Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 12:17:52 GMT -5
Bob, do you disagree with my claim that these are areas where corruption and crony capitalism can happen, or do you disagree with my claim that Libertarians could conceivably engage in corruption and crony capitalism?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 15, 2014 15:26:12 GMT -5
Bob, do you disagree with my claim that these are areas where corruption and crony capitalism can happen, or do you disagree with my claim that Libertarians could conceivably engage in corruption and crony capitalism? The first claim, as I pointed out As for your second claim, ALL politicians are prone to corruption. Libertarian politicians would be subject to the same temptations. My point is that limiting the scope of government, limiting the number of areas where the government is allowed to be involved, would also limit the chances for corruption. Smaller government = less money for politicians to spend = less chance of corruption. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 15, 2014 15:28:26 GMT -5
Just to clarify Bob, I am not talking about ideal Libertarian utopias that may or may not exist in some far flung future, I am talking about a modern government controlled by self-proclaimed Libertarians. And that government would offer less chance for corruption to occur for the simple reason that government would be limited in the number of areas where it could be involved. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2014 6:42:00 GMT -5
Bob, do you disagree with my claim that these are areas where corruption and crony capitalism can happen, or do you disagree with my claim that Libertarians could conceivably engage in corruption and crony capitalism? The first claim, as I pointed out As for your second claim, ALL politicians are prone to corruption. Libertarian politicians would be subject to the same temptations. My point is that limiting the scope of government, limiting the number of areas where the government is allowed to be involved, would also limit the chances for corruption. Smaller government = less money for politicians to spend = less chance of corruption. Bob But there is no indication that slashing social welfare programs or removing taxes for the wealthy will actually result in a "smaller government" to begin with! Why on Earth would a Libertarian government reduce its own budget? They could just as easily direct all that money to things that remain within the purview of libertarian governance, such as an even larger military, a more comprehensive security apparatus, or more money for CIA killer drones and worldwide surveillance by the NSA. Heck, nothing's stopping them from pouring the money into a money sink like a Reagan style "Star Wars" program!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 16, 2014 13:40:39 GMT -5
The first claim, as I pointed out As for your second claim, ALL politicians are prone to corruption. Libertarian politicians would be subject to the same temptations. My point is that limiting the scope of government, limiting the number of areas where the government is allowed to be involved, would also limit the chances for corruption. Smaller government = less money for politicians to spend = less chance of corruption. Bob But there is no indication that slashing social welfare programs or removing taxes for the wealthy will actually result in a "smaller government" to begin with! That's not what I said. A libertarian government would not simply spend less. They would get rid of most government agencies completely. Examples? The Department of Energy was started by President Carter to help America to become energy independent. All they have managed to do is waste many billions of dollars over the last 4 decades. Department of Commerce? Honest private companies don't need government "help." Only cronies do. That would be eliminated, along with all handouts to corporations. There will be no corporate welfare under a Libertarian government. LOL! Because that is the heart of their program! That's what motivates Libertarians. LOL! again. Regan was no Libertarian. The government actually increased under his administration. As for your other comments here, apparently you are not familiar with the Libertarian Party platform. Here it is: The Libertarian defense program is isolationist. No U.S. troops taking part in foreign wars. No support for foreign dictators. The defense budget will decrease with a Libertarian government. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 6:31:07 GMT -5
But there is no indication that slashing social welfare programs or removing taxes for the wealthy will actually result in a "smaller government" to begin with! That's not what I said. A libertarian government would not simply spend less. They would get rid of most government agencies completely. Which to me looks like the perfect opportunity to engage in large scale corruption and cronyism, since they would be trying literally selling off the majority of their assets to private investors. In addition to the problem of handing out monopolies to major corporations while simultaneously cutting down or getting rid of any ability to reign in monopolistic abuses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 6:37:47 GMT -5
