Two questions for y'all libertarians

[Sultan Of Swing]

Ello ello everyone.

Well, to start with, my first question. I'm a lousy Brit, and I like my NHS. We have a lot more welfare-type stuff than the US does, and a good portion of it seems to work.

Therefore I doubt I can really call myself a libertarian, though I would say I'm "libertarian-leaning". I am all for smaller government, certainly smaller intrusion of the government into personal spheres, and far less regulation and red tape surrounding small businesses. I also think there are other parts of government that could get the chop. I also support leaving the EU, because it's big and scary. The funny thing is, my preferred smaller government would still probably be bigger than what the US has going now...

So question 1: Can a libertarian support free healthcare? Welfare? If not, what do you call someone then who is generally for smaller government? A conservative?

Aaaaand question 2: How does libertarianism deal with crony capitalism? How does it deal with unrestrained corporate interests that can bend the will of the government, however small, to its own whims with that lovely thing we made up called money? I want as little regulation of small businesses as possible, but yet when it comes to the big corporations I feel like letting them loose would be a bit unwise, considering the kind of influence they already have on our governments.

 

[Revoltingest]

....I'm a lousy Brit, and I like my NHS. We have a lot more welfare-type stuff than the US does, and a good portion of it seems to work.
Therefore I doubt I can really call myself a libertarian, though I would say I'm "libertarian-leaning".

The "leaning" part seems good enuf to post your thread.

I am all for smaller government, certainly smaller intrusion of the government into personal spheres, and far less regulation and red tape surrounding small businesses. I also think there are other parts of government that could get the chop. I also support leaving the EU, because it's big and scary. The funny thing is, my preferred smaller government would still probably be bigger than what the US has going now...

So question 1: Can a libertarian support free healthcare? Welfare?

I suppose a libertarian could support such measures when faced with political alternatives, one of which is much worse than the other.....a compromise of values which results in maximal possible implementation of one's values.

If not, what do you call someone then who is generally for smaller government? A conservative?

A conservative would differ in favoring greater social restrictions.

Aaaaand question 2: How does libertarianism deal with crony capitalism?

We loathe it.

How does it deal with unrestrained corporate interests that can bend the will of the government, however small, to its own whims with that lovely thing we made up called money?

No magic bullets here, but I favor...
- Preventing monopolies (to keep markets vibrant)
- Vigorous prosecution of corruption.

I want as little regulation of small businesses as possible, but yet when it comes to the big corporations I feel like letting them loose would be a bit unwise, considering the kind of influence they already have on our governments.

At least if gov has less power & money, there's less potential for corruption.

 

[Tarheeler]

Ello ello everyone.

Well, to start with, my first question. I'm a lousy Brit, and I like my NHS. We have a lot more welfare-type stuff than the US does, and a good portion of it seems to work.

Therefore I doubt I can really call myself a libertarian, though I would say I'm "libertarian-leaning". I am all for smaller government, certainly smaller intrusion of the government into personal spheres, and far less regulation and red tape surrounding small businesses. I also think there are other parts of government that could get the chop. I also support leaving the EU, because it's big and scary. The funny thing is, my preferred smaller government would still probably be bigger than what the US has going now...

So question 1: Can a libertarian support free healthcare? Welfare? If not, what do you call someone then who is generally for smaller government? A conservative?

Aaaaand question 2: How does libertarianism deal with crony capitalism? How does it deal with unrestrained corporate interests that can bend the will of the government, however small, to its own whims with that lovely thing we made up called money? I want as little regulation of small businesses as possible, but yet when it comes to the big corporations I feel like letting them loose would be a bit unwise, considering the kind of influence they already have on our governments.

Libertarians come in many different shapes and sizes; while those like Rev advocate right-libertarianism, there are others who fall to the left and advocate for a socialist economy.

And the answers to your questions will vary greatly depending on which on you talk to.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Libertarians come in many different shapes and sizes; while those like Rev advocate right-libertarianism, there are others who fall to the left and advocate for a socialist economy.

And the answers to your questions will vary greatly depending on which on you talk to.

