air, and know that my children will be allowed those same freedoms.

[Mike_115]

ShelleyS Wrote:What do you think that a corporation would do, if it were suddenly freed of all environmental regulations?

Mike_115 Wrote: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.

I realize you probably didn't read the whole thread, and that's ok, but I already addressed that.

COLMustard159 Wrote:Did you know that the government even regulates the behavior of children and families?

Are we going to debate or attack? You don't seem to know what you are talking about, and you keep giving examples that help my cause not yours. I guess if you don't have a good argument you have to resort to ad hominem attacks and straw man fallacies.

All over the world in poor and developing countries the children work, it's needed to help advance the society. Once a country becomes developed enough it isn't needed any more. We wouldn't have child labor in America today even without the laws against it. Abuse in the form of labor or anything else is and should be illegal.

While what you listed are currently accepted as commons, they wouldn't have to be any more than your land. Air and water rights are yours as long as they are on your land. Refer to my above quote of myself for how this would be protected. Radio frequencies are just another limited resource same as land or water. When we discovered radio technology it should have been claimed by private parties though home steading the same as land when we moved west. Space isn't really a concern yet, but the same approach would work.

There are no parks that currently exist and can compete with Yellowstone. There is no need, because Yellowstone exists. There are people and organizations that would take that responsibility if it was needed. Look at how much the Bill Gates Foundation gives.

Similarly with FEMA and New Orleans. In 1900 Galveston Texas was destroyed by a hurricane, it was rebuilt without government involvement. Look at what a terrific job FEMA did in New Orleans. People, especially Americans, are very generous in times of need. Even when there isn't a disaster like Katrina they give to the red cross, and blood drives.

There is a distinct difference between contradicting yourself and qualifying what you said. I didn't say that was the only solution, I said that was the only possible government solution. But lets look at what industry and government are doing to solve global warming. The government is supporting corn ethanol (MORE polluting LESS efficient, takes MORE energy to produce than you get out). The industry is creating this. Completely electric, 135 MPG equivalent. I don't have a defeatist attitude I put my trust in industry. But your positions actually harm the environment not help it.

You are right there aren't limits on how much they can tax and spend. There are limits on what they can tax and spend on. Welfare, Medicare, FEMA, war on drugs, and most pork is definitely not on the list. Read article 1 section 8.

Finally I never said that it was the only way democracies end, only that it will end democracies. And it may not go the whole way to dictatorship for a long time, but it moves in that direction.

[AAF]

Mike_115 Wrote: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.

Isn't the first one hundred and fifty years of America a good enough success story for you?

These two statements made my skin crawl, even as a white girl!
Are you seriously saying that we can credit the American "success story" to Libertarianism? What about the pesky little history we have called African Slavery? So the slaves were working as hard as they could because they were "given freedom"? I would say they PUSHED an entire society along!

You gotta be kidding.

[COLMustard159]

There are so many things wrong with Mike_115's answers. I've tried pointing them out repeatedly, but he seems to respond by either misunderstanding (deliberately or otherwise) or dismissing valid points with a conventional dose of rhetoric or the usual canned arguments. The point is whether Libertarian government is feasible in a world where absolute freedom leads to collective destruction.

Case and point: although an individual's car is not polluting anyone's land (the public or private) beyond any legal limit, the aggregate of everyone's pollution is leading to collective destruction. This problem transcends the antiquated idea that every thing can be managed with a property/individual rights paradigm. Perhaps there are libertarians who have an understanding of collective/societal responsibilities. It is these libertarians I'd rather be debating with.

Under a strict Libertarian government, there would be no United States (as we know it anyway)! Why?! Because THIS land belonged to the Native Americans and was taken by force. A true Libertarian would never stoop to this barbarism and would engage in some sort of bargaining/honest buying. Under this framework, I think that our Native American countrymen would make a much larger segment of our population and their great centers of population wouldn't be concentrated on the crumby reservations. So much for declaring the "success" of America as originating from Libertarian principles!

Other problems from Mike's response was that he did not quote me in full. Anyone interested can see my quote in its full context.

The FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina was awful. This is a textbook example of the tragedies of cronyism in government.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/03/brown.fema.emails/

Mike also seems to get offended with questions pertaining to the obvious. "Did you know that the government even regulates families..." was never meant to be offensive. He must have felt that he alone would be the only one reading these posts. Quite selfish if you ask me, but what else would you expect when an individual who believes that ALL great things originate from "self interest"?

There are other problems and I'll let other interested readers deal with them. I'm far too busy making a living AND serving my country. (Note that I have individual responsibilities as well as societal/collective obligations. I think the majority of citizens are in this boat and actually enjoy it!.)

In the Preamble of the Constitution, one of the goals mentioned is ",..promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." The Constitution can be argued to be a contract with the future and the two goals aren't always mutually exclusive and sometimes they are often at odds with each other. Consider the immediate gratification of short term profit at the expense of an environment the next generation will inherit.

Have you ever read Lord of the Flies? I think that is what an experiment in pure Libertarian government would look like. The Libertarian ideologue fears absolute power and foolishly believes in absolute freedom. This is absurd. Everyone has individual responsibilities. But everyone also has collective responsibilities as well.

