Is Libertarianism Ready for Primetime?
 

Interesting LIBERAL review of the current wave of libertarianism.

Source: http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politi...82/index5.html

Life without the Fed: The Suffolk System


http://mises.org/daily/4902

Liberatarian party is looking better and better.

I can't buy fruit flavored rolling papers anymore

Can't buy raw milk in california either

I <3 me some Mises :D

I am a Libertarian and here's the thing about Libertarians (the good ones who have a complete understanding anyway).

I know of many party hoppers repub/demo/socialist/greenies/etc...

Once you land on Libertarian you never jump again if you have a complete understanding.

There's a key difference in Libertarians that set themselves apart from every other party. Every other party will tell you that their way is the correct way and they're willing to enforce that via taxation and legislation. They will force you into their way of thinking no matter what because what they believe is the only correct way and everything else and everyONE else is wrong.

Libertarians will tell you that there is no correct way, that's why the absence of so much regulation. Libertarians believe that a government is there to protect your inalienable rights as a human being and no more and no less. They do not want freedoms stripped away and they do not believe there is one "correct set of morals".

It is also the only form of proposed government that can be proven by logic and reason. That is why it is so heavily based on personal / property rights. The object is to remove all emotional driven reactions and decisions and replace them by reason and logic. With everything stemming from person property rights it is easy to see who is violating whose rights. In the case of things like prostitution and drug use, you have no person's rights or property being violated, as long as the drug use and prostitution was voluntary. Therefor you have no crime...

Laws aren't (shouldn't be) based on subjective fucking opinion about whether it's "good" or "bad"... And everyone is (should be) forced to take full responsibility for themselves and their own actions ;)

EDIT: There's also a reason for Libertarians rejecting Keynesian economics... the idea that a small body of people is able to predict the market and make adjustments in order to "stabilize" the market is a fucking joke. If that were the case then they should be on Wall St making more cash then they know what to do with!

Libertarians lean heavily towards the Austrian school of economics which states that is is impossible to determine the future actions of a market because they are so random. Therefor interjecting into the market and regulating it will always cause boom and bust scenarios as the powers that be struggle to balance their own fuck ups, LOL

Actually, here's a great rap that sums it up:

libertarians are the mirror image of doctrinaire marxists.

My favorite website.

Here's an awesome video about one of the BEST economists ever--F.A. Hayek

Never really seen a definition of what the Tea Party stands for but I agree with pretty much everything Ron Paul says. I just finished reading "End the Fed" yesterday. Made a lot of sense. Seems like he got most of his philosophy from Austrian economics and the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) philosophy, in particular Atlas Shrugged.

it seems to me that ron paul's justification for going back on a gold standard is inflation, but not everyone agrees we are in an inflationary period. i don't claim to understand economics well-enough to have an opinion either way but if there's debate about it, i tend to not side with sensationalizing the issues. also, i don't see how the current world economy could be supported by the current amount of gold. especially if it comes to individuals having to own gold for transactions.


but again, it's a complex topic i haven't completely immersed myself in.

:thumbsup:thumbsup Just saw that rap yesterday on Mises. Wonder how many actually understand it.

Those in power want you to believe it is complicated. It is really quite simple. Take something that you bought. What did it cost 10 years ago? Is it more or less? More=inflation, less=inflation.

Politics is sensationalized but real economics is not. It is about the facts and deductive reasoning.

Don't pay any attention to the CPI. It's bullshit. Inflation is different for each person since each person spends their money on different things and different things change prices at different rates.

The reason for gold is so that currency actually has real value and so gov't and those in power can't cheat the economy and steal from the general public by inflating the currency.

By printing money everyone who has money has been robbed. Their money is now worth less than it was before. This has a greater affect on the poor and middle class because the rich now how to move their assets to inflation protected assets.

The amount of gold in circulation is irrelevant. It wouldn't have any effect. All prices of goods and labor would go up or down unilaterally based on the amount of gold. It is all relative. If you got paid half as much but everything is half the price has anything really changed?

Transactions don't have to be done in tangible gold, just so much that the currency is 1-to-1 with the amount of gold. You can use electronic transfers, checks, and credit cards just like we currently do.

