LIbertarians

I can name about 30 successful and developed countries on the planet, that follow the tenets of a progressive liberal social democracy: A decent public social safety net; cheap or free public education; generous public universal health care and maternity leave; public investments in science, infrastructure, and research; proactive public oversight and regulation of markets and financial institutions.

I’d like the names of a couple countries that follow the tenets of the American Libertarian platform, and are economically and socially successful and stable.
 
I think you've got something there, Dave, but it's not exclusive to the left.

The State, in general, profits from a weak society. It can justify its presence in a matter with any indication of an ailment, even if it's a question that cannot or should not be resolved by government.

And you know that once the State is involved, people will find it hard to fathom that life can continue without it. We are only about six years into the existence of the Department of Homeland Security, and if someone proposed to do away with it as a bureaucratic failure, it would appear as if they were planning to cancel national security.

The government, as an institution, does not have the same interests as the people. So, it requires people with a high degree of discipline to curb that machinery from becoming a proxy for other interests.
 
Cypress said:
I can name about 30 successful and developed countries on the planet, that follow the tenets of a progressive liberal social democracy: A decent public social safety net; cheap or free public education; generous public universal health care and maternity leave; public investments in science, infrastructure, and research; proactive public oversight and regulation of markets and financial institutions.

I’d like the names of a couple countries that follow the tenets of the American Libertarian platform, and are economically and socially successful and stable.
Click to expand...

I'd say the closest in Norway...but we started out Libertarian as well.
 
Just look at it this way. Most Americans agree that we should legalize pot, nothing gets done by the Dems, nothing gets done by the Reps, and the Libertarians who agree get ignored. Most people think we need to leave Iraq, nothing gets done by the Dems, nothing gets done by the Reps, Libertarians agree and are ignored. Libertarians just have no place in American politics. Ignore them!

Seriously, what idiot actually thinks that if we elect Libertarians into office we would actually have a Libertarian government? Libertarians would only be there to be a check and balance on the overbearing government. There is no way they would somehow overthrow our democratic government and turn is into some anarchaic land of misfits shooting each other and not having a paid police force to stop the violence. It's pure strawmen to act like electing Libertarians into office will equate to a Libertarian form of government. It just wouldn't happen, they would only be a PART of the current government where they would be the voice of reason on many issues that a majority of people agree with but is not represented.
 
DigitalDave said:
If liberal philosophy actually worked, they would destroy themslves as a party. So they have the Democratic party that makes sure the programs don't work in order to keep people down. Otherwise, who would vote for them. What good would bitching about people being poor do if there were no poor people?
Click to expand...

there is no risk of ever running out of poor people.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I think you've got something there, Dave, but it's not exclusive to the left.

The State, in general, profits from a weak society. It can justify its presence in a matter with any indication of an ailment, even if it's a question that cannot or should not be resolved by government.

And you know that once the State is involved, people will find it hard to fathom that life can continue without it. We are only about six years into the existence of the Department of Homeland Security, and if someone proposed to do away with it as a bureaucratic failure, it would appear as if they were planning to cancel national security.

The government, as an institution, does not have the same interests as the people. So, it requires people with a high degree of discipline to curb that machinery from becoming a proxy for other interests.
Click to expand...

True Dat it is an aspect of human nature I suppose.
 
DigitalDave said:
Just look at it this way. Most Americans agree that we should legalize pot, nothing gets done by the Dems, nothing gets done by the Reps, and the Libertarians who agree get ignored. Most people think we need to leave Iraq, nothing gets done by the Dems, nothing gets done by the Reps, Libertarians agree and are ignored. Libertarians just have no place in American politics. Ignore them!

Seriously, what idiot actually thinks that if we elect Libertarians into office we would actually have a Libertarian government? Libertarians would only be there to be a check and balance on the overbearing government. There is no way they would somehow overthrow our democratic government and turn is into some anarchaic land of misfits shooting each other and not having a paid police force to stop the violence. It's pure strawmen to act like electing Libertarians into office will equate to a Libertarian form of government. It just wouldn't happen, they would only be a PART of the current government where they would be the voice of reason on many issues that a majority of people agree with but is not represented.
Click to expand...

would you LIKE a libertarian government?
 
