Why would libertarianism not work?

[Llamalandia]

Libertarianism would never work because the moral standard of society would go down...

Too many people would start doing drugs for example once it is de-legalized.

We need order in society and moral codes that everyone respects and obeys. Libertarianism idolizes freedom instead of teaching people about family values and the search for God.

We need to value freedom... but not make it the ultimate god. This will destroy society and promote rebelliousness...

Wow.
You actually managed to persuade me that there's something worse than libertarianism... a theocracy for instance.

Uh also monarchy, anarchism, dictatorship, military junta's, need I go on?:):)

[Liberated Freedomstan]

Wow.
You actually managed to persuade me that there's something worse than libertarianism... a theocracy for instance.

Uh also monarchy, anarchism, dictatorship, military junta's, need I go on?:):)

Hey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Great Britain, Sweden, and Spain are all successful, decent monarchies. Don't knock it before you try it.

[Kelmet]

So the government should spend more then it takes in to it has a surplus, so when the country comes onto hard times it (the Gov) can put that money into the economy to get things roiling again. Sound good?

Surplus is not necessarily good. The government doesn't have a checking account, personal economics that you learn in 7th grade Home Ec. is different from big boy economics.

Agreed but, if the government has to spend a lot to get the country out of a slump wouldn't it be better to have that money on hand ?

[Mkuki]

If it was, wouldn't the US have no debt if it took in more then it spent?

*shrug*

I'll provide figures. Give me a second.

Let's see. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2011, federal spending accounted for 24% of the GDP. It's projected to fall, stabilize, and rise a little to 23% by 2024. As for the debt, according to the CBO the debt is expected to stabilize at 58% of GDP by 2022.

[Surfistan]

Pretty sure Gates didn't have to get a loan to get to college.

I could however be wrong with the part that you stated I was wrong about, so in case if I'm wrong sorry that I'm wrong, for realz.

19