a question on libertarianism

[Colin]

Just my two cents worth here.

Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudal bull from my own libertarian stand point.

There isn't a cat in hells chance I would ever support the free market regulating and controling systems of justice, governance and law. Those are the core duties of the state. And yes the state has a place in society. It should be slim and accountable but it should not be replaced by unnacountable profit seeking conglomerations.

What also annoys me is the concept of property. Not all property and landrights are or should be owned by individuals. They can be as wasteful and as greedy as the state. You simply cannot portion all lands and divvy them up for private ownership. The state should own and manage for the people protected lands and water sources which can be ran by private organisations yes, but should never be owned by them as private individuals and companies operate out of pure self interest.

A smaller and more accountable state that adheres to it's core functions can be empowered by the people through the democratic process to manage certain estates that are too valuable to the well being of society and the individual.

And I agree with snowguy; Bono you have contributed little to this conversation but childish insults.

I have to completely agree.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

So would I.

[MaC]

I guess I would call the likes of Dick Cheney and the military-industrial complex "Authoritative-Capitalists".. they seek to use government policies and power to benefit corporations and certain individuals.

I guess I was thinking of it on a purely individual level of those wielding the power.  They do not follow the law like we do.  They conduct their transactions in ways that most of the public has no look into.

That being said, I still think anarcho-capitalists are a scary bunch.  Humans are greedy and power-hungry.  If it's not the government doing the rich/powerful people's bidding, it's corporations... that's why, I believe, in a democratic system, voters have at least some ability to hold this power grab in check.

There's no such thing as authoritarian capitalism because it's a contradiction in terms.  Imperialism was definitely based on profit-seeking, but it was a forceful concept, and thus not capitalistic.  Government welfare to corporations is opposed by libertarians and capitalists.  And without government aide, a monopoly could not exist.  Force is the only thing that gives such monopolies their ability to conquer others.

[Citizen James]

Thirdly there are the anarchocapitalists.  They don't really care that much about personal freedom, but are adamite about corporations having rights and being as above the law as possible.  In reallity they are closer to Feregi than Libertarian, but they try and label themselves libertarian anyway.

No we aren't. You are possibly the most intellectually dishonest person in this forum, if not whom I have ever met. I'm yet to find an anarcho-capitalist who believes corporations should even exist. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

If you want a strawman, I suggest you browse the Trogladyte entry

I do understand what anarchocapitialsism is, and like it's distant cousin communism it has a lot of high-sounding ideals which it claims will come to pass through some sort of magical process.  Both have a tendency to put a lot of power into the hands of very few individuals, and both claim to help the 'masses' while being vague on the details of how.  Real capitalists, such as the oft miscited Adam Smith, opposed monopolies, olgiarchies, and other anti-competitive practices which benefit most from excessive deregulation.

Trade and specialization of labor are both good things.  Ideally in commerce, I get what I want, you get what you want, and we both walk away happy.  I do one thing well, you do something else well, we are both more productive than if if we were both jacks of all trades.

Economics is not magic.  The forces at work can be studied.  Like all studies involving human behavior there are variations and a great deal of potential complexity - especially when dealing with mass behaviors, but in the end it's another form of applied sociology.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist (and to be honest, rocket science really isn't that complex - expecially compared to things like geopolitcal dynamics, but I digress..) to look at history - company towns, railroad barrons, and the whole dang industrial revolution - to realize that there does have to be a check against those who will abuse power to the detriment of society, which can also bring a backlash should too many members of society take matters into their own hands; which can feed a cycle which is brutish, at times violent, inefficient, and over the long term not all that profitable for the company as a whole.

But enough elucidation.  I'm sure your answer will be typically short and trite.  At least brush up on your insults - perhaps you could accuse me of being a profundus  maximus.  I'm certainly verbose enough.   I can even throw in a bit of latin for fun

Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum
Pecunia in arbotis non crescit
Me oportet propter praeceptum te nocere

[Gustaf]

"Real" libertarianism is not included among your options, but is basically a form of liberalism in which inherent inequalities in society are denied or thought to not matter. Most libertarians of this brand tend to moderate over time (like Nozick). Many libertarians however are not really of this brand, but are rather a modern form of conservatism, dropping many of its classic components, most notably the notion of society and the belief in God and Nation. Whether this latter can be thought of as its own ideology is debatable, perhaps it should.

