EDIT: There are a lot of Libertarians outside the Libertarian Party. Also, you can dispute the libertarian credentials of some people in it. It's not exactly representative of libertarianism as a whole, therefore.
And I bet you can dispute the Scotsman credentials of some people in Scotland.
Can you defend this or are you just throwing this out there? I've seen no evidence prior to this point, confirmed or unconfirmed, to support this point.
This was a question during the 2016 debate. Derryl Perry said heroine should be as legal as tomatoes, and he was met with raucous applause. Austin Peterson said that he supports state-level laws that say "you should not be able to sell heroine to a five year old". He was met with boos.
As far as I've seen, this seems to be the issue American Libertarians argue the most. Not if they should have equal rights, but who gets to make the laws to grant equal rights.
That's weird, as far as I've seen the libertarian party spends its time arguing over whether you should be able to sell heroine to children.
Helpful links updated:
-New Youtube video under 'What About the Poor?'.
-Wikipedia page replaced MisesWiki link under 'What is Libertarianism?'.
-New book, 'The Problem of Political Authority', added under recommended books section.
-'What is Wrong With Our Government?' section added.
-'AnarchoCapitalism' section added.
Clicked on one link, saw this gem:
And without a central government “representing” an entire geographical area, there would be no reason for a foreign country to invade a large region if they did have such a dispute.
Edit:I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will. Also all the government has to do to outcompete the private onlinegambling/lottery companies is to match their price/odds/winnings proportion, not that hard to do.
Isn't the Nash equilibrium of that game for the lottery to collect a vanishingly small rake? If the government is running a lottery with enough profit to fund a military, there's plenty of room for private lotteries to undercut them. If the government is running a lottery which cannot be profitably undercut, it can't possibly fund a military with its measly earnings.
Would you rather buy a lottery ticket that supports your national defense or a lottery ticket from a private business who uses the profit in a way that he/she wants?
Look, if some one ruins their life with lottery or gambling, then it's not my problem and it shouldn't be anyone's problem except that individual's. That isn't my point, my point is that we can probably fund a small government whose only role is national defense and courts with gambling as the government can outcompete the private gambling businesses for obvious reasons and monopolize the industry. And look, America spends way too much on its military it spends more than the rest of the world combined. We could cut the annual military budget by 75% and still spend more on the military per year than the second highest spender(China). The US could go without spending money on its military for many years and still be the strongest military power in the world.
Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade. When you aren't upsetting anyone, there is no point in spending ridiculous amounts on the military.
Why is it obvious that this hypothetical government could outcompete private gambling?
Good one. What is the non-governmental, forceless alternative? We all hold hands and sing kumbaya while we ask Wells Fargo very nicely to stop doing mean things?
Tiax, what's it going to take for you to realize that it's only when the government stops interfering with business that monopolies will stop forming? Does a little thing called the Industrial Revolution ring a bell? I guess you didn't pay attention in US History, so let me edumacate you. The government didn't interfere, no anti-trust laws, and we basically had unchecked capitalism, and there were ZERO monopolies! Why? Because the invisible hand took care of it! You didn't need anti-monopoly laws against things like oil or railroads, the invisible hand took care of it! You didn't need laws, for example, regulating the meat industry for health safety, the invisible hand took care of it! Because guess what? Free market and lack of government interference would remove these kinds of problems, and government interference does nothing to remedy them!
... Wait. Wait. No. That's the opposite of true, isn't it? Oh man, I'm embarrassed.
My bad. I forgot the first law of libertarianism: the free market is indistinguishable from magic.
Because they're a government entity and because are a government entity, they rely on force and because they rely on force, they both push out alternatives and conduct themselves in a way that is wildly inefficient? (Like the way the FDA created a monopoly for Mylan on epinephrine injectors)
Good one. What is the non-governmental, forceless alternative? We all hold hands and sing kumbaya while we ask Wells Fargo very nicely to stop doing mean things?
To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.
So the watchdog that the right constantly tries to hamstring didn't act fast enough? Well golly gee gosh, why ever could that be?
As I see it, there are two kinda of libertarianism. There's one kind which I might call "Liberty is magic" and the other which I might call "Liberty above all". The followers of "Liberty above all" recognize that if we adopt a libertarian approach to government, the poor will suffer, the environment will suffer, discrimination will run rampant, etc. They are willing to pay those costs because they value liberty above all of that (and often because they belong to a social class, race, gender, etc. that make them unlikely to be the ones to feel those costs). The second type is the sort that believes everything will be magically fixed if only we got the government out of the way - they think that libertarianism and the free market would stamp out discrimination, would alleviate poverty, etc.
The "Liberty is magic" types are naive. The "Liberty above all" types are cruel.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And I bet you can dispute the Scotsman credentials of some people in Scotland.
This was a question during the 2016 debate. Derryl Perry said heroine should be as legal as tomatoes, and he was met with raucous applause. Austin Peterson said that he supports state-level laws that say "you should not be able to sell heroine to a five year old". He was met with boos.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?409916-1/libertarian-party-holds-presidential-debate&start=7296
Question is asked at about 1:58:00
Here's the clip with just Peterson's answer and the boos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Nad1b_3yY
These are the issues that the party deems contentious enough to warrant a segment of their presidential debate.
That's weird, as far as I've seen the libertarian party spends its time arguing over whether you should be able to sell heroine to children.
Clicked on one link, saw this gem:
Does that sound correct to you?
Isn't the Nash equilibrium of that game for the lottery to collect a vanishingly small rake? If the government is running a lottery with enough profit to fund a military, there's plenty of room for private lotteries to undercut them. If the government is running a lottery which cannot be profitably undercut, it can't possibly fund a military with its measly earnings.
I'd rather buy the one that gives me better odds.
Why is it obvious that this hypothetical government could outcompete private gambling?
My bad. I forgot the first law of libertarianism: the free market is indistinguishable from magic.
Good one. What is the non-governmental, forceless alternative? We all hold hands and sing kumbaya while we ask Wells Fargo very nicely to stop doing mean things?
So the watchdog that the right constantly tries to hamstring didn't act fast enough? Well golly gee gosh, why ever could that be?
The "Liberty is magic" types are naive. The "Liberty above all" types are cruel.