Have I misunderstood Libertarianism?

[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?

[Minimalist]

The driving principle of Libertarianism....and their older brothers, the republicans, is this:


"I've got mine. Fuck you."

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The driving principle of Libertarianism....and their older brothers, the republicans, is this:


"I've got mine. Fuck you."

That's the impression I got from Adrian,but I thought I was perhaps being a little harsh.

[Tiberius]

Under a libertarian system the banks would have simply been allowed to fail during the recent crisis?.

Yes. Banks are a business; businesses that do not have good business plans shouldn't be helped out by the government...that's favouritism. I didn't see any of the smaller banks getting a load of money from the government...but I guess they didn't fail as much.

It is a bizarre world we live in where if your business fails you can have the government cover your failures with cash. In any other industry you wouldn't see such treatment.

People have to realise that banking is a risk. You don't have to store your money in a bank; doing so comes at a risk. Banks have massive investments with your money, and if those investments fail, your money goes with it. Instead, you paid for the bailouts using your money anyway (taxes), and the banks took it and wasted it away. Good job.

Libertarians arguing for de-regulation also argue for greater transparency. Setting up private watchdog groups to look over the banks and give the public their opinion on them. Instead of people relying on the government to bail out banks, they rely on the watchdog groups to give a review of the banks which are most trustworthy with their money.

There would be no currency regulation,and banks would print their own money ?(just like the Bank of Hong Kong)

No. There would be a standard currency of the state, which would be representative of the amount of precious metals (i.e. by the gold standard) the state owned, and private individuals owned. If there was X worth of gold in the entire state, there would be X amount of currency.

Currently, the balance between the actual money and the actual valuable "stuff" we have is off-balance, which is what causes inflation. You can string out the number of debts, but at some point, people want to get paid. If you have $1,000,000 worth of gold and there is $10,000,000 in monetary denominations in the state, you have a massive problem.

With no reserve bank,each bank would set its own liquid reserve ratio ?(ratio of cash reserves to deposits) ?

Yes, but as a business you would be hard pushed to find a bank that is willing to lend out most of its money and keep only a small fraction in reserve. Of course, fractional-reserve banking is a good idea, since it is the only way the bank is going to make any money with your money (by way of investments, etc). The bank has to do its own private calculations to make sure it can give people the money they demand when they come to take it out. Since most people aren't going to be withdrawing their money totally every day, you should be able to find a ratio that is both workable and effective at bringing in profit for the bank.

Without regulations, there would bee no antitrust laws?

No but as I've argued before, anti-trust laws are unfair and seek to punish companies that do well. This isn't to say that there wouldn't be a public enforced action against companies that create monopolies though. As Libertarians hold it, anything that can be done by the government is doable by the public at large, for the government is simply an institution made up of select members of the public. In America (and to some extent in the UK) we see the often exponential effectiveness of boycotts. Given the de-regulation of the market, it would be easier for someone (or a group of people) to set up a competing company that offers a better product than the monopoly.

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.

You mean the claim that I never made? I support capitalism, I do not support statist anti-human capitalism. I'm a Libertarian, and I've explained what that means before...it means that I view every human as equal. Slavery would be as illegal under Libertarianism as it is under our modern political systems.

It wasn't capitalism that created slaves, it was inhuman monsters who had no apparent compassion. William Wilberforce (one of the main abolitionists in Britain) was a conservative politician. Linking the two as if capitalism is some root cause is dishonest.

Wages are set by the market, as low as possible. The capitalist accepts no responsibility for the well being of workers?

Of course they do. Capitalists are humans too, we have the same compassion, we feel the same things. If not on a human level, then certainly on an economic level. If your workers are working in bad conditions, they won't work well, nor will they be happy. If workers aren't happy, they may leave your employ to seek better jobs. If is to the benefit of the capitalist to support his workers; why else are there so many well-paid jobs around? If all companies paid $1 an hour for every single job, they'd maximise their profit right?

Wrong. People would complain, refuse to work, and the companies would be forced into raising their salaries in order to survive as a business (although in the mean-time they would have lost money).

Advertising? The only redress against false and misleading advertising would be civil action?

Watchdog groups already exist, and they would continue to exist in Libertarianism. All Libertarianism is is the privatization of different arms of the government, so that the jobs can be done the same, but with more accountability.

How would standards of purity and safety be set for food and drugs?

By the people, and in turn balanced by the watchdog groups. The people want their food to be safe, the watchdog groups make sure the companies are producing food to a good standard, and warn the people if it is not.

Additionally, I've already said how the laws of society are not escaped by business. If someone eats bad food that was sold by a company, that company is liable. One of the government's responsibilities is to protect life.

No Welfare?

No. Private charity would take that job. Libertarians are against forced charity, since forced charity ultimately takes all the meaning out of the word. People in Libertarianism would still be people, they'd still have all the compassion that they do now, and due to lower taxes (because of smaller government) they'd be more inclined to donate to charity.

No public school system?

No. Private education is far more effective at schooling children, and it expands the methods used. Students who have specific skills will have those skills enhanced, and students with no apparent skills with have general classes to see where their best areas lie. Libertarianism would see a return of apprenticeships in industry as well.

