What would happen if....

[RussellK]

......there was a huge shift toward a libertarian approach in government. Besides we all getting that sparkle pony Neal lusts after, what else? Would there be economic chaos? Would OSHA and other regulating bodies be eliminated? Could there be the vacuum that allowed corporations an even freer rein to control our lives? Those are potential negative outcomes. What are the potential positive outcomes? I think I understand Libertarian as a theoretical ideal but in reality what might be effected?

[steve74baywin]

The outcome would depend somewhat on the approach. Many or most who advocate this form of government agree on the following. One of the first things would be to bring the US military back home for defense.
Returning to sound money is also a high priority, which includes scaling back and then eliminating the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income tax. One of the last things would be programs that fall under the label of entitlements, they would be scaled back and people weened off of them.

Would there be economic chaos? I think we could avoid "chaos" with an intelligent shift. There would be hard times, maybe it would get a bit tougher than now before it gets better.
OSHA and other regulating bodies would almost all if not all be eliminated on the federal level.
Could there be a vacuum that could help corporations? That is possible, but with slow smart changes coupled with the fact that if we were making these changes people would be of a certain mindset. That mindset would be one which they understood the value of taking care of oneself, working real well and close with those nearest you.
They should know what power they do have, that is the power to choose to not use those companies that they do not like. There should eventually be a natural shift to relying on things more closer to home. The knowledge that one needs to be responsible for themselves also means the value of doing business with and helping those nearest you, hence we'd start making and using things made from those closer to us which would be part of the shift back to a natural economy. The big corporations eventually would have to provide in a manor the people liked in order to get our business.
It is a matter of breaking the dependency upon these big corps, be more responsible, relying and working with those humans nearest you. This gets the power back to the people.

What are the potential positive outcomes? I think we'd be free, we'd have our liberty back. I think those that rule and control our government would be knocked down a bunch of notches. The power would be back in the hands of the people. This is where the personal responsibility thing comes in. A person would be more responsible for his life and outcomes. He'd have to be. A person would more directly pay for his decisions. If he wanted to be a total F up, and nasty to those around him, he'd probably have a miserable time. If he took responsibility for his life and did the right things, he'd have a better chance of a better life. It would be intelligent to be nice to those around you, cause you would hopefully know and understand the benifit. That is also a thing Libertarians know and understand, the value of others which is why we respect others right to choose, but also we know that if we were the only human in this world it would be really hard to live. We understand how much easier it is to build houses and have plenty of food by working with others, we understand the value of communities.
It is system of government from the bottom up, not top down. Responsibility and decisions start with self and then those around you first, the last place with the least amount of power and say is things like the Federal gov and national govs. They are only there to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Amskeptic]

......there was a huge shift toward a libertarian approach in government. Besides we all getting that sparkle pony Neal lusts after, what else? Would there be economic chaos? Would OSHA and other regulating bodies be eliminated? Could there be the vacuum that allowed corporations an even freer rein to control our lives? Those are potential negative outcomes. What are the potential positive outcomes? I think I understand Libertarian as a theoretical ideal but in reality what might be affected?

I think it would hasten the slide toward the bottom. It takes an effort, not seen in commerce, to reach our higher human selves.

Like how nature has "expensive" rules and "cheap" rules, educating all of our citizens and providing time and space for the arts and providing dignity in meeting basic needs, is "expensive", sort of like raising a baby elephant to become a full member of the herd.

Commerce knows nothing of that sort of investment, commerce knows nothing of the patriotism we identify our citizen selves with.

The tenets of Libertarianism cave in to "cheap", the millions of tadpoles that must perish to deliver a few more frogs to the pond at the country club.
Colin

[Bleyseng]

yep, we would be back in the 1890's with no human rights, unions, OSHA, etc to protect the working folk. Pipe dream and what is it you are smoking in your pipe?

[BellePlaine]

...... but in reality what might be affected?

Corporations would survive or fail based solely on how they compete/compare in the marketplace. I'm thinking that there would be no failed policies like corn ethanol subsidies or predatory lending practices.

[Lanval]

More likely corporations would quickly form alliances and monopolies, reducing competition, charge unfair prices, colluded to maintain and extend unfair and discriminatory hiring practices, avoiding responsibility for dangerous working conditions and prevent workers from organizing, even if it means injuring or killing those workers.

At least, that's what happened the last time corporation were left to run unfettered by "evil gov't interference" ~ welcome to the Gilded Age in America, circa 1880.

Mike

[ruckman101]

More likely corporations would quickly form alliances and monopolies, reducing competition, charge unfair prices, colluded to maintain and extend unfair and discriminatory hiring practices, avoiding responsibility for dangerous working conditions and prevent workers from organizing, even if it means injuring or killing those workers.

At least, that's what happened the last time corporation were left to run unfettered by "evil gov't interference" ~ welcome to the Gilded Age in America, circa 1880.

Mike

Oh, you mean the Republican platform. Although, currently the Democrat platform is striking me as Republican Lite. Bless their bleeding hearts.


neal

[ruckman101]

Thinking about it this evening, the Libertarian platform seems the biggest fattest excuse for why the elites of this world should be, and hey, if you can't make the class, die. Mega-wannabes. Can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps by hard work? Obviously not worthy and you can die. We could care less.*

excoriate me later,
neal



*Not an indictment on anyone. Just where attempting to express the accelerated effort to bone up and understand that Libertarian bent has led me.

[Lanval]

More likely corporations would quickly form alliances and monopolies, reducing competition, charge unfair prices, colluded to maintain and extend unfair and discriminatory hiring practices, avoiding responsibility for dangerous working conditions and prevent workers from organizing, even if it means injuring or killing those workers.

