How Can I be a Libertarian if...

Libertarianism is a collection of political philosophies possessing the common themes of individual liberty. Libertarianism's ideals, although often varied in detail, typically center on policies in favor of extensive personal liberties, rejecting compulsory socialism and communism in favor of individual ownership and control or voluntary collectivism, promoting personal responsibility and private charity and opposing welfare statism, and advocating either limiting or entirely eliminating the power and scope of the state in order to maximize individual liberty.

Click to expand...

Link to Wiki... I favor small government with less control over my social life AND financial life. Hence Libertarian (in the true definition of the word - probably not today's Libertarian party). Granted, it's not going to happen any time soon, but what would happen if certain philisophically Liberal and Conservative programs were eliminated? What would happen if the government didn't have any control over: *The Post Office - this one's easy... *Unemployment Compensation - What would happen when we lose our jobs and didn't have the money to pay bills? *Abortion fully legal? *Legal drug use *Medicare / Medicaid *Social Security *No government involvement in healthcare *Environmental concerns *Weapons

Why do you feel that environmental concerns would not be addressed under a Libertarian (vs. anarchy) government. As far as I know, Libertarians believe in standard economics, so they would want to control negative externalities in a reasonable and non-invasive way, would they not?

SS and unemployment are easy: people would save for emergencies and/or retirement, or be supported by family/charity, or die.

Drugs, again, pretty easy IMO. The power of street gangs, organized crime, etc. would drop drastically, as they would no longer have the money drug sales provide to fund their life style. Jails would have much more room, as mere drug charges would not overcrowd our jails.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

Why do you feel that environmental concerns would not be addressed under a Libertarian (vs. anarchy) government. As far as I know, Libertarians believe in standard economics, so they would want to control negative externalities in a reasonable and non-invasive way, would they not?

True. But I think the current stance in politics is that environmental controls are largely associated with Liberals and hurtful to capitalism and the economy. I don't fully agree but that seems to be the current view nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

SS and unemployment are easy: people would save for emergencies and/or retirement, or be supported by family/charity, or die.

What if someone had REALLY bad luck. A medical emergency which costs them their savings and then something else drastic happens which they would be financially unprepared. I assume that private charity (family, whomever) would really be the final place to go for financial help? Is that really more effective than a governmental safety net?

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

Drugs, again, pretty easy IMO. The power of street gangs, organized crime, etc. would drop drastically, as they would no longer have the money drug sales provide to fund their life style. Jails would have much more room, as mere drug charges would not overcrowd our jails.

But that leads to the question of Healthcare. Who would pay if the government wasn't involved in Healthcare (drug addict / drug related problems) or does the Gov ALWAYS have to be involved in some capacity in Healthcare?

Originally Posted by Tck13

Click to expand...

What if someone had REALLY bad luck. A medical emergency which costs them their savings and then something else drastic happens which they would be financially unprepared. I assume that private charity (family, whomever) would really be the final place to go for financial help? Is that really more effective than a governmental safety net?

Hey, whoa. Your OP had nothing about "more effective" in it. You just asked, "What would happen if..."

Further, do not think in a vacuum. There will be some huge shifts in demand and payments if all these other government programs went away, like Medicare and Medicaid. Those two groups utilize an extremely high rates vs. the rest of the population. Change the utilization pattern of those two groups and you will have a huge ripple effect in the whole system.

Why dont you ask Ron Paul?

Just kidding, I'm a kind of a libertarian since I study economy and my school is heavily influenced by the Australian School of Economy.

You take a first course that implies that humans are racional and therefore they would think about the future. This implies saving money for things such as medical care, unemployment etc... Where does this money comes from? From the money you save not paying high taxes

I'm not sure why you think a libertarian government would legalize abortion. Remember that governments are instituted among men to secure inalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

It seems that at various times in our history we've had some very twisted ideas of how these rights should interact with each other: for example, that somehow property trumps liberty-- that one human being can own another. Well, I think we all know that that's wrong today. Laws against slavery do not offend libertarianism. Laws against abortion are no different.

Originally Posted by Gio

Click to expand...

Just kidding, I'm a kind of a libertarian since I study economy and my school is heavily influenced by the Australian School of Economy.

Oh, those Aussies and their wacky economic theories...
Clue: think more schnitzel and less vegemite.

Originally Posted by Tck13

Click to expand...

What if someone had REALLY bad luck.
I think Piobaire adressed that. It falls under the ", or die" category.

Also you can expect with a reasonable certainty rapidly soaring mortality rate (especially infant morality, I think). Most libertarians would have no problem with that as long as the increased risks and decreased investment in healthcare are consciously chosen by rational individuals.

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

I think Piobaire adressed that. It falls under the ", or die" category.

Also you can expect with a reasonable certainty rapidly soaring mortality rate (especially infant morality, I think). Most libertarians would have no problem with that as long as the increased risks and decreased investment in healthcare are consciously chosen by rational individuals.

I don't follow you? Are you saying the mortality rate would go up or down with less government?

Originally Posted by Tck13

Click to expand...

I don't follow you? Are you saying the mortality rate would go up or down with less government?
Up. Seems pretty inevitable. But for libertarians that's not necessarily a bad thing if it is the consequence of individuals having more freedom (including freedom to make bad choices).

Originally Posted by Gio

Click to expand...

Just kidding, I'm a kind of a libertarian since I study economy and my school is heavily influenced by the Australian School of Economy.

Hm. Either I have something new to learn, or you need to hit the books a little bit harder. I have heard of the Austrian school of economics, e.g. Hayek, von Mises. What is the Australian school?

Nvm...

I agree with most of piobaire's points.

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

Also you can expect with a reasonable certainty rapidly soaring mortality rate (especially infant morality, I think). Most libertarians would have no problem with that as long as the increased risks and decreased investment in healthcare are consciously chosen by rational individuals.

I've been pondering this for a few days. I am not sure if there would be all that great a jump in infant mortality, in the US anyways. Many inner cities already have rates equal to or above third world countries. Charity would pick up the ball for a certain number of folks, and those would tend to be the folks that would have availed themselves of the free pre-natal care anyways most likely. When doing time in inner city clinics, I always found it amazing people would not get any attention until the showed up at a hospital ready to birth.

Most working class (or higher) women would have family/social support as well as private insurance, so no affects there.

Just rambling. It's all supposition but I'd not jump to your conclusion without a little more investigation. I am not saying there will not be some major deaths in the elderly invalid area though. Suddenly, 90 year old dad, totally demented and bed bound, is not gonna get a PEG, for instance, in the vast majority of cases. Hospice would certainly see a boom in their marketplace.

Originally Posted by Gio

Click to expand...

You take a first course that implies that humans are racional and therefore they would think about the future.

Ah yes, the fundamental fallacy of almost every form of economics.

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the fundamental fallacy of almost every form of economics.


What little I've read about Austrian Economics is that it's focused on the Consumer as opposed on the bottom line which, as you say, is quite the fallacy of economics.

I'd like to learn more about it but I can't find any decent books.