The debate "Liberitarians should vote democratic. a regulated economy is more free than a crony economy" was started by
March 9, 2018, 5:01 am.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 34 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 12 arguments to the agreers part.
lachlan2 posted 7 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, Matthew354 posted 2 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, historybuff, Against_eu and 12 visitors agree.
chemikilsm0ke, bruh352, Keto, lachlan2, chickboy1776, Matthew354, Andrewchaney69420, sabrina and 26 visitors disagree.
I am not putting conservatives on the same level as liberals. I think what conservatives are doing is far worse then anything liberals do economically. setting general rules is in no way equal to giving specific companies a unfair competitive advantage.
so your telling them to not vote at all? that doesnt seem good. all I'm saying is that if someone prefers less government control, having the government give specific companies an advantage is FAR WORSE then setting general rules and regulations for an entire sector equally.
It's not hand picking if liberals prefer more laws and regulations on the economy than conservatives, so you need to stop putting the conservatives on the same level as liberals.
And even if conservatives are just as equal to liberals when it comes to regulating the economy like you think they do, libertarians would just stay out of both parties and support themselves. Sorry, you are convincing no libertarians.
so your saying that hand picking which company wins and loses is more in line with libertarianism than general rules and regulations.
he isn't claiming libertarians would want those kinds of regulations. but those kinds of regulations target everyone in an industry instead of individual companies in and industry. if you actually cared about things you claim to care about, that would matter to you.
"and yet republicans routinely select winners and losers by offering specific companies custom tax breaks and subsidies"
And you are saying that because Republicans support just as much state intervention policies as much as Democrats, and Democrats do it better? That is absolutely far from the truth. You fail to understand that Democrats prefer to pass a lot more policies in government intervention of the free market a lot more than Republicans, and it's pretty much the opposite of their values in comparison to Republicans.
"I know a regulated economy is not the libertarian ideal"
No, it's not at all. Neither is the Republican ideal for the libertarians, it's just more preferable to them than Democrats.
"democratic subsidies and regulations target everyone within an industry equally giving noone an undo advantage, while setting standards and increasing consumer confidence."
When will you understand Libertarians don't value policies like that? They don't!
and yet republicans routinely select winners and losers by offering specific companies custom tax breaks and subsidies.
I know a regulated economy is not the liberitatian ideal, but hand picked winners and losers is in absolutely no way free.
democratic subsidies and regulations target everyone within an industry equally giving noone an undo advantage, while setting standards and increasing consumer confidence.
They are certainly not, because we conservatives and libertarians prefer less government compared to liberal values. Regulated economy however, is the complete opposite of less government and we libertarians and conservatives are certain there is too much government.
well of course you would. they vote for your candidate normally. I think they are mistaken.
As a conservative, I would rather argue more libertarians than pro government liberals. As well as have have more libertarians than liberals in America...
in regard to the theory of regulations and taxes, I have 2 relevant threads, 1 about the effectiveness of government vs private ventures, and 1 about the functionality of pure libertarianism on a national level.
which one is more relevant to your views? I'll bump it. or of these are phrased to specifically, feel free to make a new thread. I'm not trying to falsely frame the discussion, just get it started :)
if you vote for neither 1 or 2 then you dont vote outside of primaries do you? it's a 2 party system.
"Nemiroff, I know you never said that, but you made a logical fallacy by arguing a marginal case when we are talking about all regulations in general."
that's the thing. I never spoke about regulations in general. I just stated a fact: neither of the 2 parties in our 2 party system will eliminate all regulations. this thread is not about examining theory of taxes or regulations (always eager to elsewhere) but just seeing whether democratic vs Republican policies are more true to a libertarian perspective.
the thing is that the party that only wants those minimum regulations also routinely practices picking winners and losers. that's the libertarian conundrum imo.
I would like to engage you about the "intolerant left" narrative. similarly like I argued against your "feminists defend women rapists" claim in the men equal rights thread. I dont think the right accurately reports what the left wants to do. if you wish to judge the left i suggest judging them based on their own claims rather than second hand opposition interpretation of their policies. it is my assertion is that the right is intolerant one. the only intolerance the left has is against intolerance. punching someone is bad, but returning a punch is at least more justified then the unprovoked attack, no? being violently anti violence is not the same as being violent against peaceful scapegoats. dont you agree?
Yes I see your numbers 1 and 2 and I would vote for neither, because as I saod before, if the problem is unequal taxation, the problem is not "better" by scewing everyone equally.
It's not like Democrats just believe in a few more regulations here and there and a bit more tax. They want to centralize government power more than we've ever seen before and its basically an anti-capitalist party.
And if you really want libertarians to vpte Democrat, something I didnt mention that is reallt obvious, is that the current left is extremely intolerant of all other views. Conservatives accept libertarians as a wing of their party, the leftists don't. This is why Ron Paul ran as a Republican, because he could.
Nemiroff, I know you never said that, but you made a logical fallacy by arguing a marginal case when we are talking about all regulations in general.