Honest private companies don't need government "help." Only cronies do. Cronies such as the Koch brothers, yes. And they could easily pay lip service to that program by getting rid of social benefits for poor people, while at the same time keeping or increasing government handouts to their own supporters and cronies. You know, just like you claim every other political party does.What makes you think that a politician who claims to follow libertarian ideals is fundamentally different? Do they have different brains than the rest of us?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 17, 2014 10:53:25 GMT -5
Honest private companies don't need government "help." Only cronies do. Cronies such as the Koch brothers, yes. Exactly how much are the Koch brothers getting from the government? Yes. That's why I'm not a Republican. Well if they did that, we would have to start a new party, the New Libertarian Party, and start over. However there is less chance of that happening with the Libertarians because once the government has been downsized, there will be fewer opportunities for corruption. Of course they don't have different brains. But they do have different ideals and they will have to put these into action quickly in order to keep their base from rebelling. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 14:22:19 GMT -5
Oh, right. That huge base. Can't have that happening. By the way, what do you think the chances are for Rand Paul being nominated for President in the Republican party? And, also, don't take us for fools. When you implied that Rand is not a Libertarian because he ran as a Republican, how is that not just being cute? You know full well that running as a Libertarian doesn't stand much of a chance as far as being elected is concerned. But calling yourself a Republican instead does make it more likely to be elected. So, does Rhino pertain to Libertarians running as Republicans, too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 14:44:34 GMT -5
Now come on, I was asking Bob about a Libertarian government, so we *have* to suppose a future where a Libertarian party is actually capable of getting a majority vote, no matter how unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 17, 2014 17:48:43 GMT -5
Oh, right. That huge base. Can't have that happening. McAnswer was talking about what happens after a Libertarian government gets elected. Presumably, if they get elected, they would have to have a larger base. Somewhere between zero and none. If you run as a Republican, you have to be at least a little influenced by the rest of the party, don't you? Like I said, if you run as a Republican, you have to support at least part of their platform. That can make you less of a Libertarian. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 13:50:05 GMT -5
However there is less chance of that happening with the Libertarians because once the government has been downsized, there will be fewer opportunities for corruption. You keep saying that, but fail to demonstrate that this is as universally true as you claim it is. Was Yeltsin's Russia less corrupt than Gorbachev's Russia? Is today's China less corrupt than Mao's China? Is Obama's USA more corrupt than the US during the Gilded Age? Is modern Britain more corrupt than under Queen Victoria?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 18, 2014 17:01:01 GMT -5
However there is less chance of that happening with the Libertarians because once the government has been downsized, there will be fewer opportunities for corruption. You keep saying that, but fail to demonstrate that this is as universally true as you claim it is. But I did. It should be self-evident that if government is involved in fewer things, there will be less chance of corruption. You should really be comparing today's Russia to Stalin's Russia. Then the answer is obviously YES! Millions are not being killed and terrorized. People are no longer being arrested for telling jokes (or, for no reason at all). As for comparing today's China, where over 300 million have been lifted out of poverty in the last 3 decades with Mao's China where millions starved and millions more were purged during the "Cultural Revolution", well once again it's no contest. Yes, Russia and China are still tyrannies, but they are nowhere near as terrible as the regimes of Stalin and Mao. The USA during the Gilded Age was nowhere near a major economic crisis the way Obama's America is. Queen Victoria's Britain had a large bureaucracy to manage an Empire. The Empire is gone, but the bureaucracy has not been reduced. Where is the sense in that? Bob
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 18, 2014 17:16:41 GMT -5
Bob, the other day I realized you are your father, only the different side of the same coin. Both of you are idealistic idealogs with the sense of a visionary, a reformer, a utopianist, a romantic. All these are dictionary terms, btw. Others include "one who is unrealistic and impractical". My favorite was "stargazer".
You Are Your Father Bob, no matter how different you think you are. Which is fine by me as when you talk of your father I can't help but think "Swell Guy."
