A Society of Criminals-Libertarianism explained
invite response
2010 Feb 28, 8:12am 23,648 views 250 comments
« First « Previous Comments 244 - 250 of 250 Search these comments
Paralithodes
2010 Mar 15, 7:35am
We could easily create a safety net for essential health care at relatively little cost.
Really? How do you figure? Essential health is the most expensive… Do you think the flu shots are what is breaking the bank?
I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure his examples went beyond the flu shot, and his examples were only a few of the possibile examples that could be given.
Vicente
2010 Mar 15, 7:42am
As a common peasant I don't see the [Ll]ibertarians ever protesting openly over the failings of capitalism. If there's ever a failing, it's always because we weren't PURIST enough. I never see any of them decrying billion-dollar paydays & insurance cartel behavior. Crony capitalism rigs the game, and that is the endpoint of it all. Alan Greenspan would tell us that fraud is not a valid reason to lock people up, because the "free market" self-regulates and fraudulent behavior results in exile for the bad people.
tatupu70
2010 Mar 15, 8:15am
As the Colorado article states, this already occurs for some other types of insurance, other services, etc. So there is certainly precedent. Whether this means getting rid of all constraints or some, what type of federal mandate, and even whether there would be very little gain is all conjecture at this point. You see very little gain, I see very little lost…. tomatoes tomahtoes, neither of us can definitively prove anything. However, this approach means less Federal government control over the solutions compared to current approaches (though it would actually take Federal government action to initiate), so I can see why one side would more or less dismiss it out of hand - doesn’t fit the ideology.
I guess the devil is in teh details as far as I'm concerned. You ask a bunch of good questions but then dismiss them as if they are inconsequential. They are not, IMO.
And it seems to me that it would be more Federal control--you're basically taking states' power to regulate health insurance and giving it to the Feds. How does that reduce Federal government control??
It makes me wonder if you realize what you are asking for?
Paralithodes
2010 Mar 15, 8:48am
I guess the devil is in teh details as far as I’m concerned. You ask a bunch of good questions but then dismiss them as if they are inconsequential. They are not, IMO.
I don't dismiss them. I just happen to agree that the devil is in the details and I doubt either of us are really educated enough on them to come to any solid conclusions either way.
And it seems to me that it would be more Federal control–you’re basically taking states’ power to regulate health insurance and giving it to the Feds. How does that reduce Federal government control??
It makes me wonder if you realize what you are asking for?
If the state line solution is to have the Federal government force states to remove restrictions that interfere with interstate commerce, without significant Federal regulations of its own, then this Federal "control" is in line with the Constitution. As you say, the devil is in the details.... Do I realize what I am asking for? Maybe, maybe not... It depends upon the details... Certainly there are people who would propose varying government control for the same solution, from practically none to strict oversight.
FortWayne
2011 Apr 1, 5:34am
I think Libertarianism is not about just having small government. In reality government can become a form of oppression and be out of the control by those it governs.
So I think the goal of libertarianism is to have a government that is too weak to oppress any individual yet have the power to stop those who break social contract or commit crimes if society desires such an action.
Of course a lot of people miss that point and with tunnel vision for some reason ask for unilateral deregulation instead.
Vicente
2011 Apr 1, 6:08am
Exactly Chris,
The problem is people like Greenspan. People who believe that "fraud doesn't exist" and that we need no policing and regulations. Ultimately they believe in fire departments at most, but perhaps not police and certainly not SEC. Glass-Steagall Act? Ptooey, don't need such nonsense, megabanks will always do what's right.
That ultimately was my problem with Libertarian Party and why I first left. There are moderate Libertarians with whom I can agree but far too many for whom "government is always the problem and we don't need any". Those people are unfortunately the ones who give the public face, and are the only ones with any real power.
You can also remind them that the top rate was 90% back in the 1950s, when evil socialist Eisenhower kept the US economy in the doledrums after WW2, LOL.
To be fair, would you please also remind us what income bracket had that 90% top rate applied to, what would that be today in inflation-adjusted terms, and how many people in the whole country had been in that bracket? Somehow those who love to talk about that 90% rate NEVER mention those things.
« First « Previous Comments 244 - 250 of 250 Search these comments
By Ben O'Neill
http://mises.org/daily/4125
A short excerpt from the larger article:
"In fact, what is called "the free market" is just the absence of socially sanctioned theft, assault, robbery, etc., in the context of the relevant market. What is called "deregulation" is actually just the removal of policies allowing socially sanctioned trespasses against person and property. What is called "decentralization of power" is actually just the breaking down of one big criminal agency into lots of smaller competing criminal agencies, with the goal of ultimately making them small enough and competitive enough (with each other) for us to escape from their clutches altogether.
At root, the libertarian position is very simple and must be communicated in this way. It holds that people should not be allowed to commit crimes against one another. All of the talk about free markets versus market intervention, capitalism versus socialism, regulation versus deregulation, and so on, is just a disguised way of presenting the basic dichotomy between a society of criminals and a society of law. This is the essence of the battle.
A battle between the free market and its antipodes, when presented in the garb of political philosophy, is an esoteric battle. It is a battle that can be perverted and misrepresented. A straightforward battle between criminality and law is easier to understand and far more powerful. Libertarians should not shy away from presenting "policy issues" in terms of their actual meaning — in terms of criminality versus law.
Many have been cowed into avoiding this approach by the idea that this "strong language" will put people off, or make libertarians seem unreasonable. But it is precisely this confrontation with the basic fact — that libertarianism supports a society of law — that is the most powerful weapon for its advocates. There is nothing wrong with telling people that taxation is robbery, that regulation is trespass, that drug laws are assault and robbery, that politicians are criminals, and that the state is a monstrous criminal agency."
#crime