What would the USA be like if Libertarians ran the show ?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SmokinP, Oct 3, 2010.

  1. What would the USA be like if Libertarian candidates won the majority of seats in the next few elections ?

    US foreign policy for one would take a radically different direction if Dr. Ron Paul was running the show.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4hKqTikqM]YouTube - Ron Paul - New hope for foreign policy[/ame]

    What other real change would we see ?
  2. We would be richer and happier.
  3. #3 SmokinP, Oct 3, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2010
    Who do you mean when you say "we" ?

    All Americans or just those that are successful in their chosen career ?

    Would US citizens have a better quality of life ?
    1 in 7 lives in poverty at the moment.
    BBC News - Number of Americans living in poverty 'increases by 4m'

    I for one think the US would be a better place as a Libertarian led country for the changes in foreign policy alone but i am curious as to what change would occur for the average Joe American.
  4. The way the market works, is that when wealth is created, everyone is richer. As for that article, the way the Government does their statistics makes the poverty stat seem worse than it really is. Plus we're in a recession.
  5. corporations having more power is ALWAYS a bad thing.
  6. Yes, getting rid of Government would give the corporations less power. As Adam Smith pointed out in 1776, it is the nature of the already-rich to seek protection so they can stay rich and on top. This is why modern day capitalists seek to get the Government out of private markets, because through regulatory capture and rent seeking, businesses seek aid from the Government to stay in power. In the market, businesses are exposed to competition which threatens their survival. Markets are anti-business, and moreover, corporations would not exist in a free market. The fundamental nature of corporations (As a limited liability entity, meaning they are not fully responsible for economic damages they cause, as granted by the Government) are anti-market and anti-competition.

    I suppose if you wanted to make the case that the GOP version of 'capitalism' (State Capitalism, not true capitalism) would give more power to corporations, but the OP is talking about libertarians like Ron Paul, who want to expose giant corporations to market forces, which is a good thing.
  7. getting rid of government in the economy would only fuel the rich getting richer.....there would be nothing to stop them. They would only get bigger and bigger until they had the power to overthrow the government and make us all their slaves. (even more so than today). i dont see how the survival of big business would be threatened...at all
  8. I don't want to live on this planet, anymore...
  9. There would be plenty of ways to stop them, namely, by refusing to buy their products.

    The market's 'natural' correction mechanism is called competition. When competition is high, the consumer wins with the availability of diverse ranges of products and prices. Business, naturally, hates competition because each company has to strive to outdo their competitors by offering a better product or a lower price. Business and government collude all the time to reduce competition through regulation and barriers to entry. Every regulation of the market that's passed makes it more expensive to start up and maintain a business, thereby reducing competition and securing established companies stake in the market at the expense of the consumer, selection of products, and favorable prices. This wouldn't be that big of a deal, except when there are disruptions in the economy, competition can't just spring up because previous legislation on behalf of business interests has guaranteed that. In fact, the more regulation and barriers to entry that there are, the more are needed every time there is a crisis because the competition mechanism just isn't there, creating a downward spiral and the self-fulfilling prophecy that the market is irrational, intangibly bad, and needs the help or protection of the state.

    There are legitimate and positive examples of stateless societies, though they tend not to last long because, well, organized violence in the form of the modern state beats organized peace all day, every day.
  10. Would the US be a better place for minorities ?

    Would non whites, the homosexual, the disabled , the hare krishna, the white supremacist etc etc.. have a better quality of life ?
  11. so you think people will stop shopping at wal-marts?

    even if i could start a business easier^

    mmmmmk :(
  12. #12 Kanatiki, Oct 3, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2010
    They have laws protecting them, take those away and your back to slavery(lol). Not to mention the very adverse effects of taking border control away, there would be more racism against Mexicans for sure. People are territorial, open the territories and you invite more racism. its inevitable. not to mention public welfare and poverty, make it so it relies on charity.....give me a break. There would be sooo many poor people coming to the US without aid from the government, there would be chaos, while only making the rich richer. Removing health care for them would only make them die faster. While i am not opposed to free market health care, it can be brutal (also reduces population, imo a plus)

    Also the libertarian party's stance on crime will allow for and encourage privatization of "crime fighters", and wants to abolish "hate crimes"...meaning it would be legal to refuse service to whoever you want...the minorities wouldnt stand a chance. Also the education system would add another expense to the table to millions of people, i like the ideology of libertarians but practicality is another issue. This would only make the poor even dumber. I want to state that my mother had a hard time giving me lunch money for school, but didnt want me to get free lunch and seem poor out of pride.