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 18, 2014 21:17:12 GMT -5
Bob, the other day I realized you are your father, only the different side of the same coin. Both of you are idealistic idealogs with the sense of a visionary, a reformer, a utopianist, a romantic. All these are dictionary terms, btw. Others include "one who is unrealistic and impractical". My favorite was "stargazer". You Are Your Father Bob, no matter how different you think you are. Which is fine by me as when you talk of your father I can't help but think "Swell Guy." You're right Joan. He was a swell guy. Everybody loved him, including me. And I don't think I'm different from him. He devoted his whole life to the Party. He was a founding member and stayed with it until the day he died in 1963. All he wanted was a better world for everyone. Until 1968, his vision was my vision. Then I started noticing the dead bodies that were paving the road to that vision. And when I looked closely at the Soviet economy, I saw that it would never surpass the West. "Ideologue?" We all have ideologies, Joan. You included. I had the advantage of shifting from one ideology to another (it took 3 years). That's made me more cautious. One day Joan, we have to have lunch (my treat) and have a nice long talk. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 10:26:17 GMT -5
You keep saying that, but fail to demonstrate that this is as universally true as you claim it is. But I did. It should be self-evident that if government is involved in fewer things, there will be less chance of corruption. Just like it should be "self-evident" that the sun revolves around the earth, right? I mean you can see the sun moving on the sky, surely only a madman would conclude otherwise! But I'm not. I am putting into contrast two regimes where one has a government significantly less involved in economic affairs than the other. And I am asking you to demonstrate how the former is less corrupt than the latter. Your entire talk about Stalin is a red herring to that question. Still a red herring. We were talking about government corruption, were we not? *lol* Are you serious? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893A bureaucracy that was committed to laissez fair capitalism, to the point where they refused to send government aid to Ireland during the potato famine because that would distort food market prices. What matters is that neither the US nor the UK had a comprehensive social welfare system in the mid 19th century. By your own standards that makes 19th century US and UK governments "smaller" than their modern counterparts. So by your earlier statements, it should be easy to conclude that the 19th century had much less corruption than the 21st. Right?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 19, 2014 15:11:19 GMT -5
But I did. It should be self-evident that if government is involved in fewer things, there will be less chance of corruption. Just like it should be "self-evident" that the sun revolves around the earth, right? I mean you can see the sun moving on the sky, surely only a madman would conclude otherwise! Fair enough. But there is evidence to disprove that the Sun revolves around the Earth. What evidence do you have to show that smaller governments have more chances to be corrupt? More later. Bob
|
|
|
Post by teri on Feb 19, 2014 16:02:03 GMT -5
if libertarianism is so ideal, why is there NOT ONE NATION that has successfully governed under libertarian ideals??
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 19, 2014 16:05:25 GMT -5
But I'm not. I am putting into contrast two regimes where one has a government significantly less involved in economic affairs than the other. And I am asking you to demonstrate how the former is less corrupt than the latter. Your entire talk about Stalin is a red herring to that question. But you haven't demonstrated that the Russian government is less involved. Here is evidence to the contrary: In any event, we were talking about a Libertarian government. No Russian government so far can even be remotely described as Libertarian. Or are you claiming otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 19, 2014 18:52:13 GMT -5
if libertarianism is so ideal, why is there NOT ONE NATION that has successfully governed under libertarian ideals?? Teri, we've been over this before. As nations move closer to free markets, they become more prosperous. We have two huge examples in the last 40 years, India and China. Neither one of them moved completely towards a free market, but they made partial moves. 100 million people in India and 300 million in China were raised out of poverty since then, and China now has the second largest economy in the world. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 12:12:01 GMT -5
But I'm not. I am putting into contrast two regimes where one has a government significantly less involved in economic affairs than the other. And I am asking you to demonstrate how the former is less corrupt than the latter. Your entire talk about Stalin is a red herring to that question. But you haven't demonstrated that the Russian government is less involved. Sorry, I meant to be talking about Yeltsin's Russia. Putin's government is indeed much more involved in the economy than Yeltsins's (if only because of Gazprom).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 12:27:12 GMT -5
cont'd
So in your eyes, a transformation from a socialist economy to a free market economy does not qualify as reducing the size or scope of government?
Is that what you are claiming here? That the post-communist governments of China or Russia are no smaller than when it was running a socialist economy?
If they were truly a libertarian government, then they would refuse to help the starving Irish workers because that would be "government intervention". And guess what they did?
You tell me Bob. Are overseas territories incompatible with Libertarianism, in your eyes? Should the US give up Samoa, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands?
