What Would Happen if The Libertarian Party Rose?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Right, so if a toymaker is making toys with lead paint, and a bunch of American children get lead poisoning, and some of them die, and some of them have brain damage, then American consumers can stop doing business with these toymakers. Word will spread among consumers, and the toymakers will get the message when they see that orders are down, and will stop using lead paint in order to protect their share of the market. Companies will act in their own best interest, which is naturally good for the consumer as well.

That sounds a lot more efficient than having the federal government test toys before they enter the market, and punishing the toymakers who use lead paint.[/quote]

Here you’re describing a need that may potentially be fulfilled by the market. You’re postulating that there is value in screening all toys for chemicals before they are sold to consumers.

If enough people agreed with your stance (and I imagine that plenty would), then businesses acting on the profit motive would find a way to make those services widely available to the entire market.

Consequently, your postulated need would be fulfilled without government intervention. The same logic can be applied to all needs. Under market conditions, one can ascertain the level of public support for any given “need” simply by looking at how much it would cost to have that need fulfilled.

That is how it is supposed to work.

[quote]K2000 wrote:
You can bankrupt them by not doing business with them
Doubtful, when we are talking about transnational corporations with massive assets. We’re not talking about the local butcher.[/quote]

We have to ask ourselves how those corporations got to be so wealthy and ostensibly powerful in the first place. Once again, under free market conditions the only possible answer is that they did it by providing masses of people with services or products at great value. Unfortunately, that description cannot suffice to explain the current state of affairs, in which corporations owe their wealth and power as much or more to governmental collusion than any business prowess.

For capitalism to really work, you’ve got to start with a clean slate. That’s why it wouldn’t work if imposed now in this country.

182

[quote]John S. wrote:
Ron Paul ran as a Republican because that is where the votes are at. He did very well considering this was his first time at the national stage. If he runs again in 2012, especially with the inflation that is about to hit, we are all about to become Libertarians.

You do realize that the only way there are big cooperation is because there is a consumer right? I am pretty sure Exxon and Enron had very tight Government connections thanks for pointing out another example of Government hurting the people.

The free market has given us everything so far, to assume a group of people who couldn’t even run Cash for Clunkers should be trusted with anything is laughable.

Hell there solution for health care is to throw the poor in jail! Watch the movie Idiocracy, tho you will probably watch and say nothing is wrong.

Even better since you won’t read a book watch 1984.[/quote]

Paul didn’t do as well as he could have. His campaign dropped the ball during the run-up to the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries. The former, in particular. NH was his best chance of getting a legitimate win and he basically sat back and let other candidates take the state. After that, it was straight downhill.

Paul claimed to be “in to win” but his actions didn’t bear out that philosophy. He should have spent all his money to practically buy out New Hampshire before that primary. That could have resulted in a chain reaction in other states.

Instead we got expectable losses across the board combined with strong rhetoric and predictable antics from his newly-baptized supporters. I lost interest in the whole thing right after New Hampshire. Only the morons (i.e. liberal converts) kept up with him after that.

The bottom line is that 2008 was his best chance and he blew it. He is not going to do better in 2012 if he runs. His age was already showing in a big way in 2008 and it’s not going to be any better in 4 years’ time. Paul may be known as the “economics candidate” to his supporters but that doesn’t hold true for the general public, which doesn’t care about economics in the first place.

Paul would diminish the welfare/entitlement state which generations of Americans have come to depend on. He won’t be winning anything greater than his congressional seat.

In the final analysis the masses will always vote for their own self-interest over high-minded rhetoric about free markets, classical liberalism and anything else that candidates such as RP could bring to the table. Come on, do you really see Americans, the biggest population of idiots in the entire world, to start caring about Austrian economics and monetary thery? There’s no getting out of this death spiral. The best bet is to accelerate the death of this culture and establishment in whatever way one can so that something new may eventually take its place. Naturally, one must also take steps to prepare for the period of anarchy that will come after the fall of the current establishment.

Anyone who desires better government should aspire to become a dictator. You’ve got a better chance of achieving your goal by way of the latter methodd than by attempting to change the existing establishment democratically.

There is no such thing as Democracy, it is a complete sham. Get used to it. First master yourself. Then master those around you. Subsequently master your peers and finally, one day, you may master a nation or a corporation. That’s the single best chance that any given individual has of living under an “ideal” form of government (by his own standards, naturally).

