The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Libertarianism: If Not Now, Then When? (Guest Voice)

Re: Libertarianism: If Not Now, Then When? (Guest Voice)

Jim_Satterfield — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:32:48 -0000

And in actual answer to the title of the article...Never, thankfully.

Re: Libertarianism: If Not Now, Then When? (Guest Voice)

Jim_Satterfield — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:32:48 -0000

And in actual answer to the title of the article...Never, thankfully.

Re: Libertarianism: If Not Now, Then When? (Guest Voice)

GreenDreams — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:15:05 -0000

heheh. good snark Jim. Those who think the "free markets, free people" mantra sounds great should look to the history of countries that tried it (including our own). Milton Friedman and his best buddy Don Rumsfeld (yes, closest of friends) got to impose it just as they wanted to, via Rumsfeld&#39s best buddy (yes, closest of friends) General Pinochet, in Chile. Just as now, when the policies (privatize, deregulate, cut social spending) crashed the Chilean economy, Pinochet (urged on by Rumsfeld) agreed to "go further". More misery resulted. The only thing that saved Chile was Pinochet&#39s refusal to privatize the biggest state industry, copper mining. By the time the free marketeers were done, it was the only income left to that devastated country. Pinochet was chased out of town and the country has recovered, not because of "free market" reforms, but by ending them.

We need some sort of hybrid system. Much as the rightists want "no restraints" and "personal responsibility" to be our rule of law, this "you&#39re on your own" system won&#39t work in compassionate America. We just aren&#39t going to let grandma eat cat food because she was careless in her financial planning, or let sick and injured Americans die because they couldn&#39t afford insurance. Reaganomics is dead. It failed.

Miserably.

Re: Libertarianism: If Not Now, Then When? (Guest Voice)

Jim_Satterfield — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:06:21 -0000

[snark]Absolutely. In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression we must destroy all social programs and let the corporation run free of any restraints. [/snark]

Re: Libertarianism: If Not Now, Then When? (Guest Voice)

JSpencer — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:08:21 -0000

It&#39s easy to understand why libertarianism is appealing to some folks, I mean it&#39s all about "freedom", casting off the restraints of regulation, doing away with the "nanny state", etc. right? To me it&#39s always had too much of the "law of the jungle" at it&#39s core. When we look at how easily people are able to subvert the existing system, to make it accomodate their needs (especially people of power and wealth) at the expense of others, then I think we&#39re already sufficiently close to that primitive code of conduct. Why would we want more of it?

Re: Libertarianism: If Not Now, Then When? (Guest Voice)

GreenDreams — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:15:05 -0000

We need some sort of hybrid system. Much as the rightists want "no restraints" and "personal responsibility" to be our rule of law, this "you're on your own" system won't work in compassionate America. We just aren't going to let grandma eat cat food because she was careless in her financial planning, or let sick and injured Americans die because they couldn't afford insurance. Reaganomics is dead. It failed.

Miserably.

Re: Libertarianism: If Not Now, Then When? (Guest Voice)

Jim_Satterfield — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:06:21 -0000

[snark]Absolutely. In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression we must destroy all social programs and let the corporation run free of any restraints. [/snark]

Re: Libertarianism: If Not Now, Then When? (Guest Voice)

JSpencer — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:08:21 -0000

It's easy to understand why libertarianism is appealing to some folks, I mean it's all about "freedom", casting off the restraints of regulation, doing away with the "nanny state", etc. right? To me it's always had too much of the "law of the jungle" at it's core. When we look at how easily people are able to subvert the existing system, to make it accomodate their needs (especially people of power and wealth) at the expense of others, then I think we're already sufficiently close to that primitive code of conduct. Why would we want more of it?