If I'm saying that current regulations on the economy imposed by democrats are bad, and you say " well, we still need protection from treason and a military"... thats not relevant because if we made the case to have a government that only imposes those few regulations, you would not agree, so to bring it up is meaningless.
as to the rest of your argument. your comparing pure libertarian principles to democratic principles, which will obviously have disagreements. but that is not my point and as you pointed out, there is significant disagreement between libertarians and republicans.
the point of this thread is not to compare pure democratic values with pure libertarianism, but to compare democratic to Republican values and see which is closer to libertarianism. this is a 2 party system after all.
both Democrats and republicans will have some taxes and regulations. both higher than what libertarians want. on top of that default minimum libertarians have little choice but to tolerate, they have a choice:
1) join Democrats who impose even more taxes and regulations but evenly across entire industries or,
2) join Republicans who dont impose more equally spread taxes and regulations but do provide select breaks to specific companies giving them an unfair advantage against competitors who werent government selected.
1) is a government that imposes stronger but equal regulations.
2) is a government that imposes lighter but unequal regulations.
as far as freedom goes, having the winner chosen at the beginning sounds like by far the least free. your independent promotion of libertarian values on their own is something I would gladly address (and I do strongly disagree with them) but that is not what this thread is about. neither party will put in place a 5% flat tax so that isnt a realistic option in the voting booth which is what this thread is all about.
umm you must have misunderstood.... everything
I never said Democrats want the minimum regulation. I said both parties have some regulation at a minimum. Democrats definitely want to expand regulation, I'm not denying that. in fact I support it whole heartedly. however their regulations treat all players equally, unlike Republican policies which pick winners and losers.
so it is relevant. you just misunderstood.
second I never said equal outcome, I said equal treatment under the law and a fair shot for all at the beginning. I have no idea where you got equal outcome from besides default anti left talking points. I said equal treatment under the law meaning your competitor wont have an advantage you dont, like subsidized taxes or the public paying for their factory, but not giving similar assistance to their direct competitor. offer no assistance to either or equal assistance to both, as long as both are treated the same, the competition is fair.
I'll address the rest of your posts tomorrow. but I did want to clear up these misunderstandings.
And just to prove that your initial argument is irrelevant let me ask you a question:
if the problem is politicians arbitrarily granting tax breaks to corporations with tax credits I propose we fix the problem by abolishing tax credits and the IRS, and enforcing a 5% flat tax on everyone equally. Problem solved. Yes or no?
... we'll see if your interested on stamping out cronyism or just confiscating more from individuals.
And then straw man argument aside, no because libertarians favor non- aggression and liberty, not equal outcome. If a crony capitalist is using the state to infringe on his competition, a good solution isnt to expand the infrigment to all indivoduals! that dosent solve the problem, the problem is a loss of freedom not unequal pain. The problem is the government that has the power to pick winners and losers with illegitamate power. Capitalists will do what they can to succeed, so the state shouldnt have the ability to do what they want them to.
I think the argument your making is irrelevant "minimum regulations". Saying that we neee military, protection against treason etc. is not what we're talking about. Were talking about the deep state executive branch agencies that we dont elect arbitrarily regulating nore and more things that dont belong to the executive branch, the federal reserve, entitlement programs ...etc. So saying "a few basic regulations" is irrelevant because the democrats want to expand the state even further than its expanded now.
noone should vote blindly for any party. but I do feel that democratic equal treatment of all companies within a market is closer to the liberitatian ideals.
Gov regulations may be not be prefered, but hand picked winners and losers should be complete blasphemy if I understand liberitatian phiosophy correctly.
that is true but there will be some level of regulations regardless. we do have to make sure that people arent laundering money or supporting terrorists dont we? as well as taxes if only for funding the military. so some level of both will be present in both republicans and democrats.
however republicans are the ones that by large provide tax breaks or subsidizes for specific companies rather than whole industries. that is blatant gov picking of winners and losers.
Democrats pass more industry wide regulations but have no significant history to my knowledge of utilizing targeted crony capitalism policies. setting minimum standards in my opinion has many benefits that outweigh the costs in both moral and economic, but no matter how strict, treats all companies equally giving noone a competitive advantage.
I think that is the definition of a free market. not a wild west with no rules, but one in which all rules are clear and equal.
Btw though I don't think we should blindly vote republican either.
A crony capitalist economy requires an regulated economy. For corporations to use government to supress their competition and get monopoly status, the government must have power in the first place. So you're refering to the same thing. This is why most big business owners like big goverment.
lol. universal disagreement.
anyone want to actually debate this?
what would be the liberitatian priority?
freedom from rules?
or freedom from predetermined outcomes?
any of the disagrees care to elaborate?
by regulated I mean general rules that apply to all players in an industry equally keeping the competitive balance.
by crony i mean individualized subsidies and tax breaks which give a certain company a competitive advantage against other companies. in effect picking winners and losers.
regulations may increase costs, but they also come with better outcomes. you may argue whether the outcomes will really be better, but having the government pick specific winners and losers is not capitalism and may as well be centralized planning. it is the worst of both communism and capitalism where the free market is a sham but the wealth is still consolidated.