The libertarian disconnect!!

There are many smart libertarians I have come across at these forums. They tend to be on average much smarter than their conservative cousins, however there is a disconnect from reality which makes their entire ideology fall apart in my mind.

It comes from this stream of thought, on which most liberals and libertarians agree. There is, in this country, an unhealthy relationship between big business and government. Big business uses that relationship to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. The government grants them privileges which allow them to accumulate wealth at an extraordinary rate.


Now here is where the disconnect come from, and it comes from a piece of logic which at first glance makes some sense. Libertarians say the solution to this problem is less government and freer markets. Now that does make sense. If government stops granting privilege to the wealthy and powerful, they would no longer be able to accumulate so much wealth. Which means at first thought making government smaller would reduce this issue. The problem with that logic is simple. It will NEVER HAPPEN!! Government is always going to grant privilege, and the wealthy are always going to use their power, influence, and wealth to take advantage of that fact. There is a 0% chance of stopping that reality without extraordinary unforeseen occurrences.

So what libertarians advocate for is freer markets for everyone, but what they accomplish in practice is a harsh and competitive free market for everyone who isn't rich. And a free market for the wealthy when they want a free market, and a regulated market when they don't. And government intervention when they want intervention, and none when they don't. So what advocating for smaller government and lower taxes does, is means smaller government for the average American, with government benefits unchanged for the wealthy. Lower taxes for the very wealthy, with the continuation of the same privileges granted.

Smaller government will mean no social security, but oil subsidies will continue. It will mean no unemployment insurance, but the banks will still get bailed out. The list goes on and on. This realization can only lead to one conclusion. Since the privilege will never end, the wealthy need to pay for the privileges granted to them. Which means higher taxes. Those higher taxes can go to redistributionary programs which take some of the wealth accumulated because of government granted privilege(honestly a small percentage of the wealth they receive from those priveleges), and redistribute the wealth back to regular people.

Now those are the 2 legitimate options. Government helps the wealthy, and either does not ask the wealthy to pay for those services or they do. The first part is not up for negotiation!! It is a fact. So accepting that fact, one can either take the moral and sensible step of expecting the wealthy to pay for it, or they can take the immoral and nonsensical step of granting the wealthy all those privileges, while expecting everyone else to pay for them. There is only one option to choose for any moral and sensible person when they understand this fact.

 

Unfortunately you are correct. The only way it will happen is if the people are properly educated on the corruptions of corporatism. It is up to the people to ensure that the government follows the Constitution. It's not a failure of the idelogy or principles, or even the Constitution itself. It's a failure of the people, because the Constitution is only good so long as the people are willing to ensure that the government is enforcing it.

Now this is where you are losing me. You're basically saying we should have a "if we can't beat em, join em" attitude. There's no Constitutional authorization for social security or unemployment insurance at the federal level. That is supposed to be done at the state level. It's not a question of your opinion, this is absolute fact.

The problem lies with the Federal Reserve system and the government's ability to borrow. If government had to tax everyone directly to pay for all its services, then small government would be an inevitable check by the people. Governments that can infinitely borrow will always do such thing - to pay for corporate welfare. You have presented a non-solution because it does not take these factors into account.

 

I don't understand why a government can't be limited in power to the point in which a national privilege being doled out by the federal government is an impossibility. Our current constitution was almost there. Unfortunately, our founding fathers had a little too much Shakespeare in them and their wording wasn't laid out plain and clearly enough.

 

It's a catch-22, isn't it? The disconnect is in your premise that the government will never be weak and won't play favorites, which is kinda like saying libertarianism can never work so long as it can never work. Circular logic, dontch'a know?

 

I don't think we've ever given a Libertarian a chance. We've got a good option with Ron Paul. I don't think we'll ever see his kind again.

One thing to consider is that the Constitution gives the Federal govt the authority to make treaties and regulate commerce. A smaller government would still do this. The problem we have now is that free trade as our present government sees it is not fair trade. The treasonous construct of our recent trade agreements have bankrupted this country. No jobs = no government revenue, so how can government afford any of the other things? It can't.

It matters less whether we have smaller or larger government and more if we have an honest government that isn't selling its own people down the river. I prefer smaller, but would settle for one that isn't treasonous.

Quit perplexing yourself over theory and recognize what is in front of you. We are being sold out and we need fundamental change. NO system will work if it's infested with corruption.

Ron Paul on 2012 !!

 

I also see a large disconnect in thinking among the democrats/progressives. They think that the government will be on the side of the people when they are funded and put into place by the highest bidders.

Even more of a conundrum in big government thinking is that they rail on about corporations but have no problem with the federal reserve setting interest rates and printing money at will.

Guess where hot money ends up first, and guess who it hurts the most? It benefits the first hands to touch it and is harmful to the lower end of the population who receive this downgraded money later on. Why do you think the fascist government supports stimulus?

 

The option you provide is that two wrongs make a right. You assert, government will always grow and will always grant privileges through the selective barriers of regulation and by subsidy. Therefore one should cast aside principle and embrace the use of police power to get what one wants. One should also embrace violence as a means of achieving one's social and economic agenda.

The only option for a moral person is to maintain one's morals.

 

Flaws in the O.P.