Socialist libertarianism? Ooh, that's unorthodox, how does that work? Social freedoms with economic restriction and wealth distribution? Isn't that just social liberalism?

 

[Tarheeler]

Socialist libertarianism? Ooh, that's unorthodox, how does that work? Social freedoms with economic restriction and wealth distribution? Isn't that just social liberalism?

It's only unorthodox in the American understanding of the term; "libertarian" was origionaly used to describe a French school of socialism.

As for how it works, it posits that the resources within a community, such as land, water, and other natural resources, belongs to everyone within the community equally. Economic restrictions and wealth redistribution implies a capitalist economy rather than a socialist one; those are tools used to make capitalism more equitable.

A libertarian is someone who advocates for and holds freedom as the highest ideal. A libertarian socialist includes freedom from economic and social coercion as part of that ideal.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It's only unorthodox in the American understanding of the term; "libertarian" was origionaly used to describe a French school of socialism.

As for how it works, it posits that the resources within a community, such as land, water, and other natural resources, belongs to everyone within the community equally. Economic restrictions and wealth redistribution implies a capitalist economy rather than a socialist one; those are tools used to make capitalism more equitable.

A libertarian is someone who advocates for and holds freedom as the highest ideal. A libertarian socialist includes freedom from economic and social coercion as part of that ideal.

I see, thank you for that explanation, I learned something new today!

 

[Tarheeler]

Glad to be of service.

 

[Augustus]

I want as little regulation of small businesses as possible, but yet when it comes to the big corporations I feel like letting them loose would be a bit unwise, considering the kind of influence they already have on our governments.

If you radically decentralise power it becomes harder to influence the government, because instead of 1 country 1 government, there are actually many localised governments governing smaller communities. Powerful centralised governments make lobbying much easier and more effective, while making politicians less accountable to the populace.

You also need to create a system that does not incentivise mergers and acquisitions as much as the current system does. Big companies hoovering up smaller companies tends to benefit no one but shareholders and managers. You need to disincentivise these instead.

The problem with regulation is that it doesn't really work and more complexities means more loopholes. Regulation needs to be as simple as possible. The best way to 'regulate' giant corporations is to provide disincentives to growing a business beyond a certain size, as opposed to what we have now which is exactly the opposite.

 

[Politesse]

Ello ello everyone.

Well, to start with, my first question. I'm a lousy Brit, and I like my NHS. We have a lot more welfare-type stuff than the US does, and a good portion of it seems to work.

Therefore I doubt I can really call myself a libertarian, though I would say I'm "libertarian-leaning". I am all for smaller government, certainly smaller intrusion of the government into personal spheres, and far less regulation and red tape surrounding small businesses. I also think there are other parts of government that could get the chop. I also support leaving the EU, because it's big and scary. The funny thing is, my preferred smaller government would still probably be bigger than what the US has going now...

So question 1: Can a libertarian support free healthcare? Welfare? If not, what do you call someone then who is generally for smaller government? A conservative?

Aaaaand question 2: How does libertarianism deal with crony capitalism? How does it deal with unrestrained corporate interests that can bend the will of the government, however small, to its own whims with that lovely thing we made up called money? I want as little regulation of small businesses as possible, but yet when it comes to the big corporations I feel like letting them loose would be a bit unwise, considering the kind of influence they already have on our governments.

Lousy Brits can be libertarians too, and even non-lousy ones. I am a socialist-leaning libertarian, and do not object to a government providing basic services; I don't believe it actually impinges on anyone's freedom to have healthcare. I do think there can be some problems there, and that the implementation of such a program should be carefully watched. Under the new health care laws in my country, I'm now compulsorily the customer of a huge insurance company. I had choices, but they were few. I'm not exactly happy about this, and I tend to think that an NHS-style system would have been better than this corporate-oligarchical nonsense.

