My apologies. I'm sure there's still some wiggle room there if you want to be creative.

No doubt the 'opposition' will seize on the 'inherent market-failure' admission to argue that capitalism is thus inherently flawed. That's a flawed argument, but hey, no use me cutting it off before anyone makes it. Perhaps more sport might be available on that account.

I don't think capitalism is inherently flawed. I just think that deregulating everything, as libertarians would like, is begging for disaster.

__________________
Obamanos!

Oh boy, this should be fun...

The truth is that no one is suggesting that 100% absolute lack of regulation is the answer. Any economist understands the problem of externality and would likely agree that there need be some accounting for it. Direct regulation of an industry is not necessarily the proper solution, though I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

OK? No, I don't. I would view that as rather impolite. But in the context of government regulation: I don't think there should be any laws against it. I think it can be settled between individuals.

Does the dumping of toxic waste have a measurable detrimental direct effect on me, i.e., does it harm me in any manner that can be measured? If so, then I would imagine I would have a civil case against the company.


Yes.

Wrong. Nobody in those quoted posts said that they wanted government regulations regarding the dumping of toxic waste. Again, libertarians are in favor of making use of civil courts.

School is not free. We pay for school. In fact, we pay more than $14,000 per student. Meanwhile, our rankings on international tests have been dropping ever since ED was established (I doubt that's a coincidence). South Korea, on the other hand, pays a relative $3,000 per student, and they rank higher than us on international tests.

Additionally consider that the entirety of the post-war economic boom, and nearly two decades thereafter, didn't have a federal Department of Education, and our education system was the best in the world during that time. Moreover, we didn't have ED during the most productive years humanity has ever seen: the late 19th century. In fact, we didn't have any federal departments reigning over the education system of America during that time. And again, those were the most productive years in not just America, but the entire world, with America being the most productive.

This is dishonest. The government regulations regarding toxic waste are not proactive in the slightest. The families die before government regulation is put into place. So I guess you're OK with killing families. Murderer. :rolleyes:

Most things ought to be deregulated. These matters can be handled in civil courts. The role of government ought to be to protect freedom. That is: laws that serve only to protect citizens from force, a division to enforce those laws, and a court system to objectively determine guilt and uphold private contracts.

Rational libertarians do not oppose all regulations.

Libertarians just believe that government regulation is not always the best way to achieve any given policy goal. In some cases, it is probably the only way. But in other cases, it is not only not the only way, it is often the most expensive and least efficient way to achieve the policy goal.

One ought to keep one's eye on the policy goal itself. Regulating the private market, of and in itself, just for the sake of regulating the private market, is not a viable or acceptable policy goal.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you recognized a distinction between "Libertarian Party" libertarians (fanatical rightwingers who argue from anti-socialist ideology) and regular libertarians (who make rational arguments based on the principle of liberalism). There is a big difference. I am certainly, and 'redwards' probably as well, are of the latter school of thought (aka 'leftwing libertarians').

Just for example, Dumpy Dooby here appears to fall into the "US Libertarian Party" type of extreme libertarianism that favors absolute liberty for capital.

As a general rule, I consider such libertarian extremism to be no different than the socialist extremists at the other end. Same game.

I am not a "US Libertarian Party" type of libertarian. In fact, you and I have cooperated in bashing on the LP here on these forums before. I don't generally have nice things to say about the LP because I view them as detrimental to libertarianism.

Either you don't know the general positions of the Libertarian Party, or you're confused about my positions. Either way, if you've gathered that I'm akin to them, you're off your fecking rocker.

Leftwing libertarians? Statist libertarians? Libertarians who aren't 'anti-socialist'?!?!

No such thing. Someone's been lying to you. There are individualists and statists. There are Leftists who like to call themselves libertarians, but they're just statists who will argue why some individual rights simply aren't necessary. Anyone who calls themselves a "left-leaning libertarian" is usually an ex-socialist who's trying to make himself feel better.
"I swear! I don't have to totally give up on my socialist dreams in order to become rational!"


feh

So there are degrees of libertarianism, then.

I made this thread because I think a lot of people who call themselves libertarians don't really know what that means.

My friend's GF labeled herself libertarian on her facebook page. My friend laughed his head off at her. She's a liberal. She thought they were the same.

Same thing happened with another friend of mine. She is for Obama, and she said she would vote for Ron Paul if she had a second choice. The only thing they have in common is a respect for the constitution and ending the Iraq war. Otherwise, they couldn't be more different!

__________________
Obamanos!