you made a general statement... can you be more specific when you say "much of the system he advocates would only further some of the most intrinsic problems to out capitalist government." that is a very broad statement to make and i have to say that broadly speaking, i do not agree with it. in fact, imo, much of what he advocates would help to repair many of the intrinsic problems in our crony-capitalist, corporate-welfare based government. you make these very broad and generalized statements about libertarianism and expect me to make these detailed and specific analysis in response. ive mentioned several things over and over again that imo, jives w/ the moderate libertarian agenda. to keep bringing them up would be repeating myself for the 10th time. as i already said, i think i have been much more detailed in my answers than you have - certainly not less so.
Actually, no. All I really want to understand is how the moderate libertarian agenda relates to the philosophical core of the more typical modern libertarian ideologies. For example, in regards to regulation - how is the "acceptable" level of regulation arrived at? Extrapolating from such a POV, how is constitutionalism (with it's obvious interpretation flaw) any more than a reboot?
i find it very hypocritical of you that you can make these very generalized statements like "libertarians want to privatize everything" and "libertarians want to deregulate everything" and offer nothing to back up your claims, but expect others to provide specific detail when they disagree w/ your unsubstantiated claims. you take this extreme version of libertarianism and project it upon all. do you not see the inherent flaw in doing that?
I gave my mea culpa for the generalizations in post 140, despite the fact that privatization and deregulation have been a common cause amongst libertarians since the 1960s. Generally speaking, my statements above that are giving you so much grief are accurate, particularly in regards to the ideologies and philosophies any current incarnation of libertarianism is founded upon. From the libertarian party's platform: Consistent libertarian theorists from the right (libertarian conservatism) are quite clear in their support for deregulation and privatization, particularly Rothbard (who, getting back to our topic from way back when, was more properly an anarcho-capitalist). Rothbard (often considered a "father" of libertarianism) was profoundly anti-state and viewed private property as sacred. The arguments I "tossed" out above are hardly generalizations so much as they are statements of effect with libertarian philosophy the cause. The point is that such a generalization is not extreme in sentiment, although (as I said earlier) the idea of "deregulating/privatizing everything" is probably not true in as much as it is completely infeasible. This exaggeration was never meant to be taken so literally, and for that, I apologize again for the word choice, which was poor. However, this is not to imply that my questions to you are invalid - for some reason you have resisted simple calls to explain how the moderate libertarian decides what amount of regulation is necessary or how constitutionalism can prevent that which has already been proven possible. The Libertarian party platform seems to imply that regulation would be based on Locke-esque notion of the "rights of man", but this would imply a subjectivity ripe for corruption. Relying on the constitution to resolve the problem would seem naive given the constitution's own predisposition to be subject to interpretation, and the fact that it, along with the federalist papers are extended arguments for a strengthened government. The reason I keep bugging you about this is that the Ron Paul talking points you present are probably paid lip service by every politician. When pushed, you act like bad stuff that has happened with out current situation must justify the libertarian vision - that's an absurd argument. I am mystified that you would imply that current government power (i.e., regulation) is to blame for our current mess, when it was precisely the dismantling of it that caused massive failure. This massive failure was the result of capitalism run amok, a deregulated "true free market". And no, I don't think it reasonable to say such activity was only possible thanks to the fed monetizing the debt and bailing out the corporations. Pre new-deal robber barons and trusts were just as huge and corrupt. The bailouts, as much as they make me sick to my stomach, are the simple fallout of the realization that these institutions are absolutely critical to economic stability - which is, ostensibly, why they were regulated in the first place. Responding to that last paragraph with "well, I never advocated that libertarians favor all deregulation" is confusing given the context and really not an answer for how the system, as envisioned, would function.