I've met libertarians with every conceivable stance on money and how it should work, from the corporate shills who apparently back our official Libertarian party here in the states to wild-eyed academics who think money itself should be axed and go back to barter... Personally, I should think that any libertarian would want to oppose the degree to which large businesses like to function as fascist states-within-a-state. Whether the government is an appropriate tool to wield against them is another matter, and the fear there is that when you try to meet force with force, you end up with a more powerful force ruling over you at the end of the process. I'm idealist enough to think that simply getting rid of certain constraints- legal impositions against collectivizing for instance- would naturally even things out. Part of the problem is that our government doesn't just not act against corporate powers, but that it is actually designed to protect them. "Governing less" would actually help therefore, though I'm not naive enough to take anything off the table as a pragmatic matter.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you radically decentralise power it becomes harder to influence the government, because instead of 1 country 1 government, there are actually many localised governments governing smaller communities.

But I have more influence over my local government than over the state or fed gov. Moreover, local concerns will differ, & we can craft our own approach rather than use a top down one-size-fits-all standard.

Powerful centralised governments make lobbying much easier and more effective, while making politicians less accountable to the populace.

But when these governments go bad, they do so for everyone everywhere. This is a great risk.

You also need to create a system that does not incentivise mergers and acquisitions as much as the current system does. Big companies hoovering up smaller companies tends to benefit no one but shareholders and managers. You need to disincentivise these instead.

Is it even true that government incentivises mergers & acquisitions? Moreover, this isn't necessarily bad for us. Companies can cut costs & prices with greater efficiencies. If not though, then they lose ground to better companies.

The problem with regulation is that it doesn't really work and more complexities means more loopholes. Regulation needs to be as simple as possible. The best way to 'regulate' giant corporations is to provide disincentives to growing a business beyond a certain size, as opposed to what we have now which is exactly the opposite.

I'd prefer that government (a collection of the least qualified people to understand business) not decide how large a company should be.

 

[Augustus]

But I have more influence over my local government than over the state or fed gov. Moreover, local concerns will differ, & we can craft our own approach rather than use a top down one-size-fits-all standard.

But when these governments go bad, they do so for everyone everywhere. This is a great risk.

That was pretty much my point.

Is it even true that government incentivises mergers & acquisitions? Moreover, this isn't necessarily bad for us. Companies can cut costs & prices with greater efficiencies. If not though, then they lose ground to better companies.

The current financial system incentivises it not governments. It is easier to create 'growth' artificially like this rather than growing a company organically. Managers are also financially motivated to do so.

They don't lead to a general improvement in business performance, theory says they should, practice shows otherwise.

Large corporations also suffer more when things go bad and cause more problems. We agree this regarding governments this is the case, same true for corporations. The larger the corporation the less it cares about its effects on individual communities and the better equipped it is to carry out rent seeking and tax avoidance and the more likely its managers are to benefit from unnecessary redundancies.

I'd prefer that government (a collection of the least qualified people to understand business) not decide how large a company should be.

Small localised government, but with social protection, and small to medium business is the ideal for me. If you can grow a business organically, fair enough, but the effects of corporate acquisitions tend to be more negative than positive on society so should be disinscentivised. Regulation doesn't work, so making it less attractive to artificially grow companies is preferable.

Managers are not wealth creators, they simply extract disproportionate remuneration from the system by controlling other people's resources. You want to favour genuine entrepreneurship, rather than the managerial class.

 

[Revoltingest]

The current financial system incentivises it not governments. It is easier to create 'growth' artificially like this rather than growing a company organically. Managers are also financially motivated to do so.
They don't lead to a general improvement in business performance, theory says they should, practice shows otherwise.

In practice, some decisions to acquire another company are great, & some are duds. I've seen examples of each. I'd prefer that business owners make these decisions rather than some government aparatchik. It's the libertarian way!

Large corporations also suffer more when things go bad and cause more problems. We agree this regarding governments this is the case, same true for corporations. The larger the corporation the less it cares about its effects on individual communities and the better equipped it is to carry out rent seeking and tax avoidance and the more likely its managers are to benefit from unnecessary redundancies.

To become large is necessary for capital intensive industries making a large volume of spendy products, eg, cars. As for what the business owner cares about, that would be up to him/her....not politicians.

