Your political ideology

[Duskofdead]

This is the real world, not a college polysci course. We've had rights for property owners only before, it's called Feudalism.

Read the debate before you go trying to take the high road.

I read it and responded several times. At least Communism sounds good on paper, Libertarianism doesn't. It sounds like rich people who own a lot of stuff not wanting to have to pay taxes, support public services, or follow any regulations. At least that is what it would be in real world implementation. Besides a philosophical chat at Starbucks I don't see anything you've said about it that would be an actually good thing if put into practice.

[sunnyside]

Still though I often think of the results of Libertarianism as economic feudalism. At the top you have the "kings" of commerce, those who wind up owning everything. It could possibly be that you get a single person who owns everything (once you own most things predatory business practices like cutting power, denying access to roads, and so on should get you the rest). It could also be that you get Kings of certain industries or of physical locations and no one is powerful enough to topple the others.

At any rate under them you'd have Lords who are responsible for running the actual companies owned by the monopolists.

At the bottom you have the serfs (renters). There is very likely work for all of them, but control of the industry means wages will tend to be low, and since they don't own land their rights are questionable at best.

In between would be people equivalent to the artisans and such. With skills valuable enough that competition might actually apply, and since they may be able to actually own land they get rights. Though if they're better off than if they were in a non-Libertarain society is questionable.

---------------------------------------------------

The thing about what can be provided by a non Libertarian society is that in any situation that Libertarianism could take hold there would already have to be enough people backing it that you could simply have a standard American political party like the Democrats or Republicans that backs those positions. Or rather the Democrats and Republicans would probably modify themselves to accomodate it. (Either by changing their position or letting the law pass and focusing on the next thing).

They don't now because that isn't what most people want at the moment.


-----------------------------------------------------

Finally we're still waiting on your explanation of what you think will happen to the lower classes under Libertarianism.

And I will mock you if you don't address why the countries with the lowest corporate taxes, often a third or less of what the US charges, still have to have minimum wage laws, and have to change the law periodically to raise it.

[sunnyside]

Actually I'm curious what you think so I'll retract the mocking thing. Still I think it's real world evidence that the typical libertarian stance of lower corp taxes =more jobs=competition=higher wages for all doesn't actually work in reality.

[Teaos]

I read it and responded several times. At least Communism sounds good on paper, Libertarianism doesn't. It sounds like rich people who own a lot of stuff not wanting to have to pay taxes, support public services, or follow any regulations.

Either you didnt read or you are confusing the US model of Libertarianism and the Europian one.

Police, justice, military, some utilities, limited government over sight of other areas (depends on who ask).

You examples of what will happen under Libertarianism is so mind boggling extreme I dont even really wont to respond to them.

Everything ends up being owned by one guy and all the poor and dying on the street? Why didnt you just say the world explodes. At least thats a cool visual.


You say one guy will end up owning the roads and water and I woundn't be suprised if you think he'll end owning the air somehow. I'm not familiar with the verison of it that you seem to think will destroy the world but I'll give you a few examples

Things like roads and water maybe power depending on the system used are owned by the local community.

Example: A new housing development is being built, the firm/person/whatever who is building it is responcible for adding all these utilities. Then when you buy your house you also buy your equivilant share in the local utiltes. If you choose not to use one of those utitities you dont pay for it. When it needs maintence it gets added to your bill.

Esentially the power company rents the right to use cables ect from you. Thus they can't cut you off since you can just go to the other guy.

Besides a philosophical chat at Starbucks I don't see anything you've said about it that would be an actually good thing if put into practice.

Again define "good"? It will be good for some not so good for others. The big advantage is in my opinion is that it gives everyone freedom over their selves. I'm by no means rich. I'm middle class so I dont stand to gain huge amounts by this. I just believe everyone has the right to control their own lives and money and not be controlled.

Still though I often think of the results of Libertarianism as economic feudalism. At the top you have the "kings" of commerce, those who wind up owning everything. It could possibly be that you get a single person who owns everything (once you own most things predatory business practices like cutting power, denying access to roads, and so on should get you the rest). It could also be that you get Kings of certain industries or of physical locations and no one is powerful enough to topple the others.

Again this is just not true. Its not anachy and there are still rules and laws. Just not nearly as many.

The thing about what can be provided by a non Libertarian society is that in any situation that Libertarianism could take hold there would already have to be enough people backing it that you could simply have a standard American political party like the Democrats or Republicans that backs those positions.

The advantage is that rule by majority is not a good thing. So what if 60% of people dont think you should be able to be gay, do drugs, spank your children. 40% of people are thus turned into criminals because of this.

It gives individual rights that are crushed in rule by majority states.

Finally we're still waiting on your explanation of what you think will happen to the lower classes under Libertarianism.