[Gustaf]

don't worry, these are people who make assumptions based on what they think they know, not by what's real.
Anarcho-capitalism is in no way authoritarian as it is against force.  Force is what makes something authoritarian.
It also isn't pro-corporation above individual rights.  When the red avatars learn that individual rights and business rights are aligned together against government.  Not government and individual against business, they could then undertand that it is government that elevates business to the level where they could become monopolies.  The only way a monopoly can exist is by means of government.

I think you're making an assumption based on what you think you know...you seriously don't think monopolies can exist on a free market? Do you have any idea whatsoever about the functioning of markets?

[Bono]

don't worry, these are people who make assumptions based on what they think they know, not by what's real.
Anarcho-capitalism is in no way authoritarian as it is against force.  Force is what makes something authoritarian.
It also isn't pro-corporation above individual rights.  When the red avatars learn that individual rights and business rights are aligned together against government.  Not government and individual against business, they could then undertand that it is government that elevates business to the level where they could become monopolies.  The only way a monopoly can exist is by means of government.

I think you're making an assumption based on what you think you know...you seriously don't think monopolies can exist on a free market? Do you have any idea whatsoever about the functioning of markets?

A monopoly isn't really a monopoly unless it can't be dislodge by legal means. A natural monopoly only occurs becuase one company is more efficient than all its cmpetitors.

[Brandon H]

Anarcho-capitalists are people who seek to put control over other people but seek to live free of government control.  Since they can get the vote of the social conservatives by pandering to them and making laws that reflect those values, they win elections.  They are the rich ones that benefit from their ultra-capitalist policies and thus have the money and power to ignore all those stupid laws that the lower downs so reverently demand/follow.

How old are you Bono?  13?  Because you're acting like a middle-schooler.  I haven't seen you contribute one notable thing to this thread other than to attack others and call people names. 

I guess it would be you that doesn't understand anarcho-capitalist ways in the real world.  Sure, the dictionary definition might be slightly different.. but name one person who wields political power that seeks to get rid of government and push pro-capitalist powers and has any real effect.

Anarcho-Capitalists pander to social conservatives? That's news to me. Do you happen to know any of them that are pandering to social conservatives?

[afleitch]

A monopoly isn't really a monopoly unless it can't be dislodge by legal means. A natural monopoly only occurs becuase one company is more efficient than all its cmpetitors.

And historically a state over time requires a monopoly over territory and people because it is the most 'efficient' out of it's competitors; Prussia, England etc.

EDIT: Indeed many of these nations came about because the king was able to enforce a monopoly of sorts over lords and vassals.

Natural or state empowered, a monopoly is still a monopoly and is as detrimental to the freedom of the individual, indeed in my opinion more so, than the state.

[Gustaf]

don't worry, these are people who make assumptions based on what they think they know, not by what's real.
Anarcho-capitalism is in no way authoritarian as it is against force.  Force is what makes something authoritarian.
It also isn't pro-corporation above individual rights.  When the red avatars learn that individual rights and business rights are aligned together against government.  Not government and individual against business, they could then undertand that it is government that elevates business to the level where they could become monopolies.  The only way a monopoly can exist is by means of government.

I think you're making an assumption based on what you think you know...you seriously don't think monopolies can exist on a free market? Do you have any idea whatsoever about the functioning of markets?

A monopoly isn't really a monopoly unless it can't be dislodge by legal means. A natural monopoly only occurs becuase one company is more efficient than all its cmpetitors.

So, let's assume that a company owns a subway system in a city. How am I to compete with this company exactly? Build my own subway? Where? Or say that someone owns the road outside my gate and makes me pay a very high toll. How do I compete with him? Do I build my own road on stilts above his and climb onto it?

