Libertarian theory.?

Question

I like the Libertarian theory of true freedom ( do whatever you want as long as it doesn't negatively effect someone else), however, I struggle to grasp how they believe that privatising everthing would be a good thing. What is their explanation? I mean we currently have issues with the monopolization of industry and services. Maybe a laissez-faire economy would grow more quickly but this doesn't automatically mean that the benifits of economic growth will be fairly passed down to people of lesser means. In fact our current market system with median of government regulation isn't protecting people from the greed of corporations. Why and how could you put all of your trust in business owners and coorporations. If Wal-Mart was the only joint in town, the prices would not be so low. They would charge as much as they could without causing riots.

Answer 1

The explanation is that it is not the governments job to deal with this stuff. End of story.

With less governmental regulation you get more competition and innovation.

There are many "responsibilities" the government has taken on that are not included in the constitution. If it is not listed in the constitution as a government responsibility, it is none of the governments business.

The department of education is a very good example of a non constitutionally prescribed "responsibility" that the government has done a miserable job of doing. If we ended all public education and turned it over to private companies, we would not have mandatory taxes being forced on people without kids.

The people that do have kids would be paying about the same amount as they are now for taxes in tuition to their choice of school rather than a general fund propping up failed schools.

Answer 2

I don't think “privatizing everything” is a libertarian ideal. But you have to remember that “laissez-faire” would exist without the massive political influence that can be achieved through the dollar.

Example in theory- if Big Oil wasn’t protected from on high, they’d receive competition from different fuel sources and ideas. As it is, Big Oil exists in a “free market” of their own making where nothing can affect the demand for their product as long as our government does everything it can to encourage their product and discourage other possibilities. In theory, under laissez-faire, a better business model should solve our need for better and cleaner fuels and force Big Oil to compete with their business model. We the consumer would be the winners.

Answer 3

Libertarianism is indeed a paradigm shift. Please continue to discuss in the forum here and attempt to explore libertarian society. It takes a while to fully understand, and our government schools and special interest driven media do not help matters.

Consider that our current political system is not sustainable; it is an illusion that can only be perpetuated for a few more years. Government is busy passing laws to regulate and subsidize things based solely on special interest lobby. This costs us our money and it costs us our liberty. Every law enacted depletes monetary resources and liberty and both are limited in supply; much more limited in fact than can be immediately understood with conventional tools. Therefore a paradigm shift is necessary.

Answer 4

its ok, if you believe man should live in a society that is essentially survival of the fitterst social darwinism with minimum government and minium enforcement of minority rights were every community can decide what their own values are, including whether blacks and minoritys should be considered as equal citizens or not.

Life is not a balance sheet. Free enterprise is a posititve thing, and so is capitalism, but nothing in this world is good if done excessively. Our very own country has been the most successful and powerful country for a long time, and while we have championed freedom, individuality and free enterprise, we have implemented a good dose of socialism in it as well to balance things out. This is why we have social services, roads, police departments, fire departments, a common defense, medicare etc.... What sort of chaos would ensue without these things? maybe a robber baron medieval like ERA with each lord protecting the serfs who serve him on his turf, and these warlords making war with each other....mayhem, chaos, instability?

Some decree of uniformity and planning is needed if you are going to have a stable and successful nation. You cant have everyone off doing their own thing or several subsections doing it their way. Its a recipe for chaos. This is why libertarianism .. which is a form of extremism is not pratical...its just something that sounds good when you are talking. But life would be hell for most people in such a system.

Answer 5

Eliminating the Federal Reserve would certainly eliminate inflation. They print too much money so the value of a dollar goews down and prices go up. The purchasing power would be 20 times better and it was in 1912.

Also eliminating regulation means that businesses wouldn't have to spend money on attorney's(esp companies paying for tax attorney's) and we would be charged as much to make up for the loss cost.

In a libertarian society, things would be 30-40 times less expensive. The would be much less taxes and much less inflation.

Answer 6

Ah, there's the rub: "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't negatively affect someone else". I think that's one of the few things most people can agree on, regardless of their politics/religious convictions if any/socio-economic status, etc: people disagree on a lot of things, including what is or isn't fair, tolerable, etc. I for one think that Libertarianism has its merits, but that it can't be applied in an absolute way- when you push any theory to an extreme, its inherent flaws will always reveal themselves. That's true for not only Libertarian theory, but any other theory you care to name in my book.

Answer 7

Exactly. The government isn't doing a good job of protecting the people - it really isn't in their best interest. At least private businesses have to compete to survive. The government does not. So in return you get poor quality - look at our public schools. If all schools were run privately, then they would be competing for your business - providing a higher quality for the price of their service.

Answer 8

I think that was Alistair Crowley's theory of freedom - a quote from the ancient Saturnalia, IIRC.

But the Libertarian-Authoritarian spectrum is really just about the government. The less power is concentrated in the state (government) the more libertarian a system is, the more power vested in the state, the more Authoritarian it is.


Truth is, like Communism, Libertarian systems of government do not have an impressive track record. While there have been more and less authoritarian governments in history, profoundly Authoritarian ones have worked (however gruesomly), while extremely Libertarians ones have barely existed. The most libertarian states that have succeed would be better classifed as 'less authoritarian' than 'libertarian.'