/libertarian/
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: /libertarian/
Not Anarcho-capitalists tbqh
>Not Anarcho-capitalists
Let you read the literature and follow the school of economics that are.
And you wonder why people thing libertarians are anarcho-capitalists or at least minarchists (night watchman).
>no minimum consumer or labor protection
>no public funding of safety nets, not even in states or municipalities
>no public funding of schools or education
>no public funding of scientific or medical research
>not public funding of anything beyond, in a minarchist society, the courts and police
And you wonder why so few Americans consider themselves libertarians.
>inb4 but most Americans they want weed and not be told what to do by a several millennia year old book
None of which are exclusively libertarian. We're talking about real libertarians who see personal liberty on the other side of the coin as economic liberty (muh free market, muh no taxes, muh no subsidies).
>>70492179
Where do you draw that arbitrary line between your libertarian ideas and the anarcho-capitalist ones?
Libertarianism is dead as a door nail now.
>>70493025
Anarcho-capitalism = corporate jungle
Libertarianism = Don't restrict businesses as much, but we should keep in mind that there must be standards applied to them.
>>70494610
And let me guess...those are 'common sense' standards right?
It's arbitrary my dude. Whose to say your standards are going to match up to other libertarian's standards. When you accept the central idea of libertarianism (less regulation = 'better' results over time) you lose the ability to make a good argument for pausing at removing a specific regulation that you happen to agree with.
>>70495031
>everything is arbitrary
I guess government control is arbitrary too. When you accept the central idea of authoritarianism (more control = 'better' results over time) you lost the ability to make a good argument for why you want to put more power into government, once you've realized that you overrestricted the rights of the people.
>>70492179
What do you lads think of the Agricultural Adjustment Act?
>>70495407
Most statists don't assume 'more control' = better results over time. Often times they begrudingly accept how inefficient central planning is but see it as a necessary evil because all other alternatives are worse. So they don't really fall into the same issue that libertarians do.
If you actually did believe that more control created better results over time then you'd have no reason not to be a full on commie.
>>70492836
>government cucks get publicly funded education, scientific research, health care, etc.
>it's actually just your tax money being used inefficiently
>also implying that the government is the only one who can provide those services
Learn some economics commie fags
>>70495932
> no! Statists only do it sometimes
> libertarians do it more times
Do you see the flawed logic?
>>70495932
Most libertarians don't assume less regulation = 'better' results over time. They often accept that the free market is volatile and variable, and prone to exploitation. However, they feel they can best promote the advancement of humanity which is why they wish to decrease regulation, as they are often the ones which advance civilization through competition and marketing. The alternatives are seen as restrictive or witholding.
If you actually believe that less regulations create better results over time then you'd have no reason to be a full-on anarcho-capitalist.
I am economically libertarian, but socially I am not. Personally I think there should be people who aren't allowed to vote and have their right restricted, for example the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote. If they can't make decisions for themselves that take them out of the shitter they shouldn't make them for their country
>>70496360
Your average 'statist' doesn't really have a cohesive philosophy. They pick and choose what should and should not be regulated on what appears to be personal preference. A lot of the time it is a comfortability issue as most politicians who lean towards central control will avoid unpalatable issues (which a notable exception being something like gun rights). If you're a libertarian you shouldn't want to be held to the same standard as a statist because their thinking looks very flawed to an uninvested observer.
>>70496399
From what I have seen most libertarians, at least the Ron Paul kind, got most of their talking points from figures like Rothbard, Isaiah Berlin's positive and negative freedom, and the Freidman's. These were not generally religious folks or fundamentalists and they bought into the idea of 'subjective values', 'negative liberty', and 'non-aggression'. Without those ideas I am not sure that libertarianism would make any sense. Where you draw the line and say those things stop mattering?
General question: Do libertarians believe in reaganomics?
