Socially I lean more to the left on issues. Economically, Im not sure where I fall under. Maybe Im a centrist economically, lean-left socially (moderate liberal then I guess). On the one hand, I do believe that people need an adequate safety net in society. Even if said people made some really poor decisions in their life. I believe they deserve the decency of having a roof over their head (publically subsidized housing), basic food, basic clothing, public transit, public education and some basic entertainment (library) and basic educational material (once again, library).

RIght now I don't think the social safety net is quite where it needs to be. Our society could afford to shift a bit more left economically in certain areas (in terms of making sure that the poor have their basic needs met and aren't homeless or having to go into all sorts of debt to pay the rent and basic stuff like food). I've talked to pensioners who basically have to dig themselves into credit hell just to have a roof over their head and food on the table. And this is in Canada. I imagine its worse in the States. People have this idea in their head that people have it easy on welfare or pensions. That's not the case. I've talked with many poor people in my time and from their experience, they are treated like garbage at the social assistance offices and have to jump through so many hoops just to get what little they have from the government.

When people talk about how the poor get enough welfare, pension, etc. I'd like to see those same people try to live on what people on welfare, pension or minimum wage make. I'd like to see the average snotty upper middle-class trust fund libertarian move away from their affluent, privileged life for awhile and go out on their own (maybe borrow some babies with you to simulate the poor single parent experience) on welfare, find subsidized housing, get food stamps, etc. and see how they like it.

But at the same time I am not a communist. I believe that economic inequality is necessary in order for a society to function smoothly. If there was no economic incentive for me to climb the corporate ladder, I'd stay right where I am in the world because it would be a lot less stressful to do my job for the rest of my life than to be a manager for eg. if I wasn't going to make much more as a manager. People need an economic incentive to take on the more stressful jobs with greater responsibilities. There is a reason why doctors are paid what they are. Their job sucks and there is huge demand for qualified doctors that don't suck balls.

Even professional athletes have to sacrifice a hell of a lot just to make it as a six figure earning benchwarmer in the big leagues. People look at the million dollar superstars and think that being a professional athlete is so easy for what they get paid. But in order to make it to that stage, you have to pay your dues in highschool/college, the junior leagues, the minor leagues, etc. In certain sports like Mixed Martial Arts, you could even make the big leagues (UFC, which doesn't have a union. Which is why the pay sucks for the guys on the bottom) and still be stuck with a shitty paycheque until you beat a few prominent guys and make a name for yourself. Sure sports is entertainment (just like video games) and not a necessity. But people are willing to pay a lot to watch big league sports. So that's why there is big money to be made there if you rise to the top.

Libertarians could never win in a knife fight.

They'd be disqualified for bringing guns.

All I know is I'm glad to be ideologically close(r) to libertarian than any other party right now.

As for the arguments about libertarianism and big business, I would argue that libertarianism, at least the hardcore types would have a lot of currently impossible offsets (such as no cap for liabilities in the case of disaster. If libertarians ran the US during the BP oil spill, there'd be no BP left to exist after the lawsuits), which would make big businesses rather difficult to exist. As others have said, a lot of the reason big businesses exist is due to their ability to manipulate laws and regulations that can and do stifle smaller competitors. If such regulations didn't exist, and companies could start up, operate, and compete quicker and easier with the big corporations, it would be much, much harder to monopolize power. Example: See the huge mortgage bailout of 2008.

What makes you think Libertarians have faith that Big Corporations will do the right thing? We don't. We want government to make sure they don't dump medical waist in rivers, and for them to make sure they don't make people work 16 hours days in 160 degree heat.

But we also think the best way to make a large corrupt corporation small, is by not funding them. The worst way, is to give someone they can buy off enough power to give them what they want.

Good example, is Wall Street. You have two opposing ideologies in Washington, and both have been very good for Wall Street Execs. The best way you could have really taken those corrupt assholes down, is if they had no one to turn to when they got in trouble. In my perfect government, that would have been the case.

Republicans and Democrats are far better for corrupt corporations, then Libertarians.

I've never voted Republican outside of a primary myself... and then it was just to get John McCain because before he was even elected I knew George W. Bush was going to be a trainwreck.

Also, I'd argue there is no such thing as Anarchy.

Why?  The minute Anarchy erupts... the first thing people do is form bands.

Anarchy over.  You've now got a band... most likely with one very strong leader who decides the course and laws for everbody else.

Reason being?  There is only one guy in the world who is assured to win a knife fight... and even he is screwed if he's facing two people with a knife.

Actually honestly, your both screwed in a knife fight.   Knife fights are bloody and messy, and if your in a face to face knife fight, your both getting stabbed a lot.

In past societies where the laissez faire economy was more prevalent and overall wealth in the western world was even more plentiful, there were HUGE amounts of poverty. Read George Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier for an example of how a more libertarian society looks like.

Just look at what happened in Italy when the Medici family gained too much power through their wealth. While Giovanni, Cosimo, and Lorenzo managed to stick to their moralities; future Medicis turned their back on social progress for political gain (turning Galileo over to the Inquisition in order to gain support of the Catholic Church), and outright buying the office of Pope - Leo X was a Medici, he turned religion into a capitalist enterprise, selling indulgences (a passage to heaven) in exchange for cash - this caused Luther to label him as the Anti-Christ, consumed with greed - and ultimately brought Europe to hundreds of years of conflict and war which continue into the contemporary era.

The major change from the Industrial era to the current era is that we evolved into a stronger society. Public governments elected by the people, although not perfect, are CERTAINLY a better alternative than to put faith in non-elected powers to make sure that the standard of living for all peoples of all abilities is maintained. Many many of those who make larger profits do so on their merits of an ability and lack of empathy in the exploitation of others - these people should not be the ones we allow to have the wealth of the nation. Society would suffer heavily under libertarian economics.

I think some people in this topic kind of run too literal an understanding of what "anarchy" means. Anarchy in a much stricter sense isn't a chaotic lack of government, it's the ability to opt out of the social contract whenever you feel like it.

Anarchy can actually be applied to a tremendous number of political and sociological ideologies without losing its meaning. Hell, it's one of my favorite ideas period, not just one of my favorite ideas in the political sphere.

I just had a flashback to what Hobbes wrote in The Leviathon in what you wrote above.  Even the strongest of guys can be taken down by an angry mob.

Also, I am now witnessing the feud of rich owners, Cablevision vs Fox over how much Cablevision should pay Fox for carrying their programming (end result is all Newscorp programming, except Fox News, has been pulled).  In this, both try to win the favor of the masses, with Fox whining that Cablevision makes too much money (and says they gave fair offers) and Cablevision says that Fox wants more than double they are paid now.   In the end, I am supposed to care about how rich owners divide up the pie?  I would expect, if they could both of them would be trying to get politicians in their back pocket to make the other side comply.

That is the definition I was going for when I mentioned anarchy.  I happen to also bring up that societies tend to break down without the coersive enforcement of rules and standards placed on individuals (allowing the opting out at any time causes this).  End result is individuals then go to war over to each other, and then the knife fight breaks out. I was saying, because of this, libertarians tend to be more pragmatic and argue there is a need for individuals to carry guns, and also a legal system to enforce contracts, because the idealistic state anarchists think is good, can't happen.  Private property rights need to be enforced.   I did play in the absurd though with the concepts though, and acknowledge it.

Want to know what happens when there is opting out of contracts at any time?  See what happens in couple relationships when infidelity is discovered.  It gets ugly, even to the place of bloodshed.  Of course, it is argued such couple relationships should be done away with, but it seems people long for these.