    Libertarianism would probably induce civil war if it wasnt a pipe dream. Especially when people get dumber and poorer. And when marriage dies families will drift apart when fathers have no obligation to look after their children and provide for them, i truly feel horrified for the women of the world if libertarianism should take over. This system favors rich white males, and if i hit the lottery id say wtf to this because i would thrive. The only aspects of it i like are repealing the "puritanical laws", for example: drugs, censorship, abortion, gay rights. But this will probably be iron out in time once people realize how dumb they are.

    IMO all todays government needs to do is abolish those puritanical laws, allow companies only a certain amount of territory and create laws preventing alliances (i.e walmart this side, Target this side and no you cannot be friends), basically establish more control really. People are inherently incapable over governing themselves. This needs to happen while other parts of government need to keep themselves accountable, i say make another branch of government called accountability that enforces auditing of everything, environmental damage, corruption and takes people in government positions to court systems. This would make things more efficient, right now its a clusterfuck because our government isnt held responsible for these things. To diversify things i suggest making local governments stronger in order to allow for a stronger local culture. I dont like walmarts everywhere, billboards everywhere, stuff like that. I want at least some areas where these things could be made illegal by majority.
  13. Libertarians dont really think things will just become perfect if they are in charge

    its anti-control , anti federal government , and pro freedom and liberty , and pro let things fuckin happen how they happen
  14. Something tells me you think that people are inherently bad and the state is necessary, as corrupt and deceptive as they are, to keep them in line. Libertarians see things the opposite way, that people are inherently peaceful and good, but there are a few bad apples which require at least minimal protection.
  15. #15 Kanatiki, Oct 3, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2010
    and letting things happen how they happen would be beneficial? The point of government is to establish a base of control over people to protect them, take that protection away and its the wild west all over again. What freedoms and liberties are you looking for that arent allowed today? How is taxation bad? America's infrastructure is already failing with taxation the way it is, abolish that and roads would fail, bridges would fall, people would pretty much fend for themselves in a world of sharks. Look at the EU, they have better roads and healthcare, why not model ourselves more to them?

    how do you feel oppressed enough to warrant diminishing governmental power?
  16. All we want for christmas, is someone to tell us the truth.

    Paul/Kucinich 2012- Why the fuck not?

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJkjz0ryBbs]YouTube - John Lennon - Happy Xmas (War Is Over) {W/ Lyrics}[/ame]

    I'll answer that one with a complex equation.

    Military Industrial Complex+Medical Industrial Complex+Agricultural Industrial Complex+Financial Industrial Complex= Huge Complex Problems.

    Perhaps a Libertarian could bring us a viewpoint that is less complex, and more accountable?
  17. I agree that the state should protect people and their property from injury (in the legal sense), but what the modern nation-state does today goes waaay beyond that. If all the services that the state performs are necessary and desirable, then there should be no need for a mandatory tax system like we have now. People should be able to freely purchase services from the state on their own terms, but that is not the case. Rather, if you have any objection to, say, the 'wars' in Afghanistan or Iraq, or the Wall Street bailouts, and you decide that you aren't going to help finance slaughter or CEO bonuses, you can't just send the state a fraction of what they expect, they might catch you, and then deem you unfit to live outside of four concrete walls regardless of your own morality. The system is setup to where you either fall in line with the state, or you get smashed. The state as it is today is less about protection of the citizenry, and more about control of the citizens at the expense of the citizens and to the benefit of the state, corporate interests, and the politically connected.

