|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 am Post subject: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
 |
|
It seems these days the libertarian/classical liberal movement seems to be growing and there are plenty of you on this forum. Some of the ideas and positions I've seen advanced from this 'side' do seem to be fairly reasonable and I definitely am in agreement on several issues (end of the 'war on drugs' and scaling back of military adventurism etc.)
However there are some issues which I think I'm unsure of exactly where some of the libertarians/classical libs lie and which bother me so I'm starting this thread with the hope that some of you may be able to clarify some of these positions.
I understand not all libertarian/classical libs march in lockstep so there could be a wide variance in your answers and that no policy positions are 'set in stone' but I would still be interested in your answers, so here goes:
1) Do you believe the government should sell off all public libraries? If private companies bought the libraries and started charging people for using them would you consider this a progressive step towards a better society?
2) Should all national parks be sold off? If private companies or wealthy individuals bought popular national parks and closed them off completely to the public for their own use and/or started strip-mining and polluting in them would you consider this an acceptable outcome?
3) Do you think there should be no government regulation to prevent pollution and that private ownership of all land alone would be enough to stop it from harming people's health? What about air and sea pollution? How could private land ownership prevent this?
4) What about the companies and individuals who have benefited hugely from current 'corporatist' policies? If we switched to a libertarian/ classical liberal society tomorrow wouldn't they have a huge, unfair advantage over the rest of us because of their ability to buy up all the valuable government assets that would have to be sold off?
5) If government is not to regulate companies in any way what protections are there for consumers if companies, who together have a virtual monopoly of a particular market, decide to collude with each other and fix prices at a level that is far more than optimum on a product which people have practically no choice but to buy (ie oil, electricity)?
6) Do you think that libertarian/classical liberal policies would ultimately lead to a more or less egalitarian society? Would increased polarization of rich and poor be a necessary evil of such a system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:45 am Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1) Do you believe the government should sell off all public libraries? |
No. I use the local public library very often and think it a reasonable use of public funds.
| Quote: |
| 2) Should all national parks be sold off? |
No, not all. Some, maybe.
| Quote: |
| 3) Do you think there should be no government regulation to prevent pollution and that private ownership of all land alone would be enough to stop it from harming people's health? |
Reduction in pollution is a fine role for government. The devil is in the details.
| Quote: |
| 4) What about the companies and individuals who have benefited hugely from current 'corporatist' policies? If we switched to a libertarian/ classical liberal society tomorrow wouldn't they have a huge, unfair advantage over the rest of us because of their ability to buy up all the valuable government assets that would have to be sold off? |
Removing support for these large corporatist parasites would result in their almost immediate collapse. The problem isn't that they'd be able to buy up the land but that the economic consequences would be horrible, in the near term.
| Quote: |
| 5) If government is not to regulate companies in any way what protections are there for consumers if companies, who together have a virtual monopoly of a particular market, decide to collude with each other and fix prices at a level that is far more than optimum on a product which people have practically no choice but to buy (ie oil, electricity)? |
Monopolies are a difficult question. As it stands, they are typically government created but I'll accept that the market can create a monopoly. Government should break them up when they exist.
| Quote: |
| 6) Do you think that libertarian/classical liberal policies would ultimately lead to a more or less egalitarian society? Would increased polarization of rich and poor be a necessary evil of such a system? |
The recent explosion in inequality is due to government. The banking/monetary system. A classical liberal society would have inequality. I don't believe it would be as bad as now.
My libertarianism is like this: The primacy of civil liberties. Anti-war. Sound money. Markets determine which firms fail and succeed. No drug war. No god damned wars. Etc. Low taxes. Most libertarians I know do not want to privatize the local fire department. They want government to support their liberty and not take it. They want to be left alone. They want their savings to mean something and not be the plaything of an evil banking oligopoly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:52 am Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 1) Do you believe the government should sell off all public libraries? |
No. I use the local public library very often and think it a reasonable use of public funds.
| Quote: |
| 2) Should all national parks be sold off? |
No, not all. Some, maybe.
| Quote: |
| 3) Do you think there should be no government regulation to prevent pollution and that private ownership of all land alone would be enough to stop it from harming people's health? |
Reduction in pollution is a fine role for government. The devil is in the details.