This paragraph bears repeating. Good post. The intentional diminution of regulatory oversight during the Bush years was the closest thing to the libertarian goal of a free market we've seen. We saw what happened, and what would happen when corporations are turned loose without regulation. Libertarian policies will NOT "repair many of the intrinsic problems in our crony-capitalist, corporate-welfare based government" it will literally set these corporations free to run further amok than they do. If you do not understand this basic premise of libertarianism you are just blinded by their really cool social policies.
i cant speak for "the moderate libertarian" - only myself. but it seems reasonable to me, even in a limited government, to expect some kind of regulations to protect the public from environmental damage at the hands of large corporations and the government/military, which is actually the nations largest polluter (and exempt from its own laws). as to "how" one decides what the appropriate amount of regulation is, i dont know how to answer that. i dont think it is up to me to say "how" one decides what amount is appropriate, just that imo "some" is necessary. again, limited government does not = no government. the problem right now is that the regulatory agencies do not work. look at the oil spill and all the failures of the regulatory agencies - they were out doing coke and having sex w/ the people they were supposed to be regulating. for decades now the oil industry and their lobbyists have been writing the laws and giving them to our elected officials to pass. the industry has its own "experts" and scientists which they trot out infront of our politicians and "regulatory" agencies, who then go off their testimony. there is nothing libertarian about that. under the libertarian philosophy of private property rights individuals, small businesses and cities would be able to sue for damages. congress put a $75 million dollar cap on the amount that oil companies are liable for in the event of a spill. that right there was a disincentive for BP to get their act together. again, i dont speak for the "moderate libertarian", but it seems to me that under a libertarian ideology there would have been no cap on their liability and BP would have been held criminally negligent and have been able to be sued by all the fishermen, local towns and small businesses that were impacted by their negligence - knowing that, i dont think it is a stretch to say that BP might have been a little more careful if they knew the government safety net was not there for them to fall into. here was a case of "government power" helping the corporations by putting a cap on the amount they would have to pay for damages and disincentivizing them from getting their act together. the system we have right now is pretty f***ing corrupt. i wouldnt mind seeing one where people are actually held liable for their malfeasance. and i really wouldnt mind seeing one where the government doesnt abdicate its responsibility and actually holds these corporate criminals accountable. on the government, they are our nations largest polluter (specifically the pentagon) and are exempt from most of its own laws. the military can pollute to its hearts content and the EPA will not enforce its own laws on them. imo, a "moderate libertarian" would want the government held to the same standards that corporations are held to and would even argue that the government could be sued for polluting. thats true - i wish our politicians would actually do what they say/practice what they preach. when democrats are out of power they are against warrantless wiretapping, endless wars, government secrecy, torture and other civil liberties issues, but when obama comes in they defend this stuff. when republicans are out of power they are for small government and fiscal responsibility, but you look at their two modern heroes, reagan and junior and those were two of the most big-government, fiscally liberal presidents we have ever had. bad stuff has happened with our current situation and at this point im willing to try something different (no homo). the current mess is the result of alot of things - but over-regulation is not too high on my list of complaints when it comes to "government power". im more concerned w/ unjustified wars, nation-building, maintaining our global empire, torture, the TSA, the patriot act, corporate bail-outs, deficit spending and the like. but yes, over-regulation and the rampant corruption w/in the system are problems. in a true free market the government would not have been there to bail them out. when things are going good and wall street was rolling in the $$$ it was all great, but when things go bad they go crying to the government for help (goldman sachs certainly benefited from having friends in high places) - that is not free market or libertarian...its fascism.
Jo Mama: Seriously, thanks for the response. It's appreciated. A couple of points and then I'll let this die... (I'd rep you but I can't) Fair enough, however I am confused as to how a much smaller government with reduced control, coupled with larger corporate power would achieve a "minimalist" regulation with severe penalties for corporate misconduct. Ultimately, this is the fundamental disconnect. Totally agree with you about the DoD and the environment. This is a flaw in human nature and capitalism, not a product of bad regulation. If anything, regulation is supposed to prevent this - ignored or corrupted regulation does not justify the idea that regulation as a whole is ineffective. I just don't see how reduced government power and larger corporate power achieves this - the free market is not so idyllic in practice. The two ideas are antithetical actually - thus the libertarian socialist standpoint that libertarian ideologies are only achievable if both the state and the corporations are reined in and/or eliminated. I agree on the "corporate criminals" comment. I have long believed that corporations (and, to an extent, capitalism as a whole) are designed to allow normally conscientious people to act without conscience. Well said. I think you missed my larger point from that paragraph.