I think that this will be my last reply to Mike. Not that it matters, but I mastered Libertarian government years ago. A master knows not only the strengths of a philosophy, but also its glaring weaknesses and shortcomings. Furthermore, a master is never satisfied with inadequate slogans and rationales.

I've come to notice certain "mental habits" and "motivational patterns" in libertarians. Most of them are good people (at least the ones I've met in person). But I think I'll start that discussion as a new topic.

[Mike_115]

AAF Wrote:These two statements made my skin crawl, even as a white girl!
Are you seriously saying that we can credit the American "success story" to Libertarianism? What about the pesky little history we have called African Slavery? So the slaves were working as hard as they could because they were "given freedom"? I would say they PUSHED an entire society along!

You gotta be kidding.

I'm sure that this had something to do with it, however, it was certainly not the whole story. Slavery was not in pratice in all the country or industries. The north, much of the west, and, after slavery ended, the whole country functioned well without slavery. I certainly do not advocate slavery and find racism despicable.

[Mike_115]

ColMustard159 I'll get back to you Monday. I don't have the internet at home, and am about to leave.

[AAF]

Mike_115 Wrote:

AAF Wrote:These two statements made my skin crawl, even as a white girl!
Are you seriously saying that we can credit the American "success story" to Libertarianism? What about the pesky little history we have called African Slavery? So the slaves were working as hard as they could because they were "given freedom"? I would say they PUSHED an entire society along!

You gotta be kidding.

I'm sure that this had something to do with it, however, it was certainly not the whole story. Slavery was not in pratice in all the country or industries. The north, much of the west, and, after slavery ended, the whole country functioned well without slavery. I certainly do not advocate slavery and find racism despicable.

No intention to imply any racism on your part.

"Something to do with it"??? I often hear people wax about the glories of American ingenuity, free enterprise, democracy and pioneer spirit during the beginnings of this country. But often glossed over or ommitted is the fact that much of the early wealth of this country was made by slave labor. Even many of the most cherished symbols were, such as the Capitol building.

One could say, well that's how it was or other countries had slaves too. But this sort of "winning advantage" still can't be ignored as it relates to the American progress story.

As far as the West is concerned ... yikes! I won't even get started on the American theft of territory! Its quite an advantage to start up "industry" when you steal the real estate it depends on for success!

Still not sure where Libertarianism enters.

[Taopoet]

Wow, this is an interesting thread, and the only one I've seen on this site that's so vitriolic. Sorry to see that happening. In the words of the great Senator Barack Obama, "You can disagree without being disagreeable."

I'm going to go do my thing and research Libertarianism some more, because I know little of it besides that my libertarian friends have always seemed to be anger-driven. I'll be back, but first, I want to share my initial visceral response to the brilliant Tyler quote Mike_115 shared:

"... 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...." - Alexander Tyler

Is this not exactly how our current president, the two presidents of the 1980s, and all their political fellows attracted many, if not the majority, of their voters? Perhaps I'm misconstruing "gifts from the public treasury" to be tax cuts, which drain the public treasury, when really, Tyler intended "gifts" to mean social programs, healthcare, labor laws, and other elements intended to "promote the general Welfare"?

It's a big and confusing topic, which is what seems to draw the libertarian approach to simplifying and, in some ways, starting over. I'll see what I can learn. Thanks for inspiring me to look beyond the anger and inform myself.

Oh, and it's true, as Mike_115 says, our country is a Republic, not a Democracy (if it were a democracy, we'd all be using our internet connections to vote on every little issue rather than sending representatives to local, state, and federal bodies to vote on our behalf).

[Mike_115]

ColMustard159 There isn't much in your last post to reply to. I answered the points you raised, so you raised new points. You went from curiously asking a question to having an agenda to being a "master", from being (my impression at least) hard line big government to moderation in all things. One thing I will reply to is your misconception of the constitution. To promote the general welfare is the purpose of the constitution. To do that we are going to create a government "chained down by the bonds of the constitution" (rough quote of Jefferson) as is laid out by the rest of the constitution. This is just a statement of intent, not a plan. The plan for how to do that is in the rest of the constitution. If you think additional powers are needed to do that, then you amend the constitution. I would probably oppose those amendments, but you would at least then have solid legal footing.

To the people who mentioned slavery and theft of Indian lands. These are truly some of the darkest times in American history, and not in alignment with libertarian ideals. I don't think that they negate the libertarian principles though. There are other examples that to greater or lesser degrees exemplify how (sometimes counter intuitively) libertarianism works.

Taopoet, most of the politicians of the last several hundred years have played that card. To the voter "I'll give you a hand up" to the lobbyist "I'll give you a hand out". Mean while government gets bigger and deeper in debt. Both parties are to blame.

I hope everyone will read the entire thread and judge for themselves. I tried not to attack, however, that's hard when you are constantly being called selfish, thoughtless, and unfit to live in a libertarian society. Though to be fair I suppose I did start it when I got upset at ColMustard159's up front rejection of any answer.