Libertarianism is the best ideology

[Coito ergo sum]

If libertarianism is the best ideology where on earth is it being practiced?

The only country that comes close is Somalia.

Where else?

That was anarchy and they did about as well as any other African nation while they had no central government.

What do you think the end result of libertarianism is?

Anarchy.

Oh, no...wait...I forgot....the end result of libertarianism is rainbows, marshmallows, unicorns, and everyone gets a pony.

No, taken to the extreme libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. Just like liberal socialism taken to its extreme is anarcho-syndicalism.

Libertarians ARE extremists.

Yes, that's probably true - not in the sense of violent extremists, but they do hold an extreme political view in the same way that socialists and "progressives" hold extreme political views.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's like saying you lose economic freedom due to government run police forces because you can't use your own money to buy your own self-defense force.

You can use your own money to buy your own self-defense force. There is nothing illegal about that. Private security firms are all over the place.

[Coito ergo sum]

I want legalized gay marriage,

Me too.

abortion to be legal everywhere

Me too.

and not under threat by misguided and twisted theists,

Me too, although you can't stop them from being able to participate in the political process.

legalized gambling,

Me too, and not just Indian run casinos.

legalized drug use,

Me too.

legalized euthanasia,

If by that you mean that the patient consents to the euthanasia, either at the time or in advance with a legal document specifying under what circumstances the plug is to be pulled, then yes I agree. If you mean that a hospital or State official, or a family member, gets to decide irrespective of the wishes of the patient that the patient is to be euthanized, like a dog, then no.

and legalized prostitution.

Again, me too.

I think it's stupid that you can't sell alcohol on Sundays.

You can sell alcohol on Sundays in many States. Some make you wait until 12 noon. But, I think you should be able to sell it anytime.

But I'm not insane. I think we need universal health care,

If universal health care in the US were proposed with a measure that would make health care and health insurance less expensive, then I would agree with you. However, I disagree with the present proposals because they are built on the premise that the present situation is economically unsustainable, but then proceed to make the economics of it worse.

I think people through no fault of themselves can become sick or destitute and that we need unemployment insurance for 6 months plus,

Unemployment insurance does go for at least 6 months.

Yes, many things can happen to people through no fault of themselves.

paid postnatal leave for 6 months,

I disagree with that. Such measures increase the cost associated with employing employees and make employers resist hiring people. That's why countries that have these sorts of extreme paid leave situations tend to have high unemployment. 10.2% unemployment in the US had people reeling like crazy, and we are borderline depression statistics. Places like Brazil routinely have 15% unemployment and while they do have many weeks of mandatory paid vacation and many months of paid maternity leave, and other such mandatory benefits, it is very difficult to find a job and once you have one you are not as free to leave a job you don't like and move to something you do like because there are far fewer employers out there.

The reason I oppose mandatory post natal leave like that is that I think that while the intent is laudatory, the consequences are to severe to justify it.

labor rights, and that anyone who makes over $250,000 a year could pony up 40% in taxes

O.k., I'm not sure why you pick 40% and not 50%, but whatever. I guess someone who thinks it should be 35% and not 40% is an asshole in your book, but you've got it right because you pick 40% and not 45%.

There are economic models that probably should be consulted before picking rates out of thin air. There are times when reducing a tax "rate" will result in an increase in total tax "revenue." So, if the goal of taxation is to raise money for the government to operate, then we should be less concerned with what the rates are, and more concerned with how much money is collected. However, if the goal of taxation is social engineering, then that changes one's analysis.

and anyone who makes over $1,000,000 a year should pony up 50% minimum in taxes.

Why? Why 50%? Why not 75%? Because one just "feels right?"

I think the current political system is stupid.

If you can describe one that isn't stupid, you win a prize.

[Martok]

I wouldn't say that libertarianism discourages donation, rather I would say that human nature discourages donation.

Indeed, libertarianism encourages the worst in people.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wouldn't say that libertarianism discourages donation, rather I would say that human nature discourages donation.

Indeed, libertarianism encourages the worst in people.

I don't think that's true. Libertarianism is more akin to "atheism" as a belief system.

Just as "atheism" - a lack of belief in gods - doesn't "encourage" the worst in people. It just is. So too libertarianism is not an "active" belief system, so to speak. To put it differently, it's just a lack of belief in government intervention. Liberty is a lack of constraints on individual freedom, it's not an "encouragement" of anything at all.

