I could use some pointers for a debate about libertarian views

[The Bavarian]

Hello all, I've been getting myself into quite a few political debates lately, some very friendly and mind expanding, others the exact opposite.

The biggest problem I have faced up to this point is of course the topic of individual responsibility, as in, you and you alone are responsible for your well being, not the government. Meaning help amongst fellow citizens should drop to a state or communal level, not federal.

However as soon as this point is made mostly liberal minded folks tend to go on the all out attack saying that I wish for the suffering of the less fortunate, and that if I truly wanted to live government free like all "lolbertarians" do I should move to an uninhabited island. They claim that its not government regulation that is damaging this country, its families and businesses that try to abuse the government that causes all of the countries problems, mainly the fact that this abuse benefits the "have gots" and that our libertarian social darwinism allows these "have gots" to develop into an elite class that feeds off of the middle and lower class. More government regulation is the answer.

Sounds like a horror movie.

The rest usually involves name calling or other random insults so I'll stop there.

If anybody could give me some good pointers at countering this viewpoint, I would appreciate it.


Note: Sorry if this topic is in the wrong forum section.

[Philhelm]

At this point, I can only say that you will never convince an idiot that he is, indeed, an idiot. Most people seem to be ruled by emotional impulses. For instance, you state that you think people should be responsible for their own welfare but the assumption is that you wish to inflict misery on the poor. Either they really believe that, or they are not thoughtful enough to attempt to counter you with well-reasoned arguments. Unfortunately, no amount of logical construction can combat this. At the rate this nation is going, I suspect that cold, hard steel will ultimately be the deciding factor...one way or the other.

[fisharmor]

Read, read, read.
There's already a libertarian reading list. It's depressing beyond belief to read something that describes exactly what happens today and then stop to think "Holy crap, Hayek wrote that in 1940", but the arguments are the same.

The anti-regulation argument that liberals object to is the conservative anti-regulation argument, which is NOT the libertarian anti-regulation argument.
Conservatives will harp on utilitarianisms like how a free market maximizes jobs and (shudder) actually maximizes tax revenues.

The libertarian anti-regulation arguments are different. For one thing, there's the overarching fact that the state is incapable of doing anything objectively good. Any good that the state does has to be done by first committing an evil. Regulation is no different. Any regulation which is done has to be done with money that was forcibly extracted.

Then there's the fact that the market regulates better than the state. Some examples: the national electric code is provided regularly by a private group. Underwriters Laboratories provides private certification of consumer goods. For that matter, consumer reports provides private reviews even after they've been approved as safe.

The ultimate argument, though, is the simple fact that regulations are always, always, always written by the people who are going to be regulated. It's a simple and effective scam. Set up an argument where the state will make things "safer", or "better quality", and write the regulations so that the way things have to be done, by law, going forward, is the way that the largest player in that field is already doing things. This has two effects: first, it creates a bunch of overhead for upstarts to have to deal with, and second, it makes it practically impossible for new competitors to do things in an alternate way.

This has been the case since antiquity. 500 years ago they were a little more up front about it and openly called themselves a guild. The concept today is identical - we get to play, and you don't - but they hide behind nanny statism.


At the rate this nation is going, I suspect that cold, hard steel will ultimately be the deciding factor...one way or the other.

Metaphorical cold hard steel, of course... it's really going to be hot lead.