Because, if you're really a true-blue anti-collectivist as some Libertarians claim to be, you'd have to live on your own and reject all the luxuries that collectivist society offers all of us.
You're confusing Libertarians with a certain variety of reactionary, or perhaps the Amish. Maybe Luddites. What Libertarians seek to do is enact reforms that take the government out of our daily lives to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the Constitution. You have to work within the system to bring about change; anything else wouldn't be effective, and it wouldn't be political.
Most libertarians I've debated rail against collectivist society, they detest it, they want to live without it.
I'd rather the subway system be run by a private company instead of a NYC bureaucracy. Competition, plus the profit motive, would ultimately add up to cheaper fares. But that doesn't mean that (a) a Libertarian would shut down the subways the day he got into office or that (b) he wouldn't ride it. He essentially has no choice, things being what they are.
Although few are apparently willing to go out on their own and try to make it in this world without the help of society.
Again - we are Libertarians, not some backwater militia group.
I mean, unless you're living a romote [sic] area by your own means, you're benefitting [sic] from collectivist society one way or another every day of your life.
You use the word "benefit." I say, I am coerced to use certain government facilities because they're all there is: the Postal Service, for example. A classic, federally installed monopoly. I'd love for a competitive market to arise in light metered mail, but what am I going to do until then? Not return my bills to the companies whose services I utilize? Not correspond with loved ones? Send my mail via a private freight carrier?
Yes, it is idealistic. Isn't that what Republicans were suppossed [sic] to be all about, exactly what you described?
As far as I can tell, Republicans are about lip service and hypocrisy. They're not about individual freedoms, and they are certainly not about free markets.
The people who brought us the PATRIOT ACT and other unprecedented attacks on our civil liberties.
Yup, the very same folks.
Libertarians have a notion of a idealized society that doesn't exist...
Correct. That's why we run for office, lobby, attempt to bring certain measures to the public's attention, etc.
...and in fact has never existed in the history of mankind, for the most part.
How is that any different than any other political system? All politics - all philosophies, really - represent an ideal which, in practice, would be different than absolute interpretation envisions. Everything changes when real life steps in.
But I certainly think that the mainstream route - Republicodemocrat - is taking us increasingly further from the organizing principles of this land as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, and we need to start to tighten things up in that regard.
In some ways that's a good thing. Living standards weren't exactly good for a lot of Americans during a more Libertarian age like the late 19th Century.
I don't know that I'd call the late 19th Century a "Libertarian Age." But we were undoubtedly closer to certain Constitutional ideas then than we are now. As for living standards, where are those guaranteed in the Constitution?
Libertarianism is a great philosophy in my opinion. But, it is idealistic. How will it actually be implemented in our complex society?
I never said that it "will." If pursued, though, it would take place in stages lasting years, decades, and there would be snags and problems along the way. Do you think that any of us expect an overnight, flawless implementation? Is that what you'd expect?
American society is hardly libertarian and if anything is becoming more and more authoritarian as I grow older.
So...one shouldn't attempt to invoke change? If what you say is correct - and I tend to agree - then the call for Libertarianism has scarcely been greater.
NYC used to be a friggin zone of anarchy when I was growing up. Now, it's just another law and order city where you can't even drink in public anymore.
I grew up in and currently live in NYC, and it has never been a "zone of anarchy." It has seen cycles of crime and fiscal problems come and go, and the latest stage of regulations (smoking in bars comes to mind) is just another that illustrates the futile, zero-sum tug-o'-war between two parties that only differ in who their rent-seeking constituency is composed of.
Not, that it is necessarily a bad thing, it's a much safer city than it used to be.
Safe at what cost, though? Where drinking in public comes to mind, I personally think people should be able to drink anywhere they want. After all, it's not drinking that causes problems, it's harassing people, throwing punches at people, and the associated behaviors. Laws predicated on anticipatory grounds are nothing if not a tool of tyranny.
But, overall our country is less free today than it was when I was a kid. Civil liberties are under attack from left and right.
That's right. What's wonderful about being a Libertarian is that we are, as the book title says, "beyond liberal and conservative." Our goals are based upon what (a) is most in line with the Constitution, and (b) maximizes freedom. Not, as the other two parties have it, hypocrisy and socialism.
I mean the fact that most markets really aren't free.
That's right. And that's what we strive for.
Big Business and other fat cats manipulate markets in all sorts of ways, from government regulation to keep the competition at bay, to demanding government subsidies to keep their businesses afloat. For example, the U.S. airlines have never made a profit, they just got a big government bailout after 9/11.
Almost all true. What isn't true is that airlines have never made a profit; two are usually profitable, and they should serve as an example to the government that protectionism just encourages wasteful, irresponsible corporate behavior.
Now, I know that Libertarians don't support this sort of thing. But, the people who are suppossedly [sic] pro-free markets (the business community) certainly supports all sorts of government interference to keep their businesses profitable and free of competition.
I am a Libertarian, I'm pro-free markets, I'm in the business world, and I don't support government interference in markets, no matter what theories are promulgated.
Great! I'm glad to hear that you realize that. This is one of the things that makes Libertarianism idealistic. You're fighting the most powerful forces in American society who want to keep the gravy train of government largese [sic] rolling their way.
Every political ideology is fighting entrenched interests. Why should we be any different? If you want to picture an ideological challenge, well, imagine what it was like to be a Communist in 1990! :-)
You're never going to have a truly free market where companies and industries live or die on their own merits.
It won't be easy, and - as I said before - such a change would be imperfect, bringing with it plenty of unanticipated problems...but I think we can get much closer than we are. There are certain markets which are coming closer, though market progress is best monitored with a calendar, not a stopwatch.
The powers that be won't allow it.
Which is why Libertarians aren't going off to live in the woods and such (unless we want to); we are working, within the system, to become those very 'powers that be.'
True, both the Ds and Rs are guilty of feeding corporate welfare trough. At least the Ds don't try to hide it. They're more or less socialists, even though they don't use that label. The Republicans, on the other hand, are suppossedly [sic] against such nonesense [sic], but as we've seen over the past 3 years nothing could be further from the truth.
All true, again.
They've gone on a spending spree like there's no tomorrow and it's benefitting [sic] their buds in Big Business in a big way. Gravy Train!
That's for sure.
LPS5 |