    All the services, like roads etc., that we've come to expect in modern life can just as easily be accomplished in a free market system as under a statist system. Any roads or bridges that decay to the point of non-usability are simply a reflection of how important they really are to the local populace, as opposed to the state's solution which is "you will support all the road construction and maintenance that we want, or we will imprison you."

    As far as Europe goes, I've been to England, Italy, France, Belgium, Switzerland and a couple other places on a month long vacation and I had a great time experiencing other cultures, but I feel fortunate to be born and live here in America. The roads, in many areas, are still the hundreds of years old, tightly grouped rocks just for historical preservation's sake and the areas that are paved really don't look all that different from ours. There are many points of historical interest, but other than that, it's as rundown looking as you would expect cities to look after centuries of decay. I don't know where this idea comes from that Europeans are better than us. They're not. They're just different. We live in different systems, different cultures. There are things that I would like for Americans to adopt, like less puritanical views on sex and, well, less of a rat race attitude towards life.

    Anyway, my belief is that all exchanges should be voluntary. The state takes that choice away. The state says "We know best. Anyone that disagrees will be punished." Or more realistically, "Give us your money and your obedience. We're going to give this money to our friends (if they even tell you.) If you don't like it, here's some comp time at the Gray Bar Hotel."

  18. Not that anything is wrong with Wal Mart, but competition with Wal Mart would be easier in a free market without all the red tape and tributes to the state. Consumers wouldn't be forced to shop there to sustain their standard of living, which is being destroyed by the government.

    Have you heard of the Woolworth lunch counter? And the sit-ins?

    Why did Woolworth changed their racist policy to allow for desegregation? Because racism is bad business.

    Today we just have a bunch of closet racists running businesses, instead of open racists losing their businesses.

    This is already the case with the Dept of Education. We are purposefully made dumb, there is no way to explain the bias and misinformation coming from public schools.

    We are made poorer by wasting money on all these tax programs.

    :eek: Wtf?

    Ohhh, you're a hobbesian. That explains it.

    Libertarians would agree with decentralization of power. Most of us just want the Federal government cut down to size.
  19. I chose many career paths, failed at several till i found one i was successful at. Point is, if your failing at your current career then find one your good at. If you choose to stay in a failed career don't expect me to care.

    I can't see where the country being run by libertarians would have any negative effects on minorities, in fact in the long run i believe it would be better for them than the current nanny state government we have now.

    As for Hare Krishna's, i don't see them around much as i used too, those fuckers were everywhere 30 years ago.
  20. why does the change have to warrant that much of a radical change from the current norm? also why does diminishing governmental power make the government more accountable? i wanna live in anarchy cuz im a badazz and want to shoot shit. yeah man, thats cool.


    racism is good business when the community is white....i live in Louisiana atm theres still quite alot of racial tension here. Not to mention the reducing number of whites and the segregation of races between towns. Seriously look at population charts that show population by race, its not impossible to identify white towns and black towns.

    Giving the poor to have an option for a school is a bad thing? Schooling would be a HUGE expense for the individual family, my mother worked 3 jobs and did her best and still had to provide lunch money for us and even that was a problem, add the education expense and you diminish school for the poor and willing. Every child left behind is pretty retarded though. At least we have an option atm.

    Marriage will die to the lack of legislation regarding family units and governance under libertarian control. there would be no marriage and fathers wouldnt be responsible for their children, for example, guy knocks girl up, guy gets scared and leaves. Girl doesnt believe in abortion because its here choice and shes stuck with the child. This leaves no room for religious morals, not that im religious at all, just that it doesnt provide for them. This is highly favored towards men. Woman really get the shit end of the deal when it comes to the libertarian platform on the "intrusion of government" on families.

    I prefer to not label things, im not a hobbesian i don't agree completely with anything ive ever seen. (in regards to everything there is a counter-argument of some sort). however im ignorant of most things, i dont know what being a hobbesian entails without googling it.

    I agree with decentralization of power but it doesnt mean i have to change things so radically, let things fall as they may is not a good governmental plan, not to the average individual. Why cant we introduce some law that holds government more accountable for damages caused, or at least when damage is noticed immediatly fix that shit without all the retarded and useless bureaucracy.

Share This Page