| Quote: |
| 4) What about the companies and individuals who have benefited hugely from current 'corporatist' policies? If we switched to a libertarian/ classical liberal society tomorrow wouldn't they have a huge, unfair advantage over the rest of us because of their ability to buy up all the valuable government assets that would have to be sold off? |
Removing support for these large corporatist parasites would result in their almost immediate collapse. The problem isn't that they'd be able to buy up the land but that the economic consequences would be horrible, in the near term.
| Quote: |
| 5) If government is not to regulate companies in any way what protections are there for consumers if companies, who together have a virtual monopoly of a particular market, decide to collude with each other and fix prices at a level that is far more than optimum on a product which people have practically no choice but to buy (ie oil, electricity)? |
Monopolies are a difficult question. As it stands, they are typically government created but I'll accept that the market can create a monopoly. Government should break them up when they exist.
| Quote: |
| 6) Do you think that libertarian/classical liberal policies would ultimately lead to a more or less egalitarian society? Would increased polarization of rich and poor be a necessary evil of such a system? |
The recent explosion in inequality is due to government. The banking/monetary system. A classical liberal society would have inequality. I don't believe it would be as bad as now.
My libertarianism is like this: The primacy of civil liberties. Anti-war. Sound money. Markets determine which firms fail and succeed. No drug war. No god damned wars. Etc. Low taxes. Most libertarians I know do not want to privatize the local fire department. They want government to support their liberty and not take it. They want to be left alone. They want their savings to mean something and not be the plaything of an evil banking oligopoly. |
I think you are a very reasonable 'libertarian' then! 
I think there are others on this board though that would go much further than you and believe in privatizing everything except defense *cough, ontheway etc, cough* because for the government to do anything at all is 'socialist-fascist'. I would still be interested in hearing their answers to these questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:53 am Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
It seems these days the libertarian/classical liberal movement seems to be growing and there are plenty of you on this forum. Some of the ideas and positions I've seen advanced from this 'side' do seem to be fairly reasonable and I definitely am in agreement on several issues (end of the 'war on drugs' and scaling back of military adventurism etc.)
However there are some issues which I think I'm unsure of exactly where some of the libertarians/classical libs lie and which bother me so I'm starting this thread with the hope that some of you may be able to clarify some of these positions.
I understand not all libertarian/classical libs march in lockstep so there could be a wide variance in your answers and that no policy positions are 'set in stone' but I would still be interested in your answers, so here goes:
1) Do you believe the government should sell off all public libraries? If private companies bought the libraries and started charging people for using them would you consider this a progressive step towards a better society? |
I think some libertarians might simply reply: TANSTAAFL. Libraries aren't free, you're still getting charged even if you don't think about it. It's also possible to have privately owned libraries that are free to use for the general public (known as philanthropy).
| Quote: |
| 2) Should all national parks be sold off? If private companies or wealthy individuals bought popular national parks and closed them off completely to the public for their own use and/or started strip-mining and polluting in them would you consider this an acceptable outcome? |
This is a complicated question. Theoretically, yes. However, it would only work in a free market system. If we suddenly switched to a free market system and put all parks up for sale, the elite who got all their money through banking and government corruption would have an unfair advantage. Their ill gotten wealth would probably disperse over time though.
As for exploiting resources, that's fine. It's supply and demand. Less resources would get wasted in a free market than get wasted by government regulation at present.
| Quote: |
| 3) Do you think there should be no government regulation to prevent pollution and that private ownership of all land alone would be enough to stop it from harming people's health? What about air and sea pollution? How could private land ownership prevent this? |
Government regulation not only does nothing to prevent pollution, it is actually a great enabler of it. Ontheway has explained this in other threads.
| Quote: |
| 4) What about the companies and individuals who have benefited hugely from current 'corporatist' policies? If we switched to a libertarian/ classical liberal society tomorrow wouldn't they have a huge, unfair advantage over the rest of us because of their ability to buy up all the valuable government assets that would have to be sold off? |
Yes, this is a problem. It would be better to confiscate ill gotten wealth and redistribute it equally among the public. Eventually their wealth would fade away though (unless they put it to good honest uses, in which case, the question of criminal justice notwithstanding, there's no problem).
| Quote: |
| 5) If government is not to regulate companies in any way what protections are there for consumers if companies, who together have a virtual monopoly of a particular market, decide to collude with each other and fix prices at a level that is far more than optimum on a product which people have practically no choice but to buy (ie oil, electricity)? |
Most cartels are formed with government help. Look at the FDA to see how fallacious the notion is of government regulation 'protecting the public'. The government still has the power to enforce the law and prevent criminal activities. Regulation is best left to market forces, however. It is also possible to have third party private companies (that stake their future on keeping their reputation for reliability and incorruptibility intact) that provide safety info to the consumer.
