Common Liberal mentality towards Libertarian philosophy

[farreri]

As a former liberal, this (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/03/gary-johnson-goes-crowd-surfing-in-utah/#comment-669667246) is how I used to think too:


His platform really isn't that much different than that of Ron Paul. Destroy the safety nets for the poor the elderly the working man the elderly and education. Do away with taxes for corporations and deregulate them all. Do away with USDA,FDA, OSHA, FEMA , and limit the powers of the federal government.

Actually let corporations and wall street rule the US even more than now.

I'm curious how you would convince a person like this that their above first paragraph is true, but a good thing, yet convince them that their second paragraph is demonstrably false?

[NewRightLibertarian]

bring up how the regulations are written for corporations and point out that the rest is absolute nonsense

[Philhelm]

Corporations are government created entities. In a truly free market without government interference, corporations would not exist in their current capacity.

Education costs would go down without government influence. Also, there is degree inflation in which many jobs now required degrees that previously didn't. As far as non-college education, I think it's pretty obvious that throwing money at a problem doesn't always work.

It doesn't matter though; you'll never convince these people of anything. That's something they will have to do on their own.

[angelatc]

The first paragraph is true? Are you sure you're a former liberal?

Because to start with, I'd point out that his platform doesn't contain any of those things.

[acptulsa]

As a former liberal, this (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/03/gary-johnson-goes-crowd-surfing-in-utah/#comment-669667246) is how I used to think too:

I'm curious how you would convince a person like this that their above first paragraph is true, but a good thing, yet convince them that their second paragraph is demonstrably false?

Both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are on record as being proponents of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Those state that the federal government must not interfere if the various states decide to regulate things. If states do the regulating, small businesses that only do business in one or two states have an advantage. If Washington does it all, the corporations don't have to have any more lawyers than any small business does. One set of regulations, one legal code, one set of lawyers--no matter how big or small you are. Advantage: Multi-Nationals.

Look at auto regulations of the 1970s. Safety, pollution and fuel efficiency regulations, imposed in a haphazard manner and suddenly and simultaneously, have a very checkered record. Airbags have killed children, regulations against oxides of nitrogen have increased levels of carbon dioxide, and the safety and pollution regulations have worked against the goal of efficiency. But irregardless of all of that, one thing was accomplished by it. American Motors was driven out of business and Chrysler was dealt such a devastating blow that it never recovered (which is why it's now part of Fiat). And people wonder why Ford and GM had to be bailed out. AMC had always been the first to try to make small cars cool, and Chrysler was always foremost in efficiency. They were the two most carbon-neutral American carmakers. How much better would American cars be today if they hadn't been squeezed out?

[AuH20]

Safety nets?? More like subsidized prisons of the mind. Higher education?? Centers of indocrination and what amounts to be debt mills. Let's cut through all the progressive BS and start identifying it for what it truly is.

[July]

The heart of the matter is really this, IMO:


"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the
distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we
object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we
object to its being done at all."
-- Frederic Bastiat


Your liberal friend is conflating the idea of "society" with the idea of "government" -- you have to unhitch these two concepts, and explain that just because the federal government doesn't do a thing, that doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be done or won't be done by society.

What they will likely counter with is that society will not, or cannot be trusted to perform such things. That private institutions failed and were exploiting people until the govt stepped in to level the playing field. So you have to be prepared with examples of society successfully solving problems, and show how it is govt intervention that tends to lead to class conflict. At some point along the way we stopped viewing laws as being a protection against our natural rights being violated, and started using laws as tools to gain favor and privilege. And once the elite classes figured that out, it was a mad rush by every group, class, and industry imaginable to get a piece of the pie...either to get an advantage, or to protect themselves from other groups who had already been given an unfair advantage.

Or better yet, just get them to read Bastiat. :p

[Acala]

If that postulate were true, then the rapid and unbroken increase in the size of government and the number and scope of government regulations since WWII would be accompanied by a DECREASE in the size and influence of American corporations. Of course just the opposite is true because government regulation is crony capitalism hidden behind a mask of public protection. The Department of Education has made us dumber. The Department of Energy has made us more depedent on foreign resources. The Department of Defense has made us less secure. The war on poverty has created more poor. The government's efforts to make housing more affordable created a bubble that pushed the price of housing out of reach. Same with healthcare. The belief that government regulation protects the interests of the people at large is a fairy tale that can only survive in the mind of a person with eyes closed tight to the reality.

But the basic theory of government regulation is a contradiction. Ask this person the following: "So your idea is that people are either too foolish or too predatory to be allowed to manage their own affairs without protection on the one hand and restraints on the other. Correct? (answer will be some variety of yes) So, then, where will you find the people to run your regulatory agency? Won't they come from the population that is either too foolish or too predatory? And now you have given them guns and "authority" to tell other people what to do under pain of death or a trip to the rape cage. Oops."

[farreri]

I just wanted to see what some of your replies back to him would be. Here's how I'd answer to his last part:


Actually let corporations and wall street rule the US even more than now.
Then why aren't they supporting the Libertarians?

[Acala]

I just wanted to see what some of your replies back to him would be. Here's how I'd answer to his last part:


Then why aren't they supporting the Libertarians?

NICE!

[NewRightLibertarian]

Then why aren't they supporting the Libertarians?

This is the one I always use. They can never formulate an answer that makes any sense.

[Murray N Rothbard]

They should read Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State (James Weinstein) and Triumph of Conservatism (Gabriel Kolko) if they aren't afraid of books.

[Exponent]

[His platform would] actually let corporations and wall street rule the US even more than now.

