What draws you to libertarianism?

[SIZE=11pt]Shoe[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Your stance doesn’t really make sense many if not most regulations are about trying to limit or prevent harm, to try and limit the possibility of bad things happening. And around regulation their has to be research and monitoring.[/SIZE]
Let’s take an example – fire safety.

There are many regulations surrounding this covering many different aspects, it involves the design, (easy of exit, available or built in fire suppressant mechanisms etc etc) the material used (how resistant to fire are materials etc) contingency planning (a plans to keep people safe) all backed up with regular inspection and monitoring (from building inspectors, fire officers, health and safety officials, research and development teams etc etc).

In the workplace these type of regulations were long fought for by workers and unions in opposition to employees that often argued that it cut down on profits and damaged Entrepreneurship.

Here is an example from before regulation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

This is a well know case in workers history in the US a large fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory where 146 workers died because the owners had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits – a then-common practice to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks and to reduce theft.

Now there is a belief amongst some right wing libertarians that tout can be used to replace regulation that the fear of being sued after an event would keep businesses in line.

But it has to be remembered that in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory the owners got off and while the victims did win compensation to the amount of $75 per deceased victim, the insurance company paid the owners about $60,000 more than the reported losses, or about $400 per casualty.

 

In the UK we have just found out what years of not properly regulating and not properly inspecting can do.

A tower block inferno that has killed more than 80 people.

Oh yes right wing libertrain neo-liberalism in action.

 

I like a lot of the broad stroke ideas of Libertarianism. I don't necessarily consider myself a Libertarian--though I have supported both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the past--and I catch a lot of flak from people who do consider themselves Libertarian for what I'm about to say next: That it's archaic and needs to be overhauled to work in the 21st century.

Perhaps it's because the Libertarians have never held much power here in the US, and, therefore, have never been in a position to grow and evolve, but a lot of ideals work great for a 19th century agrarian country of self-sustaining farmers. Unfortunately, that's just not the world anymore.

But a small government who is out of our pockets, our bedrooms, our vaginas and our vices is appealing.

A free market regulated by consumers instead of the federal government is also appealing, as is a throttling back of our foreign policy.

I believe in individual liberty, economic liberty, a live-and-let-live approach and a central government that exists to print money, provide a national defense, etc. and not one that attempts to legislate our daily lives.

 

Queen

There are lots of different types of libertarianism running the spectrum from left to right

That is right wing libertarianism.

I don’t care about ‘small’ government or ‘big’ government I want good governance that is about working in the best interests of everyone and helping them to fulfil their potential so they can contribute to society.

Out of pocket I can understand right wing libertarians are always wanting tax cuts that virtually always favour wealth but can you explain what you mean by ‘our bedrooms, our vaginas and our vices’

Is bedrooms a reference to discrimination associated with sexuality? If so it has to be remembered that the left has been the main ones pushing against discrimination and for the rights of say homosexual (along with others) the opposition coming mainly from the right the right wing conservatives and the religious right.

The thing is that having talked to many right wing libertarians there stance seems to be of not caring, they don’t care if people are homosexual but at the same time they are not that interested in pushing against discrimination for example some I talked to think people should be allowed not to employ or let into the businesses those they dislike such as gay or black people.

To me it is a choice do you champion the liberty the freedom of the bigot or the freedom of the victim of discrimination?

As I’ve Said I’m not sure what you mean by ‘our vaginas’ (and I don’t have one) but to me one of the things that is important to gaining the agenda I talk about above is universal healthcare for everyone paid for by everyone paying into a community chest. I’ve talked to many right wing libertarians that wish for a healthcare system based on the ability to pay so that the poorest would end up with little or no healthcare (and no public funds for family planning or abortions).

You will have to explain what you mean by ‘vices’ but having talked to other right wing libertarians, they have brought up things about restrictions on smoking and proposals to limit sugar in some processed drinks and foods – to me they are health issues and I side with trying to make people healthier rather than with making more profits for big companies.

This depends on people having the time, inclination and above all knowledge to make objective, appropriate and rational decisions and as is obvious too often people can be bamboozled or out and out lied to bringing about ‘bad’ outcomes.

And the problem with a free market is there never has been one and there never could be one wealth always gains from it at the beginning of the process and manipulates it to serve its interests to the detriment of everyone else.

Sorry but that is just a series of slogans

I mean who says they are opposed to individual liberty, the question is what do you mean by it and how would it work.

As to economic liberty what does that mean in an economic unequal society those with more wealth would have more economic freedom that some that didn’t for example a rich person has the freedom not to work without ill effect while someone lower down the scale doesn’t have that freedom without suffering hardship. I’ve meet right wing libertarians that have basically said that economic freedom is the freedom of the poor to die of want.

The thing about a live-and-let-live approach that is based on not causing suffering to others is how far does it go few people would want to cause direct suffering to another person but how about causing indirect suffering say if you vote for tax cuts or healthcare cuts that you know will cause people suffering (possibly even death) is that alright?

What is the etc it could cover anything - universal healthcare, a well-funded benefits system and a lot more.

But our normal and health daily lives often only carry on because of laws and regulations that are in place to help us live normal and healthy lives. From the food you have for breakfast to the transportation you take to work and that workplace even down to the drink you have with friends afterwards.