| Quote: |
| 6) Do you think that libertarian/classical liberal policies would ultimately lead to a more or less egalitarian society? Would increased polarization of rich and poor be a necessary evil of such a system? |
Equality of opportunity, definitely. Equality of "entitlement", not at all. And that's how it should be. Decreased polarization of rich and poor (and an expansion of the middle class) is the most certain outcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:59 am Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 1) Do you believe the government should sell off all public libraries? |
No. I use the local public library very often and think it a reasonable use of public funds.
| Quote: |
| 2) Should all national parks be sold off? |
No, not all. Some, maybe.
| Quote: |
| 3) Do you think there should be no government regulation to prevent pollution and that private ownership of all land alone would be enough to stop it from harming people's health? |
Reduction in pollution is a fine role for government. The devil is in the details.
| Quote: |
| 4) What about the companies and individuals who have benefited hugely from current 'corporatist' policies? If we switched to a libertarian/ classical liberal society tomorrow wouldn't they have a huge, unfair advantage over the rest of us because of their ability to buy up all the valuable government assets that would have to be sold off? |
Removing support for these large corporatist parasites would result in their almost immediate collapse. The problem isn't that they'd be able to buy up the land but that the economic consequences would be horrible, in the near term.
| Quote: |
| 5) If government is not to regulate companies in any way what protections are there for consumers if companies, who together have a virtual monopoly of a particular market, decide to collude with each other and fix prices at a level that is far more than optimum on a product which people have practically no choice but to buy (ie oil, electricity)? |
Monopolies are a difficult question. As it stands, they are typically government created but I'll accept that the market can create a monopoly. Government should break them up when they exist.
| Quote: |
| 6) Do you think that libertarian/classical liberal policies would ultimately lead to a more or less egalitarian society? Would increased polarization of rich and poor be a necessary evil of such a system? |
The recent explosion in inequality is due to government. The banking/monetary system. A classical liberal society would have inequality. I don't believe it would be as bad as now.
My libertarianism is like this: The primacy of civil liberties. Anti-war. Sound money. Markets determine which firms fail and succeed. No drug war. No god damned wars. Etc. Low taxes. Most libertarians I know do not want to privatize the local fire department. They want government to support their liberty and not take it. They want to be left alone. They want their savings to mean something and not be the plaything of an evil banking oligopoly. |
I think you are a very reasonable 'libertarian' then!
I think there are others on this board though that would go much further than you and believe in privatizing everything except defense *cough, ontheway etc, cough* because for the government to do anything at all is 'socialist-fascist'. I would still be interested in hearing their answers to these questions. |
Actually, we should eventually privatize defense. This is one of the most important things for a free society to do. Imagine that you can only have wars that people are willing to fight for and pay for with no draft and no taxes. Congress declares war and defense is provided without coercive govenment means. There will be no more interventionist wars and no more empire. This is possible and it can be funded and manned.
Privatize fire departments as well. Many are already private in the US. At one time they were all private. The government has not made them better.
As to the other items, they each need much more detailed answers than I have time to provide here. Thousands of books are available on these topics:
1. Privatize libraries. Absolutely. This may or may not mean "sell" them. They will be better and serve the real needs of their users at lower cost for the value delivered with no cost to taxpayers. Eventually, most library users will find they will have access to free libraries with better resources and no taxpayer cost.
2. Privatize public parks. Absolutely. This doesn't mean to just sell them. They should be transfered out of the incompetent hands of the government and set up as private corporations with the shares available to citizens either by distribution on an equal basis or by limited subscription through an IPO with shares available to all by the number limited.
People who use parks will pay fees that cover the cost of running them. A range of types of parks will exist, from those that are maintained for wildlife conservation and ban most human activities that would disturb the protected species to those that are heavily recreational, and all types in between. When placed under the stewardship of the people and managed by those truly devoted to the environment, we will see the best outcomes without the political decision making process that serves no one.
Being managed by conservationists means that those parks that find themselves blessed with marketable resources such as oil, coal, timber etc. will be able to develop those resources in an environmentally sound manner without jepordizing the end purposes of the park as a park, while earning a return for the citizen owners.
3. Pollution is only possible in a socialist system. When all land, air and water is privatized in a free market, it is illegal to pollute anyone else's property as a violation of property rights.