Busts like the housing crisis are the result of fiat currency and fractional reserve systems. Gold would solve that problem. There are other issues too but that is the main thing.




I encourage you to look into the issues objectively. They are really quite simple and easy to understand. It is just that society has been brainwashed that makes it so confusing.

i appreciate the econ 101 lesson, those are all concepts i learned in my college econ courses. but the fact remains that even economists can't agree on economics and what is right or wrong.

Those comments on youtube are hillarous.

Good read, thank you

Those who predicted the past and those who make logical sense have a higher probability of being right in the future. That's how I look at it. The fact that others disagree doesn't concern me. Majority vote is not an accurate epistemology (means of obtaining truth).

Keynes makes sense at first but not when you look into it more. Hayek came around and showed why Keynes was wrong. It is the same throughout the history of science.

First the sun revolving around the earth. Then that was proven wrong in favor of the sun and other bodies having perfect orbits around the earth. Then elliptical orbits. Then Newton's laws, then Einstein and relativity. Now even to this day we know Einstein was wrong and they are looking into string theory.

I don't see how anyone can RATIONALLY study both Keynesian economics and Austrian economics and not see the gaping holes former. I think Keynes gets favored because lots of people get a free lunch at the expense of taxpayer and those in power have the most to gain and they are the ones in control of the gov't and education. Austrian is also newer so it hasn't circulated as much. How many people have heard of E=MC^2 vs string theory?

There was a time when people thought the earth was flat. It's just a matter of time until "we aren't all Keynesians now".

i don't disagree that keynesian economics is flawed. but that doesn't mean that ron paul is right re: a return to the gold standard. i'm not saying he's wrong, far from it. but relying on the scare tactics that he does, it comes across as politics as usual. i am unable to forget the simple fact that ron paul is a part of the system, moreover, he's a career politician.

I suppose it could be interpreted that way but he does explain himself if you look into it more.

Is telling a child don't put your hand on the stove because you will get burnt a scare tactic though? And even if it is, does it negate the truth? Also, if you want to affect change, the sad fact is, people respond more to emotions than facts. If a smart person wanted to effect change they would present both an emotional and a rational case, with the greater part dedicated to the former; because that seems to be what works the best.

Ultimately you have to look at what is presented and not how it is presented when trying to find truth and come to your own opinion.

If you are interested, this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Dads-Advi...4364503&sr=8-1

gives a more objective explanation on the problems with fiat currency and why gold is necessary.

Historical evidence and reason seem to be on the side of a gold standard. Public opinion seems to be on the side of fiat currency. Take your pick.

thanks for the book recommendation. and i agree about fiat currency. i also see pauls' point that historically no paper currency has ever lasted. but i also don't see it as being so simple to revert back to the gold standard. i mean one day we are on paper money and a loaf of bread is $3 the next day all transactions world wide are done with gold backed transactions and a loaf of bread is all the sudden .49c, i don't see it happening that way.

Ah, yes, I probably didn't understand what you were getting at. That is indeed a big transition and I'm not sure either how we could make that transition possible. I think the first hurdle is convincing people that it must happen. Once there is more agreement on that I imagine some innovative ideas on how we can do that will start to pop up.

I've been registered libertarian for all but two of the last 30 years.

sadly, however, I recognize that libertarians can't govern, by definition, in any society than even vaguely resembles our own.

because libertaranism requires a well educated and well informed citizenry - and this is impossible in a consumer society, who wouldn't consume all this tripe if they were well educated and well informed.

libertarianism also requires a society of equals, with equal access to the machinery of justice. this is impossible in a consumer society, which requires a perpetually expanding consumer class which is lower in power and information access than the plutocratic producer class.

the corrupted form of non-libertarian libertarianism proomoted by people like Ron Paul is a cover for just another plutocracy.

however, it would be hilarious to see Ron Paul get the nomination for reoublican presidential candidate, and I dearly hope you republicans and non-libertrian libertarians are able to pull it off.

I'd even vote for him. as a way to hasten the collapse of this ponzi scam of a society.

