Have I misunderstood Libertarianism?
April 15, 2010 at 12:54 am
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2010 at 1:53 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Have I misunderstood Libertarianism?
As a skeptic I assert everything remains open to question,yet I've also said I'm implacably opposed to Libertarianism. That seems to be a contradiction. I think I need to remain open to new information in case I've made a mistake.
My perception of Libertarianism is that the emphasis is on the freedom of the individual,and the principle of 'user pays'. The ideology is best expressed by the concepts of laissez faire capitalism and free domestic and global markets. Libertarians like small government, few if any taxes and no government regulations in business, such as banks and nil liability companies. Libertarians seem to oppose such things as unions and workers' compensation.
I have a few questions which may be due to ignorance. I ask without rancor,or implicit criticism.:
Under a libertarian system the banks would have simply been allowed to fail during the recent crisis?.
There would be no currency regulation,and banks would print their own money ?(just like the Bank of Hong Kong)
With no reserve bank,each bank would set its own liquid reserve ratio ?(ratio of cash reserves to deposits) ?
Without regulations, there would bee no antitrust laws?
Contrary to Adrian's claim,capitalism managed to incorporate slaves as a commodity and to use slave labour until well into the industrial revolution. Slavery was abolished in England in 1833 and the US in 1865.
Wages are set by the market, as low as possible. The capitalist accepts no responsibility for the well being of workers?
Advertising? The only redress against false and misleading advertising would be civil action?
How would standards of purity and safety be set for food and drugs?
No Welfare?
No public school system?
No [free] public hospitals?
Police and armed forces?
How would licensing say doctors be set and other measurements of academic achievement be measured? By the market?
Am I even on the right page?
As a skeptic I assert everything remains open to question,yet I've also said I'm implacably opposed to Libertarianism. That seems to be a contradiction. I think I need to remain open to new information in case I've made a mistake.
My perception of Libertarianism is that the emphasis is on the freedom of the individual,and the principle of 'user pays'. The ideology is best expressed by the concepts of laissez faire capitalism and free domestic and global markets. Libertarians like small government, few if any taxes and no government regulations in business, such as banks and nil liability companies. Libertarians seem to oppose such things as unions and workers' compensation.
I have a few questions which may be due to ignorance. I ask without rancor,or implicit criticism.:
Under a libertarian system the banks would have simply been allowed to fail during the recent crisis?.
There would be no currency regulation,and banks would print their own money ?(just like the Bank of Hong Kong)
With no reserve bank,each bank would set its own liquid reserve ratio ?(ratio of cash reserves to deposits) ?
Without regulations, there would bee no antitrust laws?
Contrary to Adrian's claim,capitalism managed to incorporate slaves as a commodity and to use slave labour until well into the industrial revolution. Slavery was abolished in England in 1833 and the US in 1865.
Wages are set by the market, as low as possible. The capitalist accepts no responsibility for the well being of workers?
Advertising? The only redress against false and misleading advertising would be civil action?
How would standards of purity and safety be set for food and drugs?
No Welfare?
No public school system?
No [free] public hospitals?
Police and armed forces?
How would licensing say doctors be set and other measurements of academic achievement be measured? By the market?
Am I even on the right page?