1. Libertarianism does not mean the big companies / power brokers can necessarily maintain an advantage over the smaller more agile businesses.

2. Libertarianism does not mean corporatism. In fact virtually all Libertarians are against crony establishment capitalism which is not real capitalism at all.

3. Free Markets will dash the big corporations on the rocks as they would lose their government subsidies, big lawyer and big accountant loop holes.

 

Excellent point.

 

I myself love the idea of liberty and freedom. The only problem with some extreme libertarians, however, is that they are in support of privatizing everything.

Private property is a zero sum game. The more I have, the less you have because I don't have to share anything with you.

Don't get me wrong; I do support private property rights. But they should be regulated to where overly big businesses can't happen. The bigger a business becomes, the more it resembles a monopoly.

 

I am a Libertarian, however... I do not take it to the extreme. There are areas where we should not be privatizing. We should however cut the federal government and state governments down dramatically.

 

I personally believe that one of the biggest (solvable) problems that this entire planet faces today..is overpopulation.

UMM but anyways, back to more "politically correct" (as well as relevant) points..if we're going to discuss this from a utilitarian and consequentialist point of view, the hundreds of millions of people who often wastefully spend, in this country, with their water/energy etc. inefficiency, etc., are probably more damaging to the overall economy than even the Fed.

But my main point here is, if we elect Ron Paul and he eliminates these federal programs as he says he would, then we will note the effects of it.

 

I agree, over consumption is akin to accelerating towards a brick wall with no intentions of slowing down.

How would he do that?

I don't honestly believe he'd have much success at obtaining all his goals, but I do believe that RP could be the one to get us moving in the right direction. Some compromise can be found, and would actually be necessary in this case.

 

My philosophy on this is slightly more complicated. I'll only start off describing it by making three assumptions:

1. spending on something can either decrease the availability of that something, increase it's availability, or not do anything to it's availability.

1-A. Nonrenewable natural resources are scarce and limited and finite, therefore spending on them decreases their availability. The more one person or group owns, the less everyone else can potentially own (without forceful takeover).

1-B. Services are limited because there are only a finite number of human beings on this planet who can perform services, as well as a finite time frame to actually execute said services. The supply of services, however, can increase or decrease over time due to more or less people acquiring the skills to execute said services.

The other assumptions can come later.

Why couldn't he obtain his goals? Why wouldn't he?

 

He believes that executive orders are unconstitutional, and he'll face opposition from every angle on several of his stances should he or his make a serious move towards pursuing his goals. And that's a good thing, our government is meant to have checks and balances.

Look at the trouble Obama had with the debt ceiling and other issues. Raising the debt ceiling is small beans compared to ending the Federal reserve and the like.

But again, several of the issues Ron Paul speaks about are relevant now, and if nothing else he'll get the ball rolling on some of these issues which really need addressed.

 

And what if that doesn't work? Then what?

Eventually..force and violence are the only ways to get people to stop acting in certain ways that you abhor.

 

Are you implying that Ron Paul is somehow more likely than other candidates to start some kind of violent revolution?

He's openly stating that he believes the ultimate executive power a president holds, is unconstitutional.

How did you make such a leap?

 

This is impossible. You cannot "regulate" a globalized business. A globalized business has 6 BILLION POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS and all I ever hear are people screaming that we should purposely punish companies into intentionally limiting their market to a mere 310 million potential customers. You're crazy if you think Government, any Government, even the most totalitarian like China can control globalized capitalism? LMAO

Do you understand now?

The Entrepreneur these days doesn't NEED U.S. CUSTOMERS. They have an entire globe now to sell to and can sell to some bushmen in deepest Africa almost as easily as to Joe Blow down the block thanks to internet and Fed-Ex/UPS.

Companies getting bigger is the trend, because only a HUGE company can supply the market demands for BILLIONS of customers across the entire globe. People need to stop thinking of America as an island of exceptional people when it comes to economics and business. We're just 310 million potential customers in a globe of over 6 billion potential customers. Do you REALLY think that the US Government is so powerful, that it can dictate where the profits and losses of 6 billion consumers goes? Yeah right!

I just don't understand how anyone in their rational mind can think that they can somehow control that through Government.

 

I think we have Bill Clinton's love child here on the forum....

 

How does a monopoly occur without government to support it?

 

This is incorrect. There is no example in history of a monopoly occuring without the interference of government or some kind of government priviledge.

 

I'm implying that sometimes a violent revolution is necessary. Sometimes people don't back off till you force them too.

But, that's neither here nor there at the moment.

 

So, how do you suppose any "big company" will supply anyone with anything, if no one except members of this "big company" can afford to pay for it, due to this "big company" destroying jobs?

 

A true monopoly, or simply a really big overgrown business that has a (very slanted) pyramid such that most people have next to nothing, some have a little, and only the top few (the owners) have a lot?

Neither are good IMHO. Henry George:

"What has destroyed every previous civilization has been the tendency to the unequal distribution of wealth and power."

A simplistic view of how societies end, but in any case, having a monopoly over force is bad, but so is having very big economic influence, whether this occurs in a "voluntary" society or not. It's a consequentialist attitude, but so be it.

 

A what point does economic influence become "bad"? Is there some objective measure?