- Moderator
- #351
Your first point is not a very strong one. Of coarse people are going to be more concerned with policy that affects them personally, would you expect any different?
Yes, of course I would.
People that insist that there should be some form of government intervention that doesn't allow the lower class individuals to have the same freedoms as the upper-class is not a very libertarian position to take. I'm not sure you could even identify as a libertarian if you take this sort of position.
To a Liberal the Government only exists to intervene. Otherwise it shouldnt even exist.
We recognise that we need a State to protect individual liberty (in a stateless anarchy, it would be every man for himself, and the big fish always wins... at the expense of the weak and poor). The correct question to a liberal is not 'how big should government be' but 'what are the limits for the legitimate exersize of State power'
For a liberal, the State can only act (i.e make laws) when those laws are reasonably necessary to protect individuals from unreasonable harm from others (and those laws are proportionate to that harm). In fact; to a liberal, the State has an obligation to act in those circumstances.
A law prohibiting murder fits in this category, as does a law prohibiting unfair trade practices (cartels, monopolies, misleading cobduct) or road laws. Anti discrimination laws also fit in this category. Under the right circumstances, even a law requiring conscription can fall into this category.
Libertarians (traditionally) focus on the size of government. To a liberal, size is not a relevant concern. The Goverment can be as big or as small as it needs to be in order to fulfil its role in protecting me from unreasonable harm from others.
I'm also sure that libertarians are not 'pro big business.'
Not explicitly no. But the impact of allowing big buisiness total freedom from any regulations allows for cartels, monopolies, pollution, unscrupulous trade practices, tax avoidance, misleading conduct, sweat shops, removal of OH+S, harmfull products and so forth is huge. Who suffers from deregulation? The people in the sweat shops, the people working in unsafe conditions, the consumers, and the small guys.
A multi billion dollar multinational company is not the same thing as Joe your local baker.
Also; libertarianism is almost aways a position held by those with conservative or right wing views. That isnt by coincidence.
I'm sure there is a saying about buying a congressman is the best investment a Corporation can make... this is due to the fact that monopolisation and mass exploitation would be impossible without government intervention. Governments are virtually put in place by these big corporations, so what are they going to do, stop themselves from exploiting people?
No, governments are put in place by the people. The conservative parties of days past were represented by wealthy industrialists and land owners. It was the rise of the Labor movement (organised people power - and the one man one vote rule) that pushed the wealthy back from their position of influence. The workers in those 18th century London factories working 7 day weeks, 12 hour days, in abhorrent conditions, mobilised in opposition. Having money is a fantastic thing that lets you buy laws and favor. But when the system rewards numbers as well, organised labor and political movements can bring evern the wealthiest person to their knees.
Even today most two party western States are organised along the same lines; a Labor movement on one side (people power and pro the lower class and minorities), and a White collar party with corporate and buisiness intrests on the other.
Of course the wealthy figured this out. So they've managed to convince a lot of punters to buy into the s**t they sell. Global warming being a hoax, the brown people are out to get us, one day you'll also have a billion bucks and a place at the big boys table, more guns leads to less gun deaths and a host of other total bullshit stories to get a bloc of people voting for the wealthy peoples interests, and against their own.
Its hillarious to watch.
The libertarian view is that this accumulation of power should not exist and would not if the government was small and its only function was to uphold the laws and constitutions.
No mate; thats the opposite of the libertatian view. .
Seriously. Its like saying murders and theft would stop if government scrapped the Criminal code and the police force. Government would be a lot smaller if they did so, but quite the opposite would happen with respect to murders and theft.
As far as the state being there to protect the liberty and freedom of all its citizens, that is the exact libertarian view on what a government should be doing.
Again; you're wrong on this. Libertarians only believe in one form of liberty - negative liberty ('freedom from') - and not positive liberty ('freedom to'). Negative liberty is the State ensuring freedom by not acting and letting the dice fall where they may. Positive liberty is the recognition that in not acting, the State is sometimes taking freedoms away.
An example is that a libertarian would be opposed to the government making laws to harm disabled people (a law requiring sterilisation for example) but would be equally opposed to the State passing a law requiring wheelchair ramps to help disabled people access essential services. The latter is the State imposing unecessary regulations. It runs contrary to libertarianism.
A liberal on the other hand would be opposed to the first law, but would support the second law. A liberal recognises that in the State not acting (requiring the construction of wheelchair access) in the second example, they are not protecting the disabled person from harm from others. While you and I can access essential services, the disabled person cannot. We are both equally 'free' but the disabled person suffers from a totally different form of tyranny. Its a reasonable (and proportionate) law in response to this lack of freedom.
Look, I urge you to google postive vs negative liberty for an understanding of the topic in detail.