I mean, to say that people should have the liberty to associate, speak, own property, and move about to the greatest extent possible so long as they do not infringe on someone else's right to do the same, is not "encouraging" bad behavior.

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

I wouldn't say that libertarianism discourages donation, rather I would say that human nature discourages donation.

Indeed, libertarianism encourages the worst in people.

I wouldn't say so. I would say it encourages people to be individuals, to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent other individuals from doing the same.

I could probably word that better but I've been awake for rather too long now...

[Dr. Kwaltz]

Most nations have public healthcare. To pay of it requires higher tax rates which does hurt economic freedom in that map. However it takes a number of other factors into account as well (ease of starting a business for instance). Hence nations with high tax rates can still be economically free (just not as free as they would be with lower taxes)

I'm sorry this is gibberish.

Americans have actually less economic freedom with the insurance based health care system as the individual insurance cost has to be added to what you pay in taxes. The only time you can disregard the insurance cost is when you have no insurance whatsoever. But you also have to understand that in the health care tax other countries pay, things like nursing home and home for elders, are included. In the US, you economic freedom is lower since you have to put aside money for health care, unemployment, retirement and nursing homes etc.......

You don't 'have' to put the money aside it would just be overwhelmingly stupid not to. Economic freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices though, a freedom one loses to so degree when dealing with government run healthcare. I'm not saying the US system is perfect, it clearly isn't and all evidence suggests that, from a purely pragmatic stand-point, a public healthcare system would actually be preferable to it (in its current form). However, you will find few if any libertarians defending the status quo when it comes to healthcare in America. American libertarians from what I have seen tend to promote other ideas such as allowing the purchace of out of state insurance.

Buy with what again?

This is what I don't get about libertarians. Do you really think the reason people don't have health insurance today is because there is no insurance available to them or do you think it is because:
- Can't afford the insurance
- Have pre-existing conditions

It doesn't matter if they can buy out of state insurance when they don't have the funds to pay for them in the first place.

Besides, why should I have to finance a bunch of rich unproductive idiots in the insurance industry? It just makes health care more expensive on every level. Get rid of the insurance nonsense and get a real UHC system and you'll see the cost will drop. Aren't you in favor of spending less money on healthcare? Every UHC country spends less than the US on health care via taxes and get better result. In addition Americans waste about the same on insurance companies making health care in the US at least 4 times more expensive in UHC countries. Maybe you libertarians should attack this little tidbit rather than be upset about UHC but then again, you really don't care about the economy of anyone but yourself so it's a useless recommendation.

[Martok]

I wouldn't say that libertarianism discourages donation, rather I would say that human nature discourages donation.

Indeed, libertarianism encourages the worst in people.

I don't think that's true. Libertarianism is more akin to "atheism" as a belief system.

Just as "atheism" - a lack of belief in gods - doesn't "encourage" the worst in people. It just is. So too libertarianism is not an "active" belief system, so to speak. To put it differently, it's just a lack of belief in government intervention. Liberty is a lack of constraints on individual freedom, it's not an "encouragement" of anything at all.

I mean, to say that people should have the liberty to associate, speak, own property, and move about to the greatest extent possible so long as they do not infringe on someone else's right to do the same, is not "encouraging" bad behavior.

Atheists try to follow a secular code of ethics. Greed and selfishness isn't part of that. Polluting the air and water isn't part of that. Allowing people to suffer and die because they can't afford health care isn't part of that. To libertarians; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is a privileged. To an atheist those things are a right to everyone, not just the wealthy.

[NineOneFour]

Actually, one would have to be overwhelmingly stupid to think that anyone who makes less than about $250,000 a year is even capable of putting the kind of sums aside to pay for health care, unemployment, retirement, etc.

Do you have a source for how much health insurance and income insurance are in America?

Yeah, I'm sure ANYONE can afford them, that would be why people CHOOSE to die.

Consider also the reasons why it might be more expensive that it needs to be, some be be quite easily fixed.

I'm certain that the miracle of the Free Market(TM), hallowed by its name, will solve EVERYTHING...

And therefore, you can end up in the gutter.

And so can your kids.

Color me unimpressed.

Interestingly enough, there's more to "economic freedom" than low taxes and corporatism uber alles.