And again, private charity would fund those who are too poor to afford the fees themselves. An interesting video if you have 20 minutes would be this TED talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

No [free] public hospitals?

This is where I leap eagerly from the party line. There are some good arguments for privatized healthcare on the Libertarian side, but in my opinion, the government has a responsibility to the protection of life, and that means they must protect our health. That isn't to say that private hospitals wouldn't still cater to those who can afford them though. I think a system like the UK currently has (but with far less bureaucracy) would be ideal.

Police and armed forces?

Controlled by the government. I think only anarchists disagree with this; all Libertarians (big-L) would have the government controlling the police and army.

How would licensing say doctors be set and other measurements of academic achievement be measured? By the market?

Unsure on this one. I'll get back to you.

[leo-rcc]

No. Private charity would take that job. Libertarians are against forced charity, since forced charity ultimately takes all the meaning out of the word. People in Libertarianism would still be people, they'd still have all the compassion that they do now, and due to lower taxes (because of smaller government) they'd be more inclined to donate to charity.

I am quite skeptical of that claim. Can you back this claim up?

[Eilonnwy]

By the people, and in turn balanced by the watchdog groups. The people want their food to be safe, the watchdog groups make sure the companies are producing food to a good standard, and warn the people if it is not.

Additionally, I've already said how the laws of society are not escaped by business. If someone eats bad food that was sold by a company, that company is liable. One of the government's responsibilities is to protect life.

That just breaks my brain with stupid.

1) By your statement, bad food will still be out there ready to be sold. It's nigh impossible to get information to everyone, so it's inevitable that someone would still eat this bad food. The FDA prevents it from ever getting into circulation.

2) So basically, someone has to get sick, potentially sick and die, for a lawsuit to change the way that company does business. Let's not forget that big companies have more money for lawsuits than the average Joe Schmoe who had the misfortune of eating bad food. The FDA would try to prevent that food getting into the population, and if it did, the FDA would has far more resources to make the company pay than an average person.

Once again proving that libertarianism is nothing but supremely idealistic notions that ignore the propensity of businesses and companies to try and cheat the average person to make a buck.

If regular market forces worked without regulation, I'd accept that. They don't. The banks failed because of continued de-regulation. That's just a fact.

[Tiberius]

What claim? The claim that people would be more inclined to donate to charity? That should be obvious; if you have more money (due to less taxes), you can afford to donate more. People donate as much as they can to charity already; that wouldn't change, the amounts would.

People currently exploit the welfare state because the government is surrounded by bureaucracy, and they have nothing to lose. A private charity would give to those who most need it, and they would be more alert to exploitation since they have a great deal to lose.

[Tiberius]

That just breaks my brain with stupid.

1) By your statement, bad food will still be out there ready to be sold. It's nigh impossible to get information to everyone, so it's inevitable that someone would still eat this bad food. The FDA prevents it from ever getting into circulation.

2) So basically, someone has to get sick, potentially sick and die, for a lawsuit to change the way that company does business. Let's not forget that big companies have more money for lawsuits than the average Joe Schmoe who had the misfortune of eating bad food. The FDA would try to prevent that food getting into the population, and if it did, the FDA would has far more resources to make the company pay than an average person.

Once again proving that libertarianism is nothing but supremely idealistic notions that ignore the propensity of businesses and companies to try and cheat the average person to make a buck.

If regular market forces worked without regulation, I'd accept that. They don't. The banks failed because of continued de-regulation. That's just a fact.

The FDA don't check every single product, they check a sample. Bad food gets out with regulation anyway. Bernard Matthews imported infected turkey and caused an outbreak of avian flu in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Bernar...1_outbreak

Granted, that is in the UK, but a quick search for "FDA failures" brought up this: http://health.msn.com/health-topics/arti...246&page=2

As for your second point, I disagree. The point of watchdog groups is to check facilities as well, and perform the same safety tests the government does. If a company does not open up their facilities to inspection, they get a bad grade, and they lose customers. If they open up their facilities to inspection, and they fail the inspection, they get a bad grade, and they lose customers.

Everything about the FDA would be mirrored in Libertarianism, just done by the people rather than the government. The result of watchdog group reports could form a basis for legal action taken by the government over violation of civil liberties.

[Eilonnwy]

I would never espouse that every single peice of bad food would not get through. It's a nirvana fallacy to assume that could be the case. But if the FDA increases general safety of food, by catching, say 90% of bad food, then that to me is worth having.

It's like a seat belt. Do you not wear a seat belt because on rare occasions seat belts kill people? But the chances of dying without one are greater, therefore it makes sense to have that seat belt.

I'm not opposed to watchdog groups, but I'm opposed to them being the only form of regulation.

Ultimately I think libertarianism is the halfwit brother of socialism. Extremely idealistic to a fault, without considering the propensity of humans to constantly try to fuck each other over.

[leo-rcc]

What claim? The claim that people would be more inclined to donate to charity?

Exactly that one.

That should be obvious; if you have more money (due to less taxes), you can afford to donate more.

One can, that doesn't mean one does. Most charities know full well that the donations they receive are for tax breaks. If there are no tax breaks, there is no incentive to donate money.

People donate as much as they can to charity already; that wouldn't change, the amounts would.

Evidence for that?