I would NOT like a libertarian govt. They do have a couple of good ideas, but the majority of their stuff will not fly.
 
Grind said:
would you LIKE a libertarian government?
Click to expand...

Totally libertarian? No... I would like them to be a part of the decision making process and some of their policies that seem to be underrepresented in the current government get represented. I would like to see policies be more fiscally responsible in order to get the Libertarians to agree with it, and someone in government to have some balls to change our foreign policy. I'd like to ensure freedoms aren't being trampled on, but I would not want to end public schools, or social safety nets. I'd much rather see them work so we don't have to pay so damn much for them.
 
Cypress said:
Iraq.

Weak central federal government; power devolved to local communities and tribes; little government or regulatory oversight; completely free trade with no tarriffs; very lax guns laws or regulation (if any); flat national tax (no progressive taxation)
Click to expand...

1. The amount of federation/confederation in a system has nothing to do with how libertarian it is. A lot of libertarians are radical constitutionalists, so they tend to support a lot of power devolved to the state. But states are no less likely to violate rights than a unified government.

2. It's hard to do that whenever you basically don't control the nation.

3. NO TARIFFS?!!?/1!?! OH THE HORROR! You must love it though, Cypress, being such a non-protectionist, as you always claim.

4. It's very rare for nations down there to bother with something that would be completely futile even to a powerful developed nation.

5. A lot of third world nations have a flat tax. Russia, for instance. They also don't provide many social services, but that's mostly because they can't afford it, even if taxation were at 100%.
 
DigitalDave said:
Totally libertarian? No... I would like them to be a part of the decision making process and some of their policies that seem to be underrepresented in the current government get represented. I would like to see policies be more fiscally responsible in order to get the Libertarians to agree with it, and someone in government to have some balls to change our foreign policy. I'd like to ensure freedoms aren't being trampled on, but I would not want to end public schools, or social safety nets. I'd much rather see them work so we don't have to pay so damn much for them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they got like 1.5% of the vote in the last election, so under a proportional system that's like, what, 3 or 4 seats? Robbery, I say.

:)
 
I like the fiscal responsibility and most fo the foreign policy and doind away with the social based "victimless" laws. but that last part will never fly with the masses.
 
uscitizen said:
I like the fiscal responsibility and most fo the foreign policy and doind away with the social based "victimless" laws. but that last part will never fly with the masses.
Click to expand...

Of course it wouldn't fly, so therefore it would never happen. You, along with most Americans agree, on all of those issues, but they are underrepresented in Washington. So for people to get all bent out of shape because 'libertarians want to end public schools', they are missing out on an opportunity to get some representation on those other issues. But they feel that way for a reason. Americans would end up voting for the more moderate Libertarians that agree. Extremist libertarians wouldn't ever make it.
 
Cypress said:
The Neocons wanted the war.

But it was Bush, and his merry band of "free marketeers" who wanted to magically transform iraq into a "free" market paradise, of open trade, privitization of state assessts, and "property" rights. That's the core of economic libertarian philosophy.

It was never widely reported in american media, but the utility of installing Paul Bremer as, essentially, the Dictator of Iraq, was that at a stroke of a pen he could single handidly order and mandate economic "reforms" that would never get passed in a democratic country, or through a functioning legislslature. Because Bremer's "orders" were full of all the crazy shit free marketeers have been drooling about for decades. But, never able to implement because democratically elected legislatures around the world laugh them off.

Googe "Order Number 38". That's only one of Bremer's mandates. A regressive flat tax. Elimination of tariffs, and completely "free" trade; privitization of state assests, allowing foreign ownership of Iraqi banks, divesting State owned water and oil assets; mandates that weakened labor unions.

This was all planned years ago. It was no accident. And the imposition of these crazy CATO inspired ideas nearly crushed the iraqi economy.
Click to expand...

So this is your new tactic?

Bush isn't a Neocon, he's an unwavering and well-educated student of free market economics?

LoL. Even you can do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top