Free markets work in an excellent manner as long as the cost of establshing a business is sufficiently low. When it becomes really, really high you get trouble. Infratruscture is the most obvious example here. Of course, yes, there is a difference between a legally protected monopoly and one that just exists, but the bad effects can be there. If the cost of establishing a competitor is too high a company can keep and acquire a monopoly without being the most efficient player on the market.

[Speed of Sound]

While it does owe its beginning to conservatism, it has clearly evolved into its own philosophy, taking one broad conern and applying to each unique issue.

[MaC]

While it does owe its beginning to conservatism, it has clearly evolved into its own philosophy, taking one broad conern and applying to each unique issue.

Interesting response.  Are you refering to the final wave of the pro-business ideology in the thirties being reinvented in the late 60s/early 70s libertarianism?

[Speed of Sound]

While it does owe its beginning to conservatism, it has clearly evolved into its own philosophy, taking one broad conern and applying to each unique issue.

Interesting response.  Are you refering to the final wave of the pro-business ideology in the thirties being reinvented in the late 60s/early 70s libertarianism?

Essentially.

Also, I find it interesting how it sort of lost its pro-business roots. Its still pro-business, but its because theyre against government intervention in economy. What Im saying is they went from fighting for a cause, to fighting its enemy.

[Frodo]

It seems that judging from the options presented in your poll that it seems directed at Dibble -is it?  You two have had a disagreement on whether the Libertarian Party should moderate its positions so as to make it more palatable to those who desire to vote for its candidates but are repelled by its extremism, or remain true to its principles even if it remains permanently on the fringes rather than becoming a genuine third party on par with the established major parties.  It's hard to think otherwise given this context. 

[MaC]

it's not directed at Dibble.  Plenty of what I say is, or could be, but this is just a general topic.  I'm interested in seeing what others think.  Personally, I'm one who thinks libertarianism is it's own ideology, but the more I look at it, I'm able to see other points of veiw.  I've also gotten more conservative in the past 3 or 5 years, definitely.

[opebo]

Just an offshoot of the right wing, only a bit more blind to the reality of the way society works.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

And Opebo charges in with another non sequitor

[MaC]

And Opebo charges in with another non sequitor

Not only bad at making a point, but a bad poet as well.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

And Opebo charges in with another non sequitor

Not only bad at making a point, but a bad poet as well.

Indeed.

[opebo]

And Opebo charges in with another non sequitor

It is non sequitur, and I answered the question posed at the beginning of the thread.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

And Opebo charges in with another non sequitor

It is non sequitur, and I answered the question posed at the beginning of the thread.

Go spam somewhere else.

[tik 🪀✨]

Perhaps I view it too simply. It's root, obviously, lies with liberty. Therefore, freedom and liberty in the marketplace from government control or intervention (economic freedom, more associated with conservative), and freedom and liberty in your personal business (social freedom, more associated with liberals (well, okay, most rational people)). And of course, if things are mostly free to happen as they may, you do not need a large federal government to enforce restrictions, therefore lower taxes etc etc. That of course, pure conservative. So it's something of a blend of conservative/liberal thinking, but that's what makes it its own special category. Limiting your options to liberal/conservative is a bit needlessly restrictive, only serving to narrow very broad concepts down to either/or statements that fuel stupid arguments on the internet.

Feel free to totally blow my mind. I apologise if I got something wrong, but I am, like, totally sleepbaked at the moment.

[NewFederalist]

Welcome to the forum, Tik. I think you said it very well.

[opebo]

And Opebo charges in with another non sequitor

It is non sequitur, and I answered the question posed at the beginning of the thread.

Go spam somewhere else.

How can it possibly be 'spamming', you fool, to succinctly answer a question posed by another member?  The man was soliciting answers to the question 'is liberarianism a branch of conservatism or an independent political philosophy'.  I think it is the former.  Where is the spam in that?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

And Opebo charges in with another non sequitor

It is non sequitur, and I answered the question posed at the beginning of the thread.

Go spam somewhere else.

How can it possibly be 'spamming', you fool, to succinctly answer a question posed by another member?  The man was soliciting answers to the question 'is liberarianism a branch of conservatism or an independent political philosophy'.  I think it is the former.  Where is the spam in that?

Its not in THAT post but in most of your other posts.