I've no problem with a minimal welfare system to give another chance to those who make mistakes. Ideally I would like to see all welfare replaced with private charity but I've doubts as to exactly how fesible that is, espessially in the short term.

Good grief, not this canard AGAIN.

Charity won't even pay for everyone's health care, much less ANYTHING else.

Also, corporatism acts AGAINST economic freedom, not for.

No shit, really?

And yet the only thing holding corporations in check would be a government. Just not this one, apparently.

That's like saying you lose economic freedom due to government run police forces because you can't use your own money to buy your own self-defense force.

Strictly speaking you do. However the price of living in a society is that there are some limits to your freedom. Only anarchists would doubt that.

I guess you and I have different versions of "economic freedom".

Because they are stupid. They look at the current system, which is far more free-market oriented than successful socialist systems and think "wow, what's wrong with this is that it isn't free market oriented ENOUGH".

Well it isn't. The American healthcare system is stuck is some kind of weird limbo between a government run system and a free market system. Look at the protections from competition that insurance companies have which are enforced by the government. Those wouldn't exist in a true free-market system.

And it would be EVEN BETTER if companies could drop anyone for any reason without ANY government interference. Or raise prices at any time for no reason. Yes, yes, the free market would be great.

Or not...

[NineOneFour]

Not on this planet.

Guess again.

The No True Scotsman fallacy isn't going to work here.

and posting silly cartoons is?

Yes, of course the cartoons actually make a point...

[NineOneFour]

I'm all about both.

You'll find that I'll vote libertarian before I'll vote conservative. Every. damn. time.

I want legalized gay marriage, abortion to be legal everywhere and not under threat by misguided and twisted theists, legalized gambling, legalized drug use, legalized euthanasia, and legalized prostitution. I think it's stupid that you can't sell alcohol on Sundays. But I'm not insane. I think we need universal health care, I think people through no fault of themselves can become sick or destitute and that we need unemployment insurance for 6 months plus, paid postnatal leave for 6 months, labor rights, and that anyone who makes over $250,000 a year could pony up 40% in taxes and anyone who makes over $1,000,000 a year should pony up 50% minimum in taxes.

I think the current political system is stupid.

I agree with you on: gay marriage, abortion, gambling, drug use, euthanasia, prositution and blue laws.
I think there are alternatives to universal healthcare but I agree that it works from a pragmatic stand point.
I agree with you on having some form of welfare but I imagine I would probably limit it more that you would.
I have no problem with people forming unions to fight for better working conditions if they so wish
I disagree with you on taxes. I would prefer a flat tax system however I find taxation to be a fairly minor issue over all. Radical change is needed in many other areas first (such as gay marriage, abortion, gambling, drug use, euthanasia, prositution and blue laws)


Admittedly I am a quite moderate libertarian.

You did see the graph on the flat tax, right?

[NineOneFour]

That was anarchy and they did about as well as any other African nation while they had no central government.

What do you think the end result of libertarianism is?

Anarchy.

Oh, no...wait...I forgot....the end result of libertarianism is rainbows, marshmallows, unicorns, and everyone gets a pony.

No, taken to the extreme libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. Just like liberal socialism taken to its extreme is anarcho-syndicalism.

Libertarians ARE extremists.

Yes, that's probably true - not in the sense of violent extremists, but they do hold an extreme political view in the same way that socialists and "progressives" hold extreme political views.

Did you hear that there are other countries that exist other than America? Shocking, I know.

[NineOneFour]

That's like saying you lose economic freedom due to government run police forces because you can't use your own money to buy your own self-defense force.

You can use your own money to buy your own self-defense force. There is nothing illegal about that. Private security firms are all over the place.

No shit?

Now I wonder who could afford to do that...?

Keep thinking about that and you'll realize why libertarianism is just a way to transfer more money and power to people who already have too much of both.

[NineOneFour]

I want legalized gay marriage,

Me too.

abortion to be legal everywhere

Me too.

and not under threat by misguided and twisted theists,

Me too, although you can't stop them from being able to participate in the political process.

legalized gambling,

Me too, and not just Indian run casinos.

legalized drug use,

Me too.

legalized euthanasia,

If by that you mean that the patient consents to the euthanasia, either at the time or in advance with a legal document specifying under what circumstances the plug is to be pulled, then yes I agree. If you mean that a hospital or State official, or a family member, gets to decide irrespective of the wishes of the patient that the patient is to be euthanized, like a dog, then no.

and legalized prostitution.