183

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Also, lead paint was banned in 1978. That required a government ban. For some reason, there was no voluntary self-regulation by the various industries… it required years of consumer advocacy and lobbying (decades, literally of consumer complaints) while millions of kids were exposed to potential harm in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Gee, you would think these businesses would be willing to stop using lead paint on their own volition, but that never happened, because lead paint is vibrantly colored, so nobody wanted to put their products at a disadvantage in the marketplace.[/quote]

So, how did the toy companies manage to stay in business for all of those decades before lead became regulated?

Was it because:
A) There weren’t all that many consumer complaints lodged relative to the total number of purchases made by consumers of the products in question. Implying that “the problem” didn’t affect the majority of consumers.

Or was it because:
B) The problem existed throughout those decades and affected a large number of consumers yet they didn’t stop purchasing the products and they also failed to spread the word about the problem to other people.

Scenario A seems far more likely to me. Which means that, when the government stepped in to impose its regulations, it effectively overruled and outlawed the choices of the majority of consumers in a particular market.

People who had previously thought the benefits of lead paint outweighed its potential health risks (as evidenced by their purchasing decisions) were no longer able to make voluntary transactions according to those preferences.

After reading the above, have you or have you not come any closer to understanding how a theoretical “market system” is supposed to work? Please be honest. Also, please point out any perceived flaws in my reasoning above.

185

i agree, i will be voting Libertarian from now on

186

The system is broken. It is structured in such a way that informational disjuncts are allowed to arise or even encouraged to occur.

187

[quote]K2000 wrote:
I doubt many of the guys here are actual Libertarians. The fake Libertarians here don’t support a woman’s right to reproductive choice,
[/quote]
probably support a child’s right to live and recognize the mother has no right to end that life. If you are talking about anti-birth control or life at conception crowd, then I agree.

Libertarians certainly could have believed we were acting in self defense. I doubt many support nation building.

I doubt many libertarians would deny gays the act of marriage. I am also sure they would support anyones right not to recognize that marriage. The problem (for libertarians) arrises when you force someone to recognize any union that does not involve them. no reason for the state to license any marriage. no reason reward or punish based on legal marriage status. problem solved.

Libertarians probably do support an individual’s right to pray in school. They would probably support a community setting up a school that they feel best fits their community. I don’t see the conflict here.

I would say this would be the minority. I just don’t run in to too many people that claim to be libertarians. It’s just not that hip. Those that do seem to understand what it means to be a libertarian.

188

No, they are not.

How stupid is Steve that he’s totally unable to find help to build a wall? How stupid is Mike that he sits at home and expects customers to come to him?

I can play this game too. Let’s say Wal-Mart couldn’t find any customers for low-cost goods. I know a bunch of people who want to buy them, so I tell them about Wal-Mart. I’ve just increased Wal-Mart’s revenunes by a lot.

Well if it’s that easy, go right ahead and do that for a living.

Good thing they don’t have any expenses to pay.

I equate productivity with labor. You seem incapable of grasping a simple concept. Why?

189

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I equate productivity with labor. You seem incapable of grasping a simple concept. Why?
[/quote]

It seems you are the one who does not grasp simple concepts. Productivity also is a function of time. Does it matter how many fish I can catch absolutely or do I also require some unit of time to do it in? Allow me to illustrate:

Who is more productive: 10 people fishing with their hands or one person fishing with a dragnet?

If you had the dragnet why would you employ more labor to do what one person can do?

Capital goods, by definition, MUST BE MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN MANUAL LABOR or they would never be brought about.

More indirect means of production are more productive than direct means. Meaning, I can accomplish more in a given unit of time with capital goods than with my own direct labor.

190

[quote]orion wrote:Well that wasnt anything really the respond to just a few things:

There are always unemployed?

So what? Marxs days are over, workers do not toil away on steam driven primitive machines.

They operate highly sophisticated machinery, and you do not want to cut the wages of someone that operates hundreds of thousands worth of capital. You do not get someone who can work the machinery at a loading dock at a moments notice and if he stands up and leaves you lose millions each day.

The idea that “the unemployed” could simply take on any job that takes years of training is blatantly absurd.

No, there are only so many people willing and capable of doing certain jobs and you better compete as a capitalist.

Second, no, even the average worker could not only afford bread,salt, tea and sugar, he actually did not give a shit about prices any more.

Just decades earlier there had been riots when the price of bread rose, now it just was not that important anymore.

They took it for granted, just like you do with all the abundance that surrounds you.[/quote]

Like I thought, nothing here.

I will say that you seem to be utterly unacquainted with the history of capitalist development (more or less necessary if you’re going to endorse it). Workers “didn’t give a shit” about prices anymore? I suppose the numerous strikes in this period were just greedy workers being unappreciative of their masters’ munificence? I suppose all those happy pictures of 19th century industrial workers reflect their carefree attitudes toward the price of things? Your argument is contradicted by the whole of history. For you to be correct, entire countries would have to have been subject to mass hallucination. Incidentally, it’s interesting how popular socialism becomes whenever your favorite policies are implemented.