One of my revelations was the following:

Large corporations want methods of control over lots of people (whether for profit or some other agenda)
The ability to use or threaten force in order to coerce behavior from people is a very powerful method of control.
Our culture is very far from accepting the notion that corporations should be allowed to coerce behavior from people.
Our culture is relatively accepting of the notion that the government is allowed to coerce behavior from people, with some vague caveat that it better be for appropriate reasons.
Despite all so-called attempts to prevent it, money talks in Washington.
Large corporations can leverage their money and the accepted power of government to indirectly coerce behavior.
The more that government exercises its use/threat of force, the more extensively corporations have options to indirectly benefit, as long as they can influence the ways in which the force is used/threatened.
What's even more obnoxious (and I have been guilty of this in the past too) is that people actually think that much of government's use or threat of force is geared towards reducing the size advantages that large corporations have, when in reality it often works in the opposite direction by magnifying those size advantages:


Large corporations have a size advantage (economies of scale, large pocketbooks, et cetera), and they use this advantage.
Individuals and small businesses complain, seek government assistance to return fairness and economic justice to the marketplace.
Government intervenes with regulations which are presented as solutions to the lack of fairness, but which are largely shaped by large corporations.
Aided by the government regulations, large corporations get an even more powerful size advantage, and they use this advantage.
Individuals and small businesses feel the pain and complain even more, demanding that the government intervene further, since "obviously" its earlier efforts were far too weak.
Government applies harsher regulations, still shaped by corporate interests.
Large corporations get even more powerful.
Keep repeating until economic implosion or societal explosion.

[pochy1776]

Corporations are government created entities. In a truly free market without government interference, corporations would not exist in their current capacity.

Education costs would go down without government influence. Also, there is degree inflation in which many jobs now required degrees that previously didn't. As far as non-college education, I think it's pretty obvious that throwing money at a problem doesn't always work.

It doesn't matter though; you'll never convince these people of anything. That's something they will have to do on their own.

Actually Corporation had a different meaning in 1800 and 1900 than today. It meant a collection of stockholders, board of directors blah blah blah. Big businesses also were usually short lived. about 50 years at most.

[JustinTime]

As a former liberal, this (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/03/gary-johnson-goes-crowd-surfing-in-utah/#comment-669667246) is how I used to think too:



I'm curious how you would convince a person like this that their above first paragraph is true, but a good thing, yet convince them that their second paragraph is demonstrably false?

Heres an example of how corporate interests use government regs to their advantage:

In my hometown, a beach town in Florida, there are a lot of expensive restaurant and fastfood chains, but over time locals found that carts selling hot dogs, tacos, ice cream, etc, cheaply due to very low overhead to beachgoers made a great cottage industry.

The local moneymen and corporate types got their pals in the media to whip up a crisis, food carts are not clean and are making people sick they say. They found a handful of people who had become ill, possibly due to food carts, maybe not. Next thing you know, the county commission is requiring food cart owners to have their carts cleaned at a restaurant facility every 24 hours, for which you will pay through the nose.

End of local folks starting their own businesses, end of cheap food for beachgoers, more money for chain restaurants.

[mport1]

As a former liberal, this (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/03/gary-johnson-goes-crowd-surfing-in-utah/#comment-669667246) is how I used to think too:



I'm curious how you would convince a person like this that their above first paragraph is true, but a good thing, yet convince them that their second paragraph is demonstrably false?

Either make the moral argument that is wrong to steal even for noble intentions like providing a safety net, or the consequentialist argument which details how horrible the government has been at administering these programs and how much better a free market would operate.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

They should read Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State (James Weinstein) and Triumph of Conservatism (Gabriel Kolko) if they aren't afraid of books.

Pretty much this. The progressive Era gave rise to Fascism - they are just too goddamn stupid to realize that the thing they hate the most is what they created in the first place.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Actually Corporation had a different meaning in 1800 and 1900 than today. It meant a collection of stockholders, board of directors blah blah blah. Big businesses also were usually short lived. about 50 years at most.

Actually, Corporation has always meant limited liability and other State-directed benefits. There's a reason it took until the mid 18th Century for Corporate privilege to arrive here in the States. There is a difference between a Joint-Stock Company or Partnership and a Corporation. Even the Federalists weren't so stupid. It took the Whigs and Republicans to get that ball rollin'. If you want to know how Statist Corporations are, just look at their history. Nothing more needs to be said than this:


Until the late 19th century, the formation of a corporation usually required an act of legislature. State enactment of corporation laws, which was becoming more common by the 1830s, allowed companies to incorporate without securing the adoption of a special legislative bill. However, given the restrictive nature of state corporation laws, many companies preferred to seek a special legislative act for incorporation to attain privileges or monopolies, even until the late nineteenth century. In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations rights they had not previously recognized in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward

How groovy. Stockholders should absolutely be liable for debts and actions of the company. What is even worse is law making Corporations 'personalities' or people separate from the individual members. What a travesty of epic proportions.

[Natural Citizen]

As a former liberal, this is how I used to think too



No, you're still pretty much a liberal.

[Chester Copperpot]

wow how in the world did I miss this gem of a thread... what entertaining reading this is sure to be later tonight

[Chester Copperpot]

The first paragraph is true? Are you sure you're a former liberal?

Because to start with, I'd point out that his platform doesn't contain any of those things.

well it seems the real farreri has finally come out to play

[farreri]

No, you're still pretty much a liberal.
Why do you think that?

[Natural Citizen]

well it seems the real farreri has finally come out to play

Mm hm.

[Origanalist]

Lol.

[Chester Copperpot]

Why do you think that?

because your first post from 2012 is this thread trolling libertarians and youre still doing it 4 years later

[farreri]

because your first post from 2012 is this thread trolling libertarians and youre still doing it 4 years later
How is this thread trolling libertarians?

[Chester Copperpot]

How is this thread trolling libertarians?

Really.... dont you read your own posts... Theyre completely wrong and filled with misinformation... your OP couldnt be more untrue