Nova_C
New member
Throughout the political threads, a few posters here bring up Libertarianism as a preferable method of governing and I would like to have a conversation about it. I'll say up front that I don't agree with it as a political or economic goal, but I very much used to.
To start off, we should probably define Libertarianism according to a non-biased source: The dictionary.
That sounds pretty good. I think most of us, myself included, can get behind freedom of thought. I'm a firm believer in the free exchange of ideas (Even ideas that some may find repugnant). However, that isn't the kind of Libertarianism that is frequently brought up here.
The Libertarians who visit this board advocate it as a system of governance, that is, that less government is better and the free market, or capitalism, should be unregulated in order to respond to market forces. At least, this is my understanding of it.
I very much invite the board's Libertarians to define what they think Libertarianism is and to talk about how those goals or policies would be implemented.
Now, for my own in depth opinion on Libertarianism:
My issue with it is how companies tend to operate today. The idea is that under a Libertarian system, services we depend on the government for would instead be provided by private, for profit entities that would deliver those same services more efficiently and/or more cheaply.
Lets talk about transportation, specifically, the construction and maintenance of roads. A private company, according to Libertarianism, should be better at building and maintaining the network of roads that people depend on. Competition between paving and maintenance companies would keep prices down and product quality high. Companies that overcharge or neglect their roads would lose business and companies that offer competitive pricing and a superior quality road would move in and overtake the areas of the poorer quality provider.
Existing models based on this do not work out that way, however, and ISPs are a perfect (And very familiar to me) example. Many areas have only one provider with no direct competition, despite no regulation preventing the establishment of a new provider and smaller ISPs generally just rent or buy their access from the large ones, ending in customers all being on the same network provided by the same large telecom with the same standards and practices and poor quality service has no detrimental effect on the large company whatsoever.
Of course, there are regulations in place on ISPs that prevent them from charging other ISPs for access to their networks. In an unregulated marketplace, there is nothing to prevent this. Going back to the roads example, the end result, in my mind, is that there would be a network of roads in a city, each in various stages of repair (or disrepair) and a toll both every couple of miles as you switch from one company's network to another (With various rates at each on depending on each company's pricing model). With no regulation, a company that profits from a chokepoint would have no incentive to build capacity if their profit margins were large enough and costs of expansion high enough, even if delays prevented people from even being able to reach their destination. Providers in areas where there isn't enough traffic to support a competitor would enjoy a stranglehold on the local populace because people have to be able to go get food and clothes and even if the roads were nigh unpassable, the local residents still have no choice but to try to drive on them. Some roads would be wider and heavier for transport traffic, others would be narrow and thin to save costs with no standard in place to ensure that population centers had heavy enough roads for tractor/trailers and other transports to bring in products for the local businesses. Dangerous goods transportation would be hit or miss with no regulations, with toxic chemicals being transported on a labyrinth of various quality roads, near or through residential areas, and the possibility of no access by emergency vehicles should a spill happen.
This is only one example of a service that I can only see disaster happening if it was to be privatized and unregulated. Emergency services, telecommunications, banking, all these services require either government provision or at least heavy regulation to ensure a minimum standard of service is met. Considering we are talking literally life and death with the establishment of these regulations as well as the continuation of the quality of life and the very society we enjoy, the removal of said regulations would be disastrous.
This is the end result that I see of Libertarianism. As I said before, I invite the board's Libertarians to talk about why they are Libertarians and how they see the philosophy actually being implemented. How would that implementation work out?
To start off, we should probably define Libertarianism according to a non-biased source: The dictionary.
That sounds pretty good. I think most of us, myself included, can get behind freedom of thought. I'm a firm believer in the free exchange of ideas (Even ideas that some may find repugnant). However, that isn't the kind of Libertarianism that is frequently brought up here.
The Libertarians who visit this board advocate it as a system of governance, that is, that less government is better and the free market, or capitalism, should be unregulated in order to respond to market forces. At least, this is my understanding of it.
I very much invite the board's Libertarians to define what they think Libertarianism is and to talk about how those goals or policies would be implemented.
Now, for my own in depth opinion on Libertarianism:
My issue with it is how companies tend to operate today. The idea is that under a Libertarian system, services we depend on the government for would instead be provided by private, for profit entities that would deliver those same services more efficiently and/or more cheaply.
Lets talk about transportation, specifically, the construction and maintenance of roads. A private company, according to Libertarianism, should be better at building and maintaining the network of roads that people depend on. Competition between paving and maintenance companies would keep prices down and product quality high. Companies that overcharge or neglect their roads would lose business and companies that offer competitive pricing and a superior quality road would move in and overtake the areas of the poorer quality provider.
Existing models based on this do not work out that way, however, and ISPs are a perfect (And very familiar to me) example. Many areas have only one provider with no direct competition, despite no regulation preventing the establishment of a new provider and smaller ISPs generally just rent or buy their access from the large ones, ending in customers all being on the same network provided by the same large telecom with the same standards and practices and poor quality service has no detrimental effect on the large company whatsoever.
Of course, there are regulations in place on ISPs that prevent them from charging other ISPs for access to their networks. In an unregulated marketplace, there is nothing to prevent this. Going back to the roads example, the end result, in my mind, is that there would be a network of roads in a city, each in various stages of repair (or disrepair) and a toll both every couple of miles as you switch from one company's network to another (With various rates at each on depending on each company's pricing model). With no regulation, a company that profits from a chokepoint would have no incentive to build capacity if their profit margins were large enough and costs of expansion high enough, even if delays prevented people from even being able to reach their destination. Providers in areas where there isn't enough traffic to support a competitor would enjoy a stranglehold on the local populace because people have to be able to go get food and clothes and even if the roads were nigh unpassable, the local residents still have no choice but to try to drive on them. Some roads would be wider and heavier for transport traffic, others would be narrow and thin to save costs with no standard in place to ensure that population centers had heavy enough roads for tractor/trailers and other transports to bring in products for the local businesses. Dangerous goods transportation would be hit or miss with no regulations, with toxic chemicals being transported on a labyrinth of various quality roads, near or through residential areas, and the possibility of no access by emergency vehicles should a spill happen.
This is only one example of a service that I can only see disaster happening if it was to be privatized and unregulated. Emergency services, telecommunications, banking, all these services require either government provision or at least heavy regulation to ensure a minimum standard of service is met. Considering we are talking literally life and death with the establishment of these regulations as well as the continuation of the quality of life and the very society we enjoy, the removal of said regulations would be disastrous.
This is the end result that I see of Libertarianism. As I said before, I invite the board's Libertarians to talk about why they are Libertarians and how they see the philosophy actually being implemented. How would that implementation work out?
I understand it might be quite impossible to implement all this and register stuff but it could be an investment worth the returns. So, I think I'm a Libertarian but with the very clear proposition that people have to deal with the consequences of their choices, even though I am overweight