| mrstickball said: You assume that all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, Richard. They aren't. I am not. I believe that its the governments job to provide very strong courts for people to ensure proper recourse should their rights be violated - against corporations, private people, social liberties, ect. I also believe the government shouldn't have a large part in social agendas - to promote specific lifestyles (socially liberal or maybe moderate, depending on how you look at it). I do believe a government should exist. Just not a government that takes 30-40% of people's income, and is very irresponsible for it. Libertarianism is not perfect as Sqrl said, nor is capitalism. However, given what I've experienced as a government worker (and any friend I have that works for Uncle Sam), I can definitively say that government workers are not the answer to the problem.
|
I consider libertarians pragmatic anarcho-capitalists. You also have the socialistic version of anarchy, which ends up not believing even in money.
I will still stand by what I wrote above. It is libertarians believe that people should be able to fail in life. If they do negotiate contracts and things go bad for them, and the end result is them dying as a result, then so be it. It goes with the territory. And if you privatize everything, then you end with a place where people without property could end up on the property of others. And, if they have no place to go, they are considered tresspassing. Because individuals who own property have a right to not have their property violated, they have a right to shoot people on their property for tresspassing. After all, if you privatize everything, there is nowhere else they go. This executing of others also helps to clear up the poverty issue fine, and get rid of losers.
You can then try to argue, "But wait a minute, people have more of a right to their own life, than people do to physical property!" Really? Ok, well, consider this instead: What happens then instead of killing people for trespassing we enable people to allow people to camp on their own property, with the provision if the people die to starvation, the owner of the property gets to keep the corpses that remain on their property, and be able to sell the body parts to science or people in need of organs. Is this more humane? And what happens then if, in a completely free society, everyone is maximizing profits and people fall through the cracks still, and end up having their lives shortened, due to neglect. Is that more humane? Wait, who says being humane even matters, right? I think Ayn Rand has harsh words about charity and things being "humane".
I can understand that one can say, "Well X isn't perfect" (replace X with Libertarianism in this case). HOWEVER, if people can bring up examples where running the current system is superior to an alternative, then the proposed alternative has weaknesses that aren't addressed, and on a purely debate level, it will fail to be able to be taken seriously. I am sorry, but claiming imperfect as a defense isn't effective in an argument, when something also imperfect shows superior results.
Ok, so I will also say this: Libertarianism is very good, IF society collectively does what is needed without government, on its own voluntarily. Then you are able to have even anarchy as a government form.
