Libertarian Thread

I would imagine that is a pretty expensive clean up.

 

That is the Mises Caucus. Lew Rockwell, who used to ghost write RP’s newsletters, is a founder of the MC. It’s a bunch of Ron Paul/Rothbard disciples and frankly should be called the Rothbard caucus rather than Mises based on founding and principles.

 

Who would determine and enforce the fine?

 

The market would punish their behavior in the form of consumers choosing to buy products from a different company. No fine or regulatory body needed!

 

To be fair, every libertarian idea sounds great in theory. They're just ludicrous in real life.

 

I’m sure I posted some awful shit in here. Too scared to look.

 

No offense but it seems like a very not thought out ideology. Again no offense

 

Pretty much every Libertarian idea falls apart under minor scrutiny from a teenager

 

I said initially it wasn’t workable and more of a framework for how to think about it with less perfect ways to (gasoline tax, carbon tax) to implement things in that direction.

If you disagree and think that charging people for pollution is unjust I would like to hear your idea. But right now it’s just a bad faith pile on, so good day.

 

I think telling corporations they can destroy our air and water for the right price is one of the dumbest things imaginable and anyone suggesting it is not a serious person

 

Maybe it wasn’t clear but the intended cost would have to be commensurate with the damage done (return it to its prior state).

 

Hear me out on this, what if we just made it illegal to dump toxic waste into lakes and rivers and prosecuted offenders aggressively vs a cycle of destroying the environment our children will inherit then trying to clean it up for decades afterwards?

 

So you’re against a carbon tax?

 

Yes, I follow. Companies are not currently given the legal option of dumping toxic waste into a river. Under your framework, they would be. Do you follow?

 

Your whole bad faith strawman tangent misses the forest from the trees. I said companies should pay for their damage to our environment and you somehow turn that into pay for dumping.

Incrementally, we should be charging for pollution damage that we aren’t charging for today. Do you have a problem with that?

 

Just to be clear your Libertarian ideal is that we not only maintain current government regulation of big business but expand it substantially? I'm all for it but that doesn't feel very Libertarian

 

Go back to my first post on the subject. Read it and then read it again more slowly.

 

User fees are better than other forms of taxes.

 

You cannot return lots of these things to their prior state once they've been destroyed.

 

I think the biggest breaking point for libertarianism is the insistence on treating businesses as people. Leaving people alone to do what they want makes sense. Letting businesses do the same is just dumb.

 

The two are incompatible anyway. The problem for me is they give preference to corporations over people

 

Why do you believe that to be something inherent to libertarianism?

 

I think the libertarian philosophy (generously) is “just leave me alone.” I think because libertarians stake that philosophy as so important, they are easily swayed to believing the same should said if companies. It’s what the “libertarian wing” of the Republican Party stressed so much before the fascist wing decided corporate obeisance to Republican orthodoxy was more important.

 

USPS seems to only exist to deliver shit that I immediately throw away without opening.

 

They deliver Amazon packages

 

USPS is fantastic for us. Half the cost of shipping anything FedEx or UPS. Flat rate boxes were a game changer.

 

The post office is great but maybe we can get some private industry douchebag to ruin it.

 

Keep in mind that libertarians cling to simple solutions because they can't apply their theories to anything beyond point A. That's why they're libertarians. It's not so much bad faith as it is being simple-minded.

 

Any sports fan believes in collectivism. Using the idea to play into some type of anti politics is dumb.

 

Now that is a good faith argument.

 

I stopped arguing with libertarians in good faith some time ago. There is no reason, because their brains don't get past step 2 if step 3 requires them to examine libertarianism; they just double down on step 2 or go back to step 1.

I'm not even trying to be mean, because you seem more thoughtful than most. It's just a theoretical fairytale doesn't stand up to even medium scrutiny. Which is why there are so many former libertarians: we gave it a shot and it wasn't compatible with the real world.

 

not as bad as i thought tbh

 

Voluntary federal tax system is a thing Ls talk about?

 

i’d have to go listen to the episode again to remember exactly what i was referencing there, and im not gonna do that to myself

 

I'll do my own homework

 

lol my edit is reflective of what i actually meant

it was probably about letting people opt into the single payer system. of course, i didn’t hate capitalism back then so who knows what kind of neolib nonsense i was trying to communicate

 

Rejoice!

Once they legalize marrying 15 year olds, we may see a mass migration of US libertarians

 

None of them actually want to live in a libertarian society, but they do want to sleep with children. It'll be interesting to see what they choose. I hope it is getting turned down by 13 year olds.

 

He seems to be a good messenger of his ideals.

 

So was Hitler

 

And yet they are opposites.

 

How far we saying right wing libertarian is from fascist?

 

lmao they’re dog shit ideas and it’s literally nothing that hasn’t been said an infinite number of times in the comment section of Reason articles

 

Anyway just saying how wild it is to say he's good at relaying his ideals without actually commenting on the ideals

 

what’s wrong with cutting social programs until all poor people can do to get by is sell their own organs?

 

Most of his ideas are trash but he's good at relaying them!