191

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Capital goods, by definition, MUST BE MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN MANUAL LABOR or they would never be brought about.

More indirect means of production are more productive than direct means. Meaning, I can accomplish more in a given unit of time with capital goods than with my own direct labor.[/quote]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what was written. Nice to see you, though.

192

It is also interesting how socialism is an end goal with no means of how to implement it. Its as dogmatic as religion, with marx saying “socialism is inevitable”. Ryan, you saying that one who founds a corporation is not as productive as the workers in it is pretty nonsensical.

A. it creates a means to life for people who could not have that idea in the first place.
B. It satisfies a need in society (unless of course you live ina totolitarian regime)
C. In doing so, yes one individual created alot more than those who work for him. Think of social networking sites. The Value added by those sites is far greater than one network adminsitrator on them.

Your arguments are trite and juvenile. I suggest a reading of Econ 101.

Furthermore, consider the standard of living prior to industrialization since that is what you would like to hearken to. It is no small secret that social mobility was a direct consequence of capitalism. Nowehere else in history did you see people go from “rags to riches”, pardon the cliche phrase. That is still true today compared to your “benevolent utopian” standards.

193

[quote]666Rich wrote:
It is also interesting how socialism is an end goal with no means of how to implement it. Its as dogmatic as religion, with marx saying “socialism is inevitable”.[/quote]

I used to think it was funny that people who don’t know what socialism is and who have never read anything by Karl Marx tell me emphatically how incorrect it is while getting quotes wrong. Now it’s just annoying. Just to be brief, with all due respect, you seriously don’t have the first fucking clue what you’re talking about.

Really? What does he do? What value does he add to anything? What does he do that people could not do for themselves if they had the means? The only nonsensical thing is making ridiculous claims with no reason or justification given.

[quote]A. it creates a means to life for people who could not have that idea in the first place.
B. It satisfies a need in society (unless of course you live ina totolitarian regime)
C. In doing so, yes one individual created alot more than those who work for him. Think of social networking sites. The Value added by those sites is far greater than one network adminsitrator on them.[/quote]

Again, this is all rubbish. None of this requires a capitalist to happen, it’s just an attempt to defend privilege.

I was about to recommend the same thing to you.

I suggest you read history before commenting on it. I also suggest you get some clue as to what socialism is before you talk anymore about it.

194

You really don’t have a clue, do you?

195

I dont really need to debate with you ryan, as you can read any of my other posts. lolz, I have read Karl Marx, studied soviet history in depth (and not the history channel), have a degree in Economics, know exactly what socialism is, try reading Socialism: and economic and sociological analysis by Mises, I have. All I see from you is name calling, a complete and utter lack of rationality or fact. Every single post of yours in this thread has reeked of absolute idiocy. Feel free to give me any concrete example of anything you have ever stated.

197

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Capital goods, by definition, MUST BE MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN MANUAL LABOR or they would never be brought about.

More indirect means of production are more productive than direct means. Meaning, I can accomplish more in a given unit of time with capital goods than with my own direct labor.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what was written. Nice to see you, though.

[/quote]

Well yes it has, because he has just blown your “I equate productivity with labor” out of the water.

No matter whether you look at it in terms of output or value, a labor theory of value fails.

If a lot of your conclusions rest on a faulty premise, the conclusions are also wrong.

Logically consistent but just plain wrong.

198

[quote]John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.[/quote]

I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read . We would have all the Christian zealots and the people with the biggest mouths running the show (Oh we have that now :slight_smile:

199

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.

I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read . [/quote]

Yeah, but what would CHANGE?

High school drop-out rate in major US cities at nearly 50 percent

A report released Tuesday by an educational advocacy group founded by retired general and former Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell finds that almost half of all public high school students in the USâ?? fifty largest cities fail to graduate.

You just got to love the conclusion of the World Socialist Website:

Government is unable to run schools, therefore capitalism has failed us all.

You cant argue with that kind of logic, you literally can not.

You can just avoid to make eye contact and slowly back away.

200

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.

How do you know? That debt was mostly driven by so-called conservative’s wars and the greedy capitalist corporations stealing money from tax payers. Capitalism off the chain, wouldn’t prevent corporations from naipulating government.[/quote]

The Republicans have decided they are CONSERVITIVE and the Democrats are LIBERAL. I see it as Democrats are tax and spend and the Republicans are barrow and spend. Conservative means conserving your resources nothing more. If you did that I would sign on.