You guys crack me up. To say that you agree with the sheer LUNACY that is Libertarianism is to say one thing: You want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

Seems none of you realize that the whole Libertarian phylosophy is cooked by affluent racists so they can stop helping poor people, namely black people, and stop paying federal taxes and end public schools and social security and all social programs. Great let's let the crazy Libertarian nut jobs isolate locally into their tight white and right little communities so the inner city ghettos fall deeper into shit holes, old people get thier electricity turned off and poor people can make some nice tent cities to live in.

Libertarianism is the most vile and anti American doctrine of our age and it will never gain any widspread traction outside of the fringe wacko rich right. The only middle or lower class people who would ever embrace such policies, as in the case of the backward inbred Teabagger crowd, that would be so drastically against their interests would only do by being duped into this crap by the exploitation of their fear of government and deep rooted racism.

Economics is not simple. First, it is not a hard science so it is not possible to conclude absolute truths in most instances. If you find that it is simple, it is probably a sign that you are reading the simpleton version of it.

Second, I assume you meant ?less=deflation?. Mainstream economists and policy makers all agree that moderate inflation is the target. This is because ideal inflation (0%) is virtually impossible to achieve and the risk and consequences of deflation are purposely trying to be avoided.

The reason 1-2% inflation is the usual target is because it encourages investment and production, and results in a growing economic environment. If prices are falling (deflation) investors, producers and consumers are tempted to avoid investing, producing and consuming because they anticipate that prices will be even cheaper if they postpone.


I don't believe there is much room for long chains of deductive reasoning in economics.

Only conspiracy theorists think the CPI is bullshit. Just because individuals vary on where they spend their money, does not mean that the CPI is not a real reflection of prices contained within the CPI. Your statement is a non-sequitur.

Incorrect. Gold backed money (commodity money) can lose value just like fiat money. The problem is compounded because it is less predictable and less stable, and not in control of the gov't. Example: A new gold mine opens up and the value of your commodity money plunges.

And there are more problems... Gold backed money has been tried before and it has been abandoned. That in and of itself should tell you something (and hopefully it?s not some CT conclusion that involves Jewish bankers and the illuminati). It was abandoned because commodity backed money constricted the money supply, causing deflation and preventing a recovery.

Furthermore, the US would need to fix the dollar to roughly $10,000/oz. so that there would be more than enough gold to support the current economy. There would be extreme economic dislocation, HOWEVER the main point to keep in mind is that you can only do it ONCE.

Any countries that went back on the gold standard would be at the mercy of speculators as well as external events and unable to keep their economies from crashing.


The rich will always have an advantage over the middle class / poor, but everyone has the opportunity to choose assets that benefit in a normal economy.

It is absolutely relevant as I explained above.

After the deflationary collapse, perhaps. :winkwink:

How do you explain past bubbles like Tulip mania, the South Sea Bubble, etc?

I don't think YouTube videos are an adequate source. Do you have any other material (books perhaps) that you think better argue for a return to the gold standard?

It seems that society is being brainwashed to believe economics is a simple subject when it is not. It is hard to find highly educated economists who agree on everything, which should tell you something.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Thank you! I needed a good laugh to start my week. You might want to expand your awareness before letting everyone know...exactly how little you know :helpme

Bullshit I'm very well informed and have very extensive knowledge of the Libertarian Party, it's history, the various platforms it stands for and the current surge (scourge) in it's popularity due to the rise of the ultra-racist all white (nearly) Tea Party. And it certainly is no "Wave" of popularity just because some inbred Kentucky hillbilly got elected to congress. Rand Paul.. what a joke, he wants to let restaurant owners put up signs that say "No Nggers Allowed" is that the America you want to return to?

The Libertarian philosophy is the biggest pile of horseshit ever to dump its steaming right wing crap on this nation. Hey great you want individual PROPERTY RIGHTS for ultimate freedom for land owners! Too bad if you don't own property or are on public assistance. This is the same crowd that wanted total freedom for slave owners - Hey you want no government interference in your total freedoms! This is the same bullshit the south was saying about the "aggression" or the north prior to the civil war. You guys are such vile anti-American assholes - your wacko ideals would be scary if they weren't so irrelevant as to be almost meaningless.

