Ok. You Know What? There are Probably Many Different Flavors of Libertarianism. I Wonder if some of you would be Surprised if I said that I may not Necessarily Reject Every Part of that Philosophy. It's just that if Libertarianism Means Going all the Way Back in Time to a Time in which the KKK Went Around Torturing People, Witches were Burned at the Stake, Women were Second Class Citizens and Slavery was Legal, then that doesn't Interest me.
Come on, Now. Do you Really Think that Every Form of "Progress" that has ever Occurred in the Country has been a Negative? Do You Really Think that the Original Constitution was Flawless and that the Amendments that were Later Added were Unnecessary? Have we Not Made some Improvements Over Time? And if so, than isn't it Possible that the Current State of the Constitution May Actually Still not be Flawless?
I also Think that the Selling of all Public Lands to the Highest Bidder would be a Mistake. Public Parks, and the Like, Give Kids something to do, instead of just Playing in the Streets and I have a Little Trouble Believing that the Church could Actually Take Over the Entire Burden of all the Assistance Programs that the Government is Currently Doing. Perhaps that Shows a Lack of Faith on my Part, yet I just Don't Like such Extremes. Seeking a Balance between the Extremes just Makes more Sense to me.
Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak. Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse. That's just the Way Man is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Lista: I always go back to this: Human beings encompass everything—our Government, our business, our churches, and what are humans—they are flawed, some are even corrupt, greedy and evil. It’s only common sense, then, that even Capitalism will have problems since humans are involved, just as we have problems with Government, because again, humans are involved.
I agree that we need some regulation/laws, because some humans need monitored, however, over-regulation can also lead to corruption and greed for those who crave power and money. No regulation can lead to the same things because it leaves the gates open for greedy and corrupt people to take advantage of others and the system. So, we DO need balance between the two and I think it’s important to accomplish this with regulation and laws implemented by people with good character. That’s why I place so much emphasis on our politicians having honor and integrity.
Thanks again for you Comment, Pamela. Your Comments are Always Balanced and that is Why I Like you. I Agree with all that you've Said and Amen to Honor and Integrity. Another Very Good Comment. Thanks.
The middle course: we recall Aristotle's 'Golden Mean', where an excess or
deficit of any atribute
(black/white, as has been discussed here prior) becomes a mistaken position. . A common example is courage-
too much is recklessness,
to little, cowardice. Both
Chinese and Indian religion
& philosophy also recognize the common sense of (as discussed elsewhere)
of those in the middle of the Bell curve. :)
Yeh. The Chinese have the Yin Yang Idea in Relation to Balance. I guess they Call it Taoism.
Thanks for your Contribution, BB. I'll have to also Look Up Aristotle's "Golden Mean".
So Far, this has been Easy. I'm Still Waiting for a Libertarian to Come By and Stir Up the Waters.
Lista: Your first statement is premised on a misunderstanding of libertarianism:
An almost universal principle of almost all flavors of libertarianism is the harm principle: You may do whatever you like so long as you do not harm others.
Also, we each own ourselves and cannot exercise ownership of others, thereby making slaver anathema to libertarianism.
Having said that, your approach is a good one, and one I take myself. A theory or ideology is just that. Each of us must use our light of reason to apply what we need to get through life successfully
Thanks for your Comments, Silverfiddle. I Only Wish I wasn't so Tired. I'm in the Sort of Frame of Mind in which I'm not sure that my Responses are going to be as Thought Out as I would Like them to be, so I'm just Going to say This...
The First Libertarian that I Interacted with, or at Least the Main One, that I Interacted with Quite a Lot, Turned Out to be a Little Bit of an Idiot and though I Try Really Hard to Avoid Words Such as Stupid, Foolish, Idiot and the Like, Sometimes I find that those are the Only Words Strong Enough to Help us Get Absolutely Horrible People Out of Our System.
Please Forgive me if I at Times Take some of that Anger Out on you.
The Idea of Turning all Government Assistance Programs Over to Private Charities is an Interesting One, but I'm just not Sure if I Trust it. I Guess that there are Quite a Few People who Don't and that's Why there are Probably just as many Socialists as Libertarians.
Also forgive me, if I get to the Point in which I am Only Checking the Computer Once a Day. Thanks for Dropping By. I Think I've Actually been Waiting for you to Comment.
A very thought provoking blog as usual Lista. If libertarians had their way you'd be taking a chance every time you go to the supermarket to buy beef. Maybe the milk wouldn't even be stamped.
Thanks for Dropping By, Z. I've been Reading your BLog. I just haven't Felt Moved to Comment.
I Agree with what you have Said. Life is Risky enough as it is without Removing every Single Safety Regulation that has Ever been Put in Place. When the Risks are too High, People become More and More Cautious and this Includes Entrepreneurs and Fear Slows Down the Economy, just as much as Over Regulation and High Taxes, so Once Again, the Answer is Balance.
I'm a little Surprised that Soap hasn't Commented here. Perhaps I need to Assure him that my Previous Comment was not about him.
Z-Man. How may food recalls have their been just these past few years?
Over-regulation can also benefit plutocrats.