By what standard? How many scandals on the scale of Credit Mobilier have been happening in the last decade or so? And it's easy to waste more money than in the 19th century when the economy is several dozen times the size it used to be in those times.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 20, 2014 20:48:27 GMT -5
But you haven't demonstrated that the Russian government is less involved. Sorry, I meant to be talking about Yeltsin's Russia. Putin's government is indeed much more involved in the economy than Yeltsins's (if only because of Gazprom). Not a good comparison. Yeltsin's Russia existed at a chaotic time of transformation. The situations were not equivalent. For a valid comparison, you have to use countries that were reasonably stable. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 20, 2014 21:55:59 GMT -5
cont'd So in your eyes, a transformation from a socialist economy to a free market economy does not qualify as reducing the size or scope of government? China made free market reforms but they are not a free market economy. Yelstin's Russia only lasted 10 chaotic years during which powerful Party members managed to steal most of the valuable companies. How is that a free market? Do you have any evidence that either government is smaller now? Let's see. You are saying 1) A libertarian government would refuse to help (I dispute that, but we will let it go for now). 2) The British government refused to help. Therefore... 3) The British government was libertarian. By the same logic a) All cats are animals. b) All horses are animals. Therefore... c) All cats are horses. Of course a Libertarian government would be there to help with disasters and emergencies. That is one of the legitimate functions of government. As a matter of fact, the same blight that hit Ireland also hit Scotland at the same time. Why was there no Scottish Famine? Because the British government intervened! It turns out that the Irish Famine was deliberate genocide on the part of the British government, a genocide based on racism. www.irishcentral.com/news/proving-the-irish-famine-was-genocide-by-the-british-tim-pat-coogan-moves-famine-history-unto-a-new-plane-181984471-238161151.htmlwww.globalresearch.ca/the-great-irish-famine-was-genocide/18156Overseas territories are not colonies. In the case of Puerto Rico, there have been several votes. The choices were independence, statehood, and remaining a territory. The citizens of Puerto Rico chose remaining a territory every time. Simple math, actually. Well let's see. There was the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980's. Of course there was the housing bubble crisis of 2008. That actually was several crises involving most of the major banks in the country and the quasi government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That one alone makes Credit Mobilier look like a piker. Please note that all of these crises only happened as a direct result of government involvement. Had the U.S. government in the 1800's been truly Libertarian, government involvement would have been prohibited by law and that particular crisis would never have happened. And that is the key here. With a Libertarian government, government interference in the economy would be prohibited BY LAW. What sense would it make then to bribe a government official if that official is forbidden to act? LOL! So you concede that there is more corruption now than then, right? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 21:58:59 GMT -5
And all Congressmen are crooks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 4:30:59 GMT -5
There is no such thing as no government interference. That is flat out impossible if you want to have any government at all. Governments need infrastructure and staff, militaries need infrastructure, personnel and equipment, regulative agencies need experts and informers. The best you can get is to disallow a small subset of economic interaction, which will get promptly ignored at every opportunity - because as a large company, there is no incentive *not* to lobby a government to act on your behalf, and as a government, there is no incentive *not* to make at least a token effort to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 4:34:11 GMT -5
Let's see. You are saying 1) A libertarian government would refuse to help (I dispute that, but we will let it go for now). 2) The British government refused to help. Therefore... 3) The British government was libertarian. No, I am saying that the British goverment refused to help based on their libertarian ideology. Ever heard of Manchester Liberalism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_liberalism
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 21, 2014 21:36:36 GMT -5
Let's see. You are saying 1) A libertarian government would refuse to help (I dispute that, but we will let it go for now). 2) The British government refused to help. Therefore... 3) The British government was libertarian. No, I am saying that the British goverment refused to help based on their libertarian ideology. Ever heard of Manchester Liberalism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_liberalismAnd I'm saying that they refused to help because of anti-catholic and anti Irish bias. Remember that Scotland also had a blight at the same time and the British government did provide aid there. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 21, 2014 21:55:13 GMT -5
There is no such thing as no government interference. That is flat out impossible if you want to have any government at all. Governments need infrastructure and staff... And that infrastructure can be greatly reduced. For example, do you really think the USA needs a Department of Commerce, which only exists to hand out corporate welfare? Come on McAnswer, do you really believe the U.S. military needs to be so big? A Libertarian government would give up the American Empire and bring the troops home. A military limited to defense would be much smaller. And where do these "experts" come from? They come from the industry being regulated. And after they retire from government work, these experts go right back to that same industry. Only now they are armed with contacts in that "regulatory" agency, information about how that agency works, and knowledge of how to get around the regulations. Do you really think those agencies do a good job? Bernie Madoff got away with his Ponzi scheme for almost 2 decades in spite of the fact that several people during that time reported what he was doing. No. The only thing you have to outlaw is force and fraud. If you do that, then there is nothing to lobby for. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 22:56:33 GMT -5
A couple (or more) of questions:
1) Would Libertarians be happier if each 50 U.S. state became an independent country? Why or why not?:
2) Would Libertains be happier if disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. had no relief from Fema or anything else except for the states impacted covering themselves?
3) What should be the relationship between states?
|
|