I gave you my explanation. More freedom creates more jobs and more money. Sure they may have to work a bit harder to reach the top if they start at the bottom but sine when had hard work ever been a bad thing.

Under Libertarianism NO ONE should be with out a job unless they are truly physically unable to work in anyway. The number of people who falls under this catagory are far smaller than the number on welfare (here at least). Those whp cant work can easily be supported by charity.



As for your question about low corprate tax rates. Give me some examples please. I am by no means an expert but I'll look at what you want. I'm a jeweller who has seen and read enough about politics to form an opinion. I have come to my own conclusions.

But one example I am always given by people who appose privatisation is back about 20 years ago our country tried to go to private health care.

But thats all they did. They got up one day and said "You now all have to pay for yourselves" no warning, no weaning them off public health care. These things take time. Even if I was thrown in power and had the majority so could bring in all these things in I wouldnt. not right away. People need education and time to adjust.

Its like me giving you a steering wheel a gear stick and 2 wheels and telling you to build a car.

[sunnyside]

I just have a moment.

On monopolies why do you think they wouldn't form? In many cases a monopoly is "natural" (it gets cheaper to make something the more volume a factory is designed to handle). and in almost all cases the ability to join and dictate price is worth it. Why do you think companies wouldn't naturally merge, and, if the best moves in the market involve merging, why do you think it wouldn't result in massive consolidation of power?

On the corp rate. I'm refereing to countries like Ireland, Cyperus and Hungary. They've got the lowest (particularily Ireland) corporate tax rates around. Irelands being less than a third of the US rate.

They are also small enough economies to actually have extra investment flow in and make a big impact.

And it seems that's working, businesses do like to go to these places, they have high foriegn investment rates.

However it would seem all are experiencing the same sorts of minimum wage battles that other countries are. Indicating that the free market isn't raising wages on its own.

[Teaos]

On monopolies why do you think they wouldn't form?

I never said they wouldnt form. I say that monopolys and monopsonies are not by themselves bad things. Hell a few big companies controlling all of one industry. How is that very different to what we have now in things like power and telecomunications? Big offers security and stability, granted a few big companies is better than just one big company that way you get competition. Also if they got rally oppresive people would rebel against them. They would go to a competitior and the big guy would lose business. Its happening right now to mircosoft. People are getting feed up with their inferior product and are moving to others even though Microsoft is perhaps the best example of a monopoly.

On the corp rate. I'm refereing to countries like Ireland, Cyperus and Hungary. They've got the lowest (particularily Ireland) corporate tax rates around. Irelands being less than a third of the US rate.

I'll get back to you this tomorrow as it is after 1am here now. but I will say that giving Hungry as an example of how it doesnt work is hardly a fair test.

[sunnyside]

even though Microsoft is perhaps the best example of a monopoly.

No, Microsoft is an example of a company that wanted to be a monopoly but got violated by anti trust laws. They we're starting to try and do stuff like deliberatly making it so Netscape and things didn't work well on their OS, among other practices. In a deregulated Libertarian enviroment that would have been fair play. What would get more exciting would be the Microsoft/AOL/Verizon/Cisco merger that might happen where suddenly you have to use MS products to access the internet at all.

I never said they wouldnt form. I say that monopolys and monopsonies are not by themselves bad things.

Also if they got rally oppresive people would rebel against them. They would go to a competitior

That last bit makes me think you've missed the point on what a monopoly is. Now is something like software you can get competitors cooking stuff up in their garage (currently with MS being bent over for court rulings).

However for something like power it's quite possible to get a true monopoly at least regionally (through control of the sub stations) and you either get the juice or you don't. That's also the earlier example on water access. Not that you wouldn't own some of the pipes. But you the treatment plants would still be private and they have the right to shut access to you or a meddlesome upstart company if need be.

Right now it isn't such a problem as if the electric company wanted to cut power to someone just because they were resisting a buyout the fed would step in.

I'll get back to you this tomorrow as it is after 1am here now. but I will say that giving Hungry as an example of how it doesnt work is hardly a fair test.

Well I think you can take your pick. The "low corp tax rate does nothing to alleviate the need for a minimum wage" thing does not seem to be isolated and seems to be the case anywhere you care to look.

[Duskofdead]

People are getting feed up with their inferior product and are moving to others even though Microsoft is perhaps the best example of a monopoly.

Dude if something's a monopoly you don't have a CHOICE, that's the whole point of a monopoly. The gas companies doubling the cost of gas since Bush has been in office in the U.S. is an example. And no matter how much it goes up, we have to pay it, because we don't have an alternative. (A few super powerful companies cooperating in controlling artificial price spikings when they are the sole distributors of a good with inelastic demand is still basically a monopoly, they're just sharing being a monopoly basically.)