Again, me too.

I think it's stupid that you can't sell alcohol on Sundays.

You can sell alcohol on Sundays in many States. Some make you wait until 12 noon. But, I think you should be able to sell it anytime.

But I'm not insane. I think we need universal health care,

If universal health care in the US were proposed with a measure that would make health care and health insurance less expensive, then I would agree with you. However, I disagree with the present proposals because they are built on the premise that the present situation is economically unsustainable, but then proceed to make the economics of it worse.

I think people through no fault of themselves can become sick or destitute and that we need unemployment insurance for 6 months plus,

Unemployment insurance does go for at least 6 months.

Yes, many things can happen to people through no fault of themselves.

paid postnatal leave for 6 months,

I disagree with that. Such measures increase the cost associated with employing employees and make employers resist hiring people. That's why countries that have these sorts of extreme paid leave situations tend to have high unemployment. 10.2% unemployment in the US had people reeling like crazy, and we are borderline depression statistics. Places like Brazil routinely have 15% unemployment and while they do have many weeks of mandatory paid vacation and many months of paid maternity leave, and other such mandatory benefits, it is very difficult to find a job and once you have one you are not as free to leave a job you don't like and move to something you do like because there are far fewer employers out there.

The reason I oppose mandatory post natal leave like that is that I think that while the intent is laudatory, the consequences are to severe to justify it.

labor rights, and that anyone who makes over $250,000 a year could pony up 40% in taxes

O.k., I'm not sure why you pick 40% and not 50%, but whatever. I guess someone who thinks it should be 35% and not 40% is an asshole in your book, but you've got it right because you pick 40% and not 45%.

There are economic models that probably should be consulted before picking rates out of thin air. There are times when reducing a tax "rate" will result in an increase in total tax "revenue." So, if the goal of taxation is to raise money for the government to operate, then we should be less concerned with what the rates are, and more concerned with how much money is collected. However, if the goal of taxation is social engineering, then that changes one's analysis.

and anyone who makes over $1,000,000 a year should pony up 50% minimum in taxes.

Why? Why 50%? Why not 75%? Because one just "feels right?"

I think the current political system is stupid.

If you can describe one that isn't stupid, you win a prize.

A lot of people aren't eligible for unemployment benefits, although you are correct, it usually lasts up to 39 weeks. Let's extend it to 52 weeks and increase it to a point where people aren't starving to death.

Your comments about postnatal care are flawed and this is me being nice. Comparing the US to Brazil is crazy. Try any Western European nation and see who has lower unemployment AND more postnatal care. "The consequences are severe." How silly.

"There are times when reducing a tax "rate" will result in an increase in total tax "revenue."". Nope. Never happened ONCE. Not ONCE. You lose.

As for your condemnation of my tax rate examples, I picked the minimum I'm comfortable with. If you want to raise it higher than that, enjoy.

Social Democracy has worked in Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg at least. So it's not stupid. Where's my prize?

[NineOneFour]

I wouldn't say that libertarianism discourages donation, rather I would say that human nature discourages donation.

Indeed, libertarianism encourages the worst in people.

I don't think that's true. Libertarianism is more akin to "atheism" as a belief system.

Just as "atheism" - a lack of belief in gods - doesn't "encourage" the worst in people. It just is. So too libertarianism is not an "active" belief system, so to speak. To put it differently, it's just a lack of belief in government intervention. Liberty is a lack of constraints on individual freedom, it's not an "encouragement" of anything at all.

It's an encouragement of greed and selfishness.

I mean, to say that people should have the liberty to associate, speak, own property, and move about to the greatest extent possible so long as they do not infringe on someone else's right to do the same, is not "encouraging" bad behavior.

Sure it is because like any other utopian system, it will turn into a nightmare if implemented because libertarianism makes no provision for the powerful and the insane. Somehow, the sociopaths among us are just going to "play nice". Like taking any and all regulations off of health insurance companies. It's laughable if anyone thinks these psychos are NOT going to ensure through their policies that anyone who has a pre-existing condition, anyone unable to pay, and anyone in poor health is going to pay through the nose and therefore not get any health care as a result. Insurance companies are out to make money, not be social programs.

Libertarians fail to understand that only in a perfect world does everyone have sufficient information to make informed choices. But companies lie all the time and the sole counterweight to corporate power is government power.