The Libertarinuts want to abolish all social programs including social security, medicare, medicade, and any public assistance and health care for the poor - you want to abolish the public school system and let the "free market" determine who gets educated - are you fuckers NUTS? Yea great idea - lets let 95 percent of all the kids in the inner cities grow up illiterate! Cool! Watch the ghettos double or triple in size in the first decade, watch crime spiral out of control and the murder rate skyrocket.

The Libertaricunts want to privatize and localize all fire departments and get rid of publicly funded emergency rooms, hey great idea guys! You didn't pay your local fire safety fees? Sorry gotta let your house burn! Don't cry about it slacker!

Libertarians want to privatize and localize all police departments and let them make up their own local laws and enforce only those that they wish to - uh oh your area too poor to afford cops, no 911 for you pal.. oh another lynching in Bama - the cops don't have to do shit because there is only local oversight.. great idea clowns!

So you don't like Unions - get rid of em! Who needs a middle class right? Oh and fair trade, fuck that! No dirty federal government should try to force the SACRED CORPORATION to keep it's factories in the US though any stinking tariffs right?

Abortion? Oh thats a local matter - if your local council doesn't want to allow abortion then let them force 14 year old girls to have their cherry poppin fathers baby right! Thats a local issue, no feds can interfere... it's all about FREEDOM.

Oh and bring on the Militias and we better have them well armed! In case those dirty stinking feds try to come around our FREE LANDS.. haAnd NO government restrictions on the Holy Corporation's right to pollute the environment, of course polluting the environment is bad for business so the free market will make sure things stay clean right? Gimme a fucking break.

The nice thing about Libertarianism is that it exists only as pure fantasy, not even the mildest form of it could ever exist, in this country at least, so go ahead and shake your white fist at the clouds in anger at having to pay taxes to help your fellow poor black man get outta the hood you fucking greed mongers, the Fed aint going away anytime soon.

Brandon let's hear your take on the effect on the economy that the destruction of the social programs that Libertarians advocate for would have. It's well documented that this money is actually spent by poor people and thus injected back into the economy. The Libertarian theory is the tax savings individuals would get would allow for voluntary local programs and charitable orginizations to help the poor and old and sick. Can anyone say with a straight face that this is anything but pure fantasy? That money would just be horded into the savings of the affluent and pulled from the economy - Libertarianism is nothing less than an upward redistribution of weath to the privliged.

wig, its nice to see you posting again and teaching gfyers some common sense.

wig, whats your opinion of Libertarianism ?

I once heard a Libertarian speaker advocate for abolishing tax payer funded law enforcement/police, and instead having those services provided exclusively under private contract.

If this is a commonly held belief among Libertarians, then they really are wacko and a danger to society. Because in such a scenario, only the people who pay for police protection/services will actually receive it. Furthermore, the payers will be able to use the police as their private "enforcement agency" against the non-payers regardless of the law. Money rules. Non-payers, be prepared to be harassed to no end.

I wouldnt recommend that for POLICE. but realistically, I could get Chinese food delivered faster than a police response in my city in most cases

Hi Slav,

I guess someone would need to provide a definition first since there seems to be so many versions.

I think I can agree to the general idea of people being free to think and act in such ways as he/she likes as long as he/she respects the rights of other individuals.

I think in this sense I have a streak of libertarianism, but perhaps that's where it stops. I suppose someone could offer other attributes of libertarian thinking that I would subscribe to.

Contrariwise, radical dismantling of the government and regulation, a return to the gold standard, abolition of the FED in favor of crackpot alternatives, etc. are all lunacy, based mostly on conspiracy theory beliefs and/or sheer ignorance, IMHO.

I'm kind of a-political anyway -- meaning I don't know enough to hold a strong position or maintain any political alliance. I guess I'm the tired blend of fiscally conservative (in good times) and socially liberal, with a streak of libertarianism.

How about you?

Looks like a big fat "no"...

Did someone say crackpot? Bingo.

Libertarianism would be easy to dismiss for the crackpot idiology that it is if it weren't for this present flare up of right wing fear and anger being fabricated by the Teapublicans and inflicted on the US like a disease.