The difficult side of the free market is that producers have to learn to produce in a way that does not require polluting other people's property, subsidies, slaves etc. It can be done. It requires the application of planning, science and engineering skills before the introduction of new products. They have to be introduced after it has been determined how to do so without harming other people and their property. This is just what should always be done, however.
The fascist-socialists don't give a damn about the people. If they need pollution, subsidies that rob the taxpayers, draftees or slaves to produce what they want - so be it.
4. Regulation, income taxes and subsidies have given us huge oversized corporations that would never exist in a free market. If we had a free market that allowed free entry with no income and no property taxes and no regulations, the big, dinosaur firms would be quickly borken up or they would fail. New market entrants would drive them to become efficient or die.
As to the "buying up" of government assets. We can and should privatize many government assets by distribution or sale to the citizens as the rightful owners. Some, of course need to be sold into the market. This would be determined by evaluation of the factors surrounding each type of asset.
5. There has NEVER been a monopoly in the history of the world that was not a creation of some government.
There is no such thing as a "natural monopoly" as this concept was not created by economists buy by PR men who used their own b.s. p.r. creation to create utility regulation to stifle the market and increase profits to the winning government created monoplies.
In a free market, you will never see a monopoly.
6. A look back at the 20th century reveals that the greatest inequality of actual effective wealth distribution occurs in the countries with the most government control. The big fascist-socialist and communist socialist countries had elites living the lives of billionaires, a tiny middle class (if any) while the bottom 80% or more had little food, poor housing, and less of everything than the poorest of the poor people (the bottom 1%) in freer societies.
Liberty makes all but the elites richer.
Socialism makes all but the elites poorer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:27 am Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1) Do you believe the government should sell off all public libraries? If private companies bought the libraries and started charging people for using them would you consider this a progressive step towards a better society? |
Depends on the situation. The federal govt doesn't own that many libraries (I don't think). It's probably within the purview of local govts to run libraries. I wouldn't object to paying for the library if it cost less per book than through taxes. Overall, the total spend on libraries probably isn't worth getting too panty twisted over.
| Quote: |
| 2) Should all national parks be sold off? If private companies or wealthy individuals bought popular national parks and closed them off completely to the public for their own use and/or started strip-mining and polluting in them would you consider this an acceptable outcome? |
A lot of that land is going to waste. It really should be put to its best possible use for all of society. That means that if there are some valuable minerals under there, why not dig them out? Having said this, every single inch of national park won't have valuable minerals under it, so the best use for much of it will be its natural state. When the land is privately owned, this will actually stop pollution of the land from happening. Private land owners can take recourse.
[
| Quote: |
| b]3)[/b] Do you think there should be no government regulation to prevent pollution and that private ownership of all land alone would be enough to stop it from harming people's health? What about air and sea pollution? How could private land ownership prevent this? |
I think private ownership of all land would be better than the current situation, but it wouldn't stop all pollution from happening. Some pollution is inevitable.
| Quote: |
4) What about the companies and individuals who have benefited hugely from current 'corporatist' policies? If we switched to a libertarian/ classical liberal society tomorrow wouldn't they have a huge, unfair advantage over the rest of us because of their ability to buy up all the valuable government assets that would have to be sold off? |
The people in those companies that have gained unfair advantages, and the politicians that enabled them need to be tried and imprisoned.
I don't have any issues with legit companies buying up those assets. They have a track record with directing capital. If they can't administer the capital they purchase from the govt, they will lose it. Such is the power of the market.
| Quote: |
| 5) If government is not to regulate companies in any way what protections are there for consumers if companies, who together have a virtual monopoly of a particular market, decide to collude with each other and fix prices at a level that is far more than optimum on a product which people have practically no choice but to buy (ie oil, electricity)? |
The fear of monopolies is an irrational fear. In the long term they can only exist through exploiting regulatory loop holes. Short term, monopolies do exist in a free market, but long term, they never survive.
| Quote: |
6) Do you think that libertarian/classical liberal policies would ultimately lead to a more or less egalitarian society? Would increased polarization of rich and poor be a necessary evil of such a system? |
| Quote: |
Competition and the free market have been the greatest equalizers in history. The poorest folk (in the developed world) live lives, in terms of material wealth, far exceeding what the richest folk of 100 years ago could have dreamed possible. The only way to become wealthy in a libertarian society is to provide value. This would lead to a more egalitarian society not less. Perhaps the rich would be richer in this form of society, leading to more inequality. But who cares? The poor would also be much richer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1) Do you believe the government should sell off all public libraries? If private companies bought the libraries and started charging people for using them would you consider this a progressive step towards a better society? |
It all depends on the quality. If the quality is wretched, then yes. If not, no. And since there's no evidence that free books or free music creates a disincentive to produce, why bother? There's nothing to be gained by being doctrinaire and the government selling assets for the sake of it.
