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]

[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]

[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?