Folks, this is real: Right wing conservatives will make up anything...

It's a few years old, but whenever I see reference to Libertariansim as the "answer" to our political parties, I think of this article:

The Libertarian Fallacy: How an Unregulated Market Would Lead to Economic Totalitarianism

...

While I respect its inherent disdain for our wasteful and corrupt two-party system, Libertarianism has got to be one of the most short-sighted political ideologies in history.

For a Libertarian society to function successfully, it would require a nation of ideologues. This is an accusation often made of Socialism and Communism, but it is no less accurate here. Think about it: the “ideologue” citizenry in a successful Socialist society would all need to believe in things like worker’s control of production, the inherent equality and classlessness of all people, and the desire to further the common good over personal reward. More importantly, the government would have to believe in all of these things and be truly dedicated to absolute benevolence. History can show us many Socialist and Communist examples of failure due to either the constituency or the government not being fully invested in the morals of the movement, thus resulting in either revolt or corruption, respectively.

But a Libertarian society would rely on an even greater and more absurd degree of collective idealism. Successful Libertarianism on a national scale would require all people to be content with strict social Darwinism, with a harsh every-man-for-himself mentality, with a government that can’t offer you a hand up in times of tragedy, a government that doesn’t collect taxes, and, in turn, can’t maintain the infrastructure. A Libertarian society would be a society that feels it is okay if the government has no hand in making sure the trade of fuel, medicine, water, or telecommunications can't be exploited. For everyone to succeed in such a society—for everyone to even have a chance to succeed—everybody would have to be fully dedicated to the free market, everybody would have to be a businessman of some sort. This simply isn't the case; there will always be a population who would rather not invent or innovate; they'd rather work hard and be fairly rewarded for that work. These are the people who would suffer first and suffer the most in a Libertarian "utopia"... but they're certainly not the only ones who would suffer.

Most alarming is the fact that a Libertarian society would be a society of people who take Darwinian concepts—concepts intended to be thought of in the context of biology and the natural world—and try to twist them until they can be applied to the free market economy (an entity that is in no way biological or natural.) A Libertarian society would be a society that does not believe in checks, balances, or regulations when it comes to the “free” exchange of goods and services. As such, it would be a society that believes in monopolies, believes that monopolies have a “right” to exist because a certain corporation was smart enough, or strong enough, or—more often than not—just plain rich enough to do away with all of their competition.

Libertarians want to eradicate big government for fear of totalitarianism, but they fail to see how the gross deregulation of trade would lead to a different, and more dangerous, kind of totalitarianism: market totalitarianism. If the government had no authority to break up monopolies, how long would it be before the biggest telephone company bought out its competitors? Then bought out all the cable companies? Then bought out all the radio stations and magazines? And then how long would it be before the richest oil company bought this mega media/communications company? Eventually, we’re left with a single company that solely controls the distribution all of the things we need and want. They could charge whatever they pleased, leaving one single rich corporation at the top and an entire nation of oppressed masses struggling in the dirt.

The excuse that somebody else could get out in the marketplace and compete is invalid and untrue. The “invisible hand” that magically regulates a free market is a complete fallacy. Even today, it works only in theory. A handful of companies already own the majority of the telecommunications infrastructure. Clear Channel, Charter, and SBC aren’t going to let some young, upstart company share their resources. Why would they? And in a Libertarian society, the government would have no way of forcing big companies to share the market with young competitors. The government would have no way of doing anything because—taxes having been cut or eliminated—it would have no resources to fight the corporations or enforce its policies; it would be as helpless as the average consumer.

The main problem is that Libertarians see the free market as an inherently stable entity, something that it regulates itself via supply and demand. This is old and inaccurate thinking. The free market should not be seen as a perpetual balancing act, but as a long, brutal tournament. Producers constantly compete against each other for market share. These competitions are sometimes to the benefit of the consumer, sometimes not. Either way, it is a constant series of battles, and the end result—if left unregulated—would be one mega-powerful winner left standing. This huge "winner" corporation, being the only entity with any significant resources to its name, would in effect become the new government.

Charles Bukowski once wrote “Before you kill something make sure you have something better to replace it with.” I hate bloated, cumbersome, ineffective government as much as the next guy. But before you blindly revolt against the oppressive nature of big government, ask yourself whether you’d really be happier living under the rule of unregulated corporations.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar...how_an_unregulated.html?singlepage=true&cat=3

 

Both sides SUCK.


Republicans are easily a lot worse but i can't choose the lesser of 2 evils.

I'll stay independent.

 

Rashmon,

Article makes some good points, but what he 'fears' in libertarianism is essentially what we have already. The Federal Reserve (which Ron Paul wants to abolish) is the big shark that eats up all the smaller banks. It's pretty obvious that the current system of 'regulation' isn't working.

Probably the argument for big government is "who will build the roads?" which the writer addresses. Aside from that, I have a lot more faith in a market that is truly 'free', rather than one that works on a buddy-buddy corporation to politician level. I don't see the validity of his argument against a government which doesn't require you to pay taxes. The govt. should run efficiently without them, the problem is all the money that's mismanaged by the Feds.

 

Except that Ron Paul continues to remain a member of one of the parties that make up the two party system.

 

Thanks for the reply gliff.

lol.

 

good point, but it's the only way to get any media coverage, basically. Plus he is a 'true' Republican. I'll vote for him if he's ever on the ballot, otherwise it's straight Independent or Green.

 

Hey, I resent that remark!

Though I do the :facepalm to a ridiculously high amount of posts by those mentioned above.

And while I may be closer to the right wing then the moderate middle, I know that the very vocal folks on the extreme edge do nothing to help further the party.

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=74318&highlight=middle+party

 

You think the right is overly paternalistic. The leftist ideal is not called the nanny state for nothing.