| Quote: |
| 2) Should all national parks be sold off? |
Yes. Build houses on 'em, I say. And if that means turning the whole planet into Seoul, I couldn't give a gnat's chuff. Housing shortages due to government building restrictions (and subsequently riskier lending practises - replacing one government disaster with another) precipitated the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. I rest my case.
| Quote: |
| 3) Do you think there should be no government regulation to prevent pollution and that private ownership of all land alone would be enough to stop it from harming people's health? What about air and sea pollution? How could private land ownership prevent this? |
Your question presupposes, entirely wrongly, that capitalism means pollution and government regulation means less. Coal pollution kills millions of people, is the biggest CO2-emitter (not that that matters anymore) and has recieved huge government subsidies. Indeed, see how closely intertwined coalmining is to the Marxist labor movement.
| Quote: |
4) What about the companies and individuals who have benefited hugely from current 'corporatist' policies? If we switched to a libertarian/ classical liberal society tomorrow wouldn't they have a huge, unfair advantage over the rest of us because of their ability to buy up all the valuable government assets that would have to be sold off?
5) If government is not to regulate companies in any way what protections are there for consumers if companies, who together have a virtual monopoly of a particular market, decide to collude with each other and fix prices at a level that is far more than optimum on a product which people have practically no choice but to buy (ie oil, electricity)? |
I support free markets. Governments interfering with perceived "huge unfair advantages" is, in my view, wholly inconsistent with a free market. If companies are taking the piss out of us, clearly this presents golden business opportunities.
| Quote: |
| 6) Do you think that libertarian/classical liberal policies would ultimately lead to a more or less egalitarian society? |
More egalitarian, I would imagine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio, you're a recent convert to classical liberalism, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, about a year ago. I'm not sure 'convert' is the right word, though - more just completely ignorant beforehand. Years of listening to the BBC and reading the Guardian is seriously bad for the brain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| My libertarianism is like this: The primacy of civil liberties. Anti-war. Sound money. Markets determine which firms fail and succeed. No drug war. No god damned wars. Etc. Low taxes. |
Yes, but this is my Liberalism too, with possible contention over what constitutes "low taxes" in relation to services gained. Especially when you take into account your answers to the specific questions in the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
I understand not all libertarian/classical libs march in lockstep so there could be a wide variance in your answers and that no policy positions are 'set in stone' but I would still be interested in your answers, so here goes: |
Libertarians love to express their opinion! Thanks for letting us do so without adding any BS. I'm a pretty soft libertarian myself, and am less of a Constitutionalist (Ron/Rand Paul) than I am a fiscal conservative. For me, libertarian is a broad category encompassing all that is socially left and fiscally right, or all that is libertarian on rights and the power of the state and all that is right of center on spending (social or military) and social justice.
| Quote: |
1) Do you believe the government should sell off all public libraries? If private companies bought the libraries and started charging people for using them would you consider this a progressive step towards a better society? |
No, no, no, no! Never! Public libraries are a necessary counterpart to a functioning educational system, which is necessary to a vibrant democratic republic and ultimately, a free people. The Public Libraries shouldn't be opulent, but even if they were, I don't think I'd groach that much.
| Quote: |
| 2) Should all national parks be sold off? If private companies or wealthy individuals bought popular national parks and closed them off completely to the public for their own use and/or started strip-mining and polluting in them would you consider this an acceptable outcome? |
The consensus on national parks was, I believe, that we should lease off public land not being utilized first. There's a lot of that. But, if there's no other way to fight the debt than printing money and selling off national parks, we should consider doing both. Printing money is too easy and too destructive. Nobody is gleeful at the idea of selling off nat'l parks, I think. Its one of big gov't's greatest successes.
| Quote: |
3) Do you think there should be no government regulation to prevent pollution and that private ownership of all land alone would be enough to stop it from harming people's health? What about air and sea pollution? How could private land ownership prevent this? |
The gov't should be involved in the area of pollution. I could get into detail, but this is a humongous issue. I favor litigation as a solution over sprawling Federal agencies such as the EPA, but I recognize that regulations are sometimes necessary.