The limits on domestic energy production keep new oil companies from growing in the US. Of course that benefits Big Oil.
The union regulations and other regulations have made it pretty much impossible for a new American car company to come up and rival the Big 3. Of course the big auto companies love it, and since the US system pretty much prohibits anyone in the US rising to challenge the Big 3, the competition has been coming from outside, such as S. Korea and Japan.
I also observed over several years the results of a law that required mom and pop gas stations to do something extremely expensive with their underground gasoline tanks. The result was that most of the mom and pop stations were wiped out in my area. and the big chain-owned ones moved in. For sure the chains loved that.
Another great example of an unnecessary and destructive regulation is the "minimum wage", which requires businesses, most of them small, to pay people unearned money.
Small businesses run on such a small margin, and can't afford this. Walmart and other big companies pay above the minimum wage, so they don't mind, and in fact encourage minimum wage increases which wipe out the competition.
I Agree with Everything that you said, Dmarks, yet a True Libertarian doesn't believe in much Regulation at all. Z-man brought Up one Area of Regulation that Really is Pretty Necessary. Think of How Hard it would be for someone who Needs to be on a Certain Diet or who has Food Allergies to Protect themselves if the Supermarkets were not Required to Print what is in their Food.
Safety Regulations and Food Recalls have Saved Lives.
Well, I'm not a true libertarian.
Not like isolationist Ron Paul, who believes that the lives of foreigners matter less than the lives of Americans and we should let them die off if there are crises (how Christian of him!).
Or the hypocrite Ron Paul, who is for "strong government" in ways, as when he wants to strip citizenship from Americans whose parents are alleged to have committed immigration-related crimes. Yes, he does favor this.
---------------------
As for your point, Lista, the trick is to separate truly beneficial regulations like those you list above, from negative ones which are designed to serve illegitimate special interests.
I don't Really Know all that Much about Ron Paul. I do know People who Like him, but I Never did Take the Time to Study him.
I Think that Regulations should be Subject to a sort of Cost Benefit Evalution, just as all Business Related Decisions are. If the Cost is more than the Benefit, then it is a Bad Regulation.
Environmental Regulations are this Way. If the Cost to the Business and the Economy is Higher than the Benefit to the Environment, then it is a Bad Regulations and should be Discarded.
I don't Know why People have such a Hard Time Thinking this Way. It Makes Perfect Sense to me.
"Environmental Regulations are this Way. If the Cost to the Business and the Economy is Higher than the Benefit to the Environment, then it is a Bad Regulations and should be Discarded."...
Of course EPA performs costs/benefits analyisis on every proposed regulation. The problem is balancing the cost of replacing a filter system vs mercury in fish, and it can become very complicated. For example,
what would be the cost of
radioactive waste running down a river? What would be the cost to business: would they simply pass it on to consumers..would they
have to quit operating?
The accounting is very difficult and perhaps not
always right. So we see compromises: OK, 4 ppm bisphenol is acceptable in baby formula, etc. But you are right, cost/benefit is a valid tool...and it is required by regulation in
these matters.
Well, at Least in California, what Ever Cost/Benefit Analysis is done seems to Lean too far in the Direction of the Environmentalists and not far enough in the Direction of the Economy. A Key Example of this is when they Shut Off the Water to the Farmers because of some Fish in the Bay that Needed a Certain Ratio of Salt Water and Fresh Water in the Bay. This Decision Totally Devastated a whole Bunch of Farmers.
Not to Mention the Faulty, or at the Very Least, Controversial Science of Global Warming, which Leads to Excessive Regulations that Hurt Our Economy. This Goes on in a Really Big Way in California as well.
I've not commented on this post because your understanding of Libertarianism (or rather the lack thereof based on your KKK, torturing, blah blah blah comment) is so off base, you'd be better off just forgoing the subject altogether.
"Safety Regulations and Food Recalls have Saved Lives."
Indeed they have. But they needn't be government mandated safety regulations or government directed recalls.
Plenty of industries have their own safety regulations in place to protect not only their customers but also their own employees of which they could not do without. Secondly, plenty of industries implement their own recall procedures when they find something wrong with their product (see Cars, baby strollers, etc.)
Hi Soap,
First Comment
I've Talked to Libertarians before that Appear to be Caught up in the Past. One was Even Talking about Vigilance Committees, instead of the Legal Process that we have today and then I Heard that the KKK was Started as a Vigilance Committee, but they got Out of Hand.
Second Comment
One Place in which Free Markets Fail Miserably is when it Comes to Minorities and the Minority that I am Considering Right Now is the Handicapped. To Provide Handicapped Access to One's Business is Actually not Financially Profitable because the Handicapped are too much of a Minority to Affect the Sales in any Significant Way and Certainly not to Compensate the Business Owner for the Expense of Providing Handicapped Access.
Without Handicapped Access, however, to Businesses, the Quality of Life for the Handicapped is Greatly Reduced.
Food Labels are this Way as Well, for People with Certain Food Allergies and Medical Diet Restrictions are Part of their Own Unique Minority Groups and the Profits of Businesses are not Effected Significantly Enough by Minority Groups in Order to Change their Policies to Accommodate them.
Post a Comment