At least, that's what happened the last time corporation were left to run unfettered by "evil gov't interference" ~ welcome to the Gilded Age in America, circa 1880.

Mike

Oh, you mean the Republican platform. Although, currently the Democrat platform is striking me as Republican Lite. Bless their bleeding hearts.


neal

Well, I'm assuming that we, under Libertarian guidance, would return to a true laissez faire economic structure, and the problem with that is that there isn't any motivation for corporations to compete. Instead, their best interest is served by creating monopolies, trusts and so on. We know this, because history has proven it to us. Thus my comment. The Republicans would be fine with it too, I suppose.

Mike

[steve74baywin]

yep, we would be back in the 1890's with no human rights, unions, OSHA, etc to protect the working folk. Pipe dream and what is it you are smoking in your pipe?

Going Libertarian would get you rights better than you ever saw in your life.
After the civil war the started to undo the rights we as Libertarians want back. In 1890 thing were already flipped on their head and people was looking to the government to tell them their rights.
So no, we wouldn't go back to 1890, we'd go back further in time when individual rights were understood.

[RussellK]

In the interest of furthering the discussion. What rights do you think are missing?

[steve74baywin]

In reference to the fear that monopolies would happen.
History shows that most monopolies are formed with the help of or by governments.
Definition
Monopoly=exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.Or
a coercive monopoly— exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand. it is more than the absence of competition, it entails the impossibility of competition.

In the history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. The way to forbid entry has been by law. Probably most coercive monopolies that exist or ever have existed was created and made possible only by an act of government, special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges not obtainable on a free market to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field.
A coercive monopoly is not the result of laissez-fare capitalism, it is a result of a distortion of laissez-fare and from the introduction of the opposite, statism.

A utility company is a coercive monopoly, the government grants it a franchise for an exclusive territory, and no one else is allowed to engage in that service in that territory, a competitor would be stopped by law.
A telephone company is a coercive monopoly, as recently as World War II the government ordered the two then existing telegraph companies, Western Union and Postal Telegraph, to merge into one monopoly.

I think the following is one of the examples wrongly used showing a monopoly without government intervention. I think it is from the Gilded Age.
The Central Pacific railroad which was built by Leland Stanford, Collis Huntington, Charles Crocker, and Mark Hopkins of California, on federal subsides.
For almost thirty years the Central Pacific held a monopoly and permitted no competitor to enter the state. How was this made possible? It was done through the power of the California legislature. There was a legislative act which gave them exclusive control of the entire coast line of California and forbade any other railroad to enter any port. Any attempts to start competition during this 30 year period was defeated not by methods of free trade and free competition, but by legislative action.

[steve74baywin]

In the interest of furthering the discussion. What rights do you think are missing?

In order to for me to do this I'd have to define a few things, because I think the meaning of things has been muddied up.
In short, it is my right to make all decision pertaining to my property, my property includes my own body, and anything I lawfully made, obtained, or acquired. The only restriction on this right is I can't infringe upon the right of others. Self ownership. With every right comes a responsibility.


I should be able to buy Raw Milk from a willing buyer. My body is my property, the milk is his property.
I should be able to keep all the money I earn. If some entity can stake claims to a portion of my labor, my effort, my life, they are saying they own me. A major violation of my rights.

Just two for now.

[Velokid1]

So corporations could do anything they want to anything or anybody, as long as they legally owned them. I wonder how long it would take them to bankrupt the middle class and figure out a way to have all public lands sold to them. There are lots of valuable resources above and below ground in Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon.

Seriously- if the corporations and/or the wealthy elite could do whatever they want with anything they legally owned, we would be doomed. Because there is nothing they can't afford to buy. Cost isn't the thing keeping them from buying and then destroying every square inch of the planet; government protections and regulations are.

[steve74baywin]

I need to split it up to answer, you have some good points. I might not be able to answer as well as I would wish.

So corporations could do anything they want to anything or anybody, as long as they legally owned them.

They can't own a person.
They can only do whatever they want to something they own if it doesn't violate others rights.

I wonder how long it would take them to bankrupt the middle class

With the help of the government they created the Federal Reserve. From 1913 to now is close to a 100 years. (part humor)

and figure out a way to have all public lands sold to them.
There are lots of valuable resources above and below ground in Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon.

This could be one fear we would have to live with. Although with more power in the hands of the people via local governments, I would like to think we just wouldn't let them buy this land. If it is public land already put aside for us, it perhaps couldn't be sold. It is public, it is to remain public, the public can use it as long as they don't damage it.

Seriously- if the corporations and/or the wealthy elite could do whatever they want with anything they legally owned, we would be doomed. Because there is nothing they can't afford to buy. Cost isn't the thing keeping them from buying and then destroying every square inch of the planet; government protections and regulations are.

They would not be able to buy the government. So they might only be able to buy land from people.
Their objective isn't to destroy every square inch of the planet, although I can see where they might do that, or why someone could think they would do that.
So I guess the next question should be, If we went to Libertarian form of gov would they, why would they, and could they do what you say?
If they wanted to do it, it could be because we the people kept the demand for something high that they get from the land. I suppose we could keep wanting something they offer even after we see our planet going to hell. I don't really see this though, if enough of the people wanted this form of gov, I would think it would be because they understood a certain part of it. With that understanding I can't see them selling all the land around them and underneath them to their own demise. Most Libertarians tend to value owning property very high, as well as person responsibility which usually equates to them understanding the need to take care of themselves, and with that would come the knowledge that it isn't good to sell the earth to a few rich idiots.

Thanks, that was a challenge and I doubt it's settled.