| Quote: |
4) What about the companies and individuals who have benefited hugely from current 'corporatist' policies? If we switched to a libertarian/ classical liberal society tomorrow wouldn't they have a huge, unfair advantage over the rest of us because of their ability to buy up all the valuable government assets that would have to be sold off? |
The fight against corporatism doesn't get substantially easier under a libertarian society. Libertarianism is not Utopia, as some of its opponents would love to falsely portray it. There are steps I'd think that would reform our corporate laws and structures, but I don't know if I'd classify them as libertarian so much as just better laws.
| Quote: |
5) If government is not to regulate companies in any way what protections are there for consumers if companies, who together have a virtual monopoly of a particular market, decide to collude with each other and fix prices at a level that is far more than optimum on a product which people have practically no choice but to buy (ie oil, electricity)? |
Trust-busting is okay. But a monopoly that has arisen without collusion and while playing fair ultimately is okay. Oil and electricity should be regulated to some extent.
| Quote: |
| 6) Do you think that libertarian/classical liberal policies would ultimately lead to a more or less egalitarian society? Would increased polarization of rich and poor be a necessary evil of such a system? |
What did the philosopher Jesus say? The poor will always be with us. Libertarianism is, for me, a sober recognition of the limits of public social policy. But I definitely think charities should be tax-deductible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
Sorry but this....
| ontheway wrote: |
| 2. Privatize public parks. They should be... set up as private corporations with the shares available to citizens either by distribution on an equal basis or by limited subscription through an IPO with shares available to all by the number limited... Being managed by conservationists means that those parks that find themselves blessed with marketable resources such as oil, coal, timber etc. will be able to develop those resources in an environmentally sound manner without jepordizing the end purposes of the park as a park, while earning a return for the citizen owners. |
...is hilarious.
And I think this...
| ontheway wrote: |
| 3. When all land, air and water is privatized in a free market, it is illegal to pollute anyone else's property as a violation of property rights... They have to be introduced after it has been determined how to do so without harming other people and their property. |
... may require some government intervention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
-Edit: My response in this post was based on a misconception which I noticed upon revisiting this thread. Embarassing.
Last edited by Fox on Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:01 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:51 am Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Actually, we should eventually privatize defense. This is one of the most important things for a free society to do. Imagine that you can only have wars that people are willing to fight for and pay for with no draft and no taxes. Congress declares war and defense is provided without coercive govenment means. There will be no more interventionist wars and no more empire. This is possible and it can be funded and manned.
|
I am with you on everything else, but how would this work? While I agree that it would stop interventionist and imperial wars, suppose we are attacked and Congress declares war. We then must wait for the private sector to mobilize an army and weapons? Won't the enemy have killed us all and taken our stuff by then? How does the private sector profitably maintain an army/air force/etc. during peacetime, especially with fewer profit-making wars to see them through the lean, peaceful times? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 am Post subject: Re: Questions for the libertarians/ classic libs |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Actually, we should eventually privatize defense. This is one of the most important things for a free society to do. Imagine that you can only have wars that people are willing to fight for and pay for with no draft and no taxes. Congress declares war and defense is provided without coercive govenment means. There will be no more interventionist wars and no more empire. This is possible and it can be funded and manned.
|
I am with you on everything else, but how would this work? While I agree that it would stop interventionist and imperial wars, suppose we are attacked and Congress declares war. We then must wait for the private sector to mobilize an army and weapons? Won't the enemy have killed us all and taken our stuff by then? How does the private sector profitably maintain an army/air force/etc. during peacetime, especially with fewer profit-making wars to see them through the lean, peaceful times? |
There are an infinite variety of possible private sector orgnizations that are not governmental and would therefore constitute privatization. Nonprofits, charities, churches, the Red Cross, Boy Scouts, community organizations etc.
This is why parks, the environment, libraries, schools, fire and rescue departments and even national defense should, can and must be privatized. It doesn't require the simple minded creation of for-profit corporations to take over these services. It means that individuals will join together to form voluntary groups that operate without coercion or tax revenues to provide services in the private sector.
The fascist-socialist solutions offered by government depend on politics, compromise and force so that voluntary options are never considered, the best solutions are opposed, creativity is stifled and the worst possible dung floats to the top to be imposed on the public.
With the government out of the way, 300 million creative minds are turned lose to solve the nation's problems allowing the best ideas to be promoted, supported and adopted by large groups while alternative items are tested, considered and rise to or sink based on their merits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