You want a nice chuckle read the platform of these goons and read between the lines of what they are advocating for which is basically amounts to pure class seperatist, IE WHITE seperatist nonsense.

http://www.lp.org/platform

yeah i'm in agreement with you on all points.
I suspect libertarianism is kinda like the early conservative movement prior to Raegon. Most people dont understand what it stands for, but most are finding something they like about it. I once took an online test for libertarianism and i was way off, but i still find major aspects about it i like and support.

Fed, Treasury, Police, Fire should all stay as is, everything else can be privatized IMO

libertarians can't govern, there is no doubt of that. and the "official" platforms one sees are an exercise in the inability to govern.

but, libertarians wouldn't engage in wars of agression and adventure - which means pretty much all the wars of the last 50 years. the "war on drugs" would be shut down, as would the sex wars, marriage wars, and all the victimless crime persecutions.

under classic libertarian theory the weak would need less protection from the strong, because under classic libertarianism the primary role of government is to provide strong fair courts, unlike the plutocratic court system we have now. the theory is, strong courts and completely fair access to the rule of law makes the role of government as special protector of the weak (and the corruption that invites) irrelevant.

I'm sure the flaw in that concept is obvious - who makes the plutocrats give up their priviledged access to courts and government?

the type of libertarianism one commonly sees these days is a clownish caricature of classic libertarianism.

and classic libertarianism can't work, as I said, because it requires an educated populace.

If either party, the dems or the republicans, ended the wars on victimless crimes, and ended wars of adventure and military empire to support the multinational corporations, they'd have integrated enough libertarianism to satisfy most people.

THIS!:thumbsup

I'm not so sure about privatizing the police. There's corruption and conflict of interest in the prviate sphere as well. Also, as Milton Friedman concedes, there are EXTERNALITIES that can't be fixed by normal market forces. For EXTERNALITIES we need government.

privatizing police isn't all that common a libertarian concern. it's one of the cartoons used to dismiss the moral arguments of libertarianism.

because fair courts are a strong and nearly universal libertarian concern, and ending the war on drugs and the outlawing of consensual adult behaviors is a nearly universal libertarian concern, much of the "work" that police, courts, lawyers, prisons, and the whole crime industry do on taxpayer money would be ended, and police would be focused on investigating violence and property crime.

police departments would dramatically shrink, and the multi billion dollar a year crime industry would dramatically shrink, saving taxpayers trillions over time.

which is what libertarian theory says they should be doing.

then, individuals and communities can contract out extra private police services if they chose. They shouldn't have to do so as much, without the crime industry to promote crime.

just as providing for the common defense is considered a legitmate role of government (but NOT wars of adventure), most classic libertarians say having a much reduced police force for investigating REAL crimes (not the artificial ones created by government decree, typically based covertly on enforcing a religious precept, like the war on drugs or prostitution and other moral "crimes") is part of governments legitimate role.

now the flaw in this theory is also obvious - who enforces the rulings of the courts? if the rich can buy private armies, how does the court protect the weak?

of course none of his can happen, because the crime industry (police, courts, prisons, lawyers, psychologists, and all teh institutions) is rich and powerful, and they aren't going to give up their cash cow.

libertarians can't govern, and even a small amount of thinking will reveal why.

ok to summarize libertarianism is an unattainable fantasy?

Any Green Party advocates??

in any pure form, yes.

some of the conceptual principles could be alloyed into either democrat or republican policy, and tested.

this could give that party a strong political advantage.

the problem of course is that we live in a covert plutocracy, so neither the dems or the repubs have any actual power to shape their own policies.

the plutocrats decide what happens. the parties are just bread and circuses whose purpose is to provide a cover for the actual decisionmaking.

which is another reason why libertarians can't govern. they have no response to plutocracy, and plutocracy isn't part of the theory.

plutocrats like having a cover government with a massive cash flow and the power to redistribute wealth the ways the plutocrats want. so they see no benefit in adding libertarian principles.

so no worries, libertarianism is not ever going to happen. that makes it a perfect voter registration for whacked out internet free thinkers like me.

I like the greens. their policy platforms make them unelectable tho, now.

if the global temps continue to rise, and fossil carbon prices continue to rise, that will change.

In answer to the OP's question...no.