Small localised government, but with social protection, and small to medium business is the ideal for me. If you can grow a business organically, fair enough, but the effects of corporate acquisitions tend to be more negative than positive on society so should be disinscentivised.

Why is it negative?

Regulation doesn't work, so making it less attractive to artificially grow companies is preferable.

Regulation has its place to ensure legal compliance, but if I want to grow my business by buying another from a willing seller, then (barring creation of a monopoly) what good is done by requiring a politician's oversight & permission?

Managers are not wealth creators, they simply extract disproportionate remuneration from the system by controlling other people's resources. You want to favour genuine entrepreneurship, rather than the managerial class.

Managers are critical to a business....the good ones use resources efficiently to put out the best product. Without them, it's a rudderless ship. I've seen this firsthand at Northrop, GM, Thomson Reuters, Koppers Co, & many others.

 

[Augustus]

In practice, some decisions to acquire another company are great, & some are duds. I've seen examples of each. I'd prefer that business owners make these decisions rather than some government aparatchik. It's the libertarian way!

replacing government power with corporate power is not my idea of libertarianism. For me it's about empowering the individual.

become large is necessary for capital intensive industries making a large volume of spendy products, eg, cars. As for what the business owner cares about, that would be up to him/her....not politicians.

And in these industries you would expect to see more organic growth for successful businesses.

Why is it negative?

Because 1 giant business is more vulnerable to individual failing than 10 medium businesses. you accept that is true with government.

Regulation has its place to ensure legal compliance, but if I want to grow my business by buying another from a willing seller, then (barring creation of a monopoly) what good is done by requiring a politician's oversight & permission?

Many major industries have only a small number of major players, this often functions very similarly to a monopoly.

You don't require permission or oversight, you just make it that you incur a financial penalty to acquire another company over a certain value. If the acquisition is of genuine long term merit, the penalty will be an acceptable charge to incur, and can be used to offset the negative effects to society of a larger business failing. If it is of marginal benefit or merely speculative then better to keep the companies separate.

Managers are critical to a business....the good ones use resources efficiently to put out the best product. Without them, it's a rudderless ship. I've seen this firsthand at Northrop, GM, Thomson Reuters, Koppers Co, & many others.

Managers take reward without the risk. There are as many bad managers as good managers. What you want is a system that means the bad managers can't cause as much harm. Good managers will still be successful, bad managers won't cause as much damage.

Look at the financial crisis for how poor management and large corporations combine to harm society.

 

[Revoltingest]

replacing government power with corporate power is not my idea of libertarianism. For me it's about empowering the individual.

It isn't mine either. Corporations are simply a group of people coming together to achieve a common goal with limited liability. It's about free association, typically for economic reasons. Government's function is entirely different.

And in these industries you would expect to see more organic growth for successful businesses.

There are many ways to skin a cat.....develop one's own business, develop a new one, acquire an existing one. The best approach cannot be determined by an outsider like a government bureaucrat. It's difficult enuf for the business's managers to analyze the optimum solution.

Because 1 giant business is more vulnerable to individual failing than 10 medium businesses. you accept that is true with government.

That's tricky. 10 businesses will be more likely to have some of them fail. It also varies by industry, since some businesses cannot be small operations while remaining competitive.

Many major industries have only a small number of major players, this often functions very similarly to a monopoly.

Prevention of market distortions due to monopolistic behavior is one form of regulation I find useful.

You don't require permission or oversight, you just make it that you incur a financial penalty to acquire another company over a certain value. If the acquisition is of genuine long term merit, the penalty will be an acceptable charge to incur, and can be used to offset the negative effects to society of a larger business failing. If it is of marginal benefit or merely speculative then better to keep the companies separate.

I don't favor such regulation because politicians lack the wisdom to design good economic policy. Just look at the Obama administration....the only people with any influence & businesss expertise are crony capitalists slopping at the trough. To minimize corruption & the dead hand of bureaucracy, they should focus only on large scale goals.

Managers take reward without the risk. There are as many bad managers as good managers. What you want is a system that means the bad managers can't cause as much harm. Good managers will still be successful, bad managers won't cause as much damage.

Managers typically don't get the big rewards unless they're principals in the company, in which case they have labor & capital at risk.

Look at the financial crisis for how poor management and large corporations combine to harm society.

The financial crisis was directly caused by governmental incentives for excessively risky behavior. Sure, the fall of the twin towers triggered the down turn but the risk factors were a bipartisan effort over many decades:
- The housing bubble was created by tax subsidies of home ownership, gov subsidies of home loans, gov regulation requiring risky loans, preferential treatment of real estate industries.
- The recovery was hampered by government interfering with loan restructuring, heavily taxing restructured loans, & greatly increased red tape (which wasn't about loan security).

If government hadn't aggressively distorted the real estate market with subsidies & regulations which exacerbated instability, the crash might not have even happened. So I prefer the libertarian way.....government should stay out of the way as much as possible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Socialist libertarianism? Ooh, that's unorthodox, how does that work? Social freedoms with economic restriction and wealth distribution? Isn't that just social liberalism?

There's also anarcho-communists like me who want the State to go away, period, and develop a system of community-based communes that trade with each other.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's also anarcho-communists like me who want the State to go away, period, and develop a system of community-based communes that trade with each other.

You can develop those things even with the state remaining in place in many countries. There's one really big problem with libertarianism.....it isn't likely to ever become a governing system for any country. (I'll ignore little aberrations like Sealand.) All we can practically do is find ways to practice our ways within another system, & influence it in a libertarian direction.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

There's also anarcho-communists like me who want the State to go away, period, and develop a system of community-based communes that trade with each other.

Is that like the Russel Brand-flavour of government (if you know him)? He talks a lot about bringing it down to local communities which work together and finding solutions on a local basis, not centralised power structures someplace else miles away.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is that like the Russel Brand-flavour of government (if you know him)? He talks a lot about bringing it down to local communities which work together and finding solutions on a local basis, not centralised power structures someplace else miles away.

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. It's a form of direct democracy and community based.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. It's a form of direct democracy and community based.

I also am a big fan of localism and bringing more power to local communities to run their own affairs. People are disillusioned with politics often because they feel like what they say or vote for doesn't make a difference, I think one of the best ways to solve this is to genuinely give the people true power through local communities, this will also greatly wound the power of the corporate elite.

I personally don't agree with the "communism" bit, cos at the end of the day there'll always be some people who don't want to give away their vast sums of wealth, and, well, I foresee they will be made to do so by force, which I'm not a big fan of.

And another worry I have with full-localism, with no centralised structure, is the consequences for big industry and technological advancement. If everyone was based in local communities the millions or billions of pounds of funding required for great technological projects just wouldn't be there, would it? I don't think a local community would be able to fund a big engineering or science project, not the kinds of ones that require millions upon millions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I also am a big fan of localism and bringing more power to local communities to run their own affairs. People are disillusioned with politics often because they feel like what they say or vote for doesn't make a difference, I think one of the best ways to solve this is to genuinely give the people true power through local communities, this will also greatly wound the power of the corporate elite.

I personally don't agree with the "communism" bit, cos at the end of the day there'll always be some people who don't want to give away their vast sums of wealth, and, well, I foresee they will be made to do so by force, which I'm not a big fan of.

And another worry I have with full-localism, with no centralised structure, is the consequences for big industry and technological advancement. If everyone was based in local communities the millions or billions of pounds of funding required for great technological projects just wouldn't be there, would it? I don't think a local community would be able to fund a big engineering or science project, not the kinds of ones that require millions upon millions.

Anarcho-communism doesn't support using force to make people do anything. It's all voluntary. If you don't want to take part, you're free to leave to join another community or start your own. It's free association. By the way, it's also not Marxist. Anarco-communists have fought with Marxists many times and were persecuted in the USSR. I'm also inspired by Christian anarchism and Christian communism. My ideal is really what the Book of Acts depicts of the early Christian communities - everyone voluntarily shares what they have.

In communism, there would be no money. Those who wish to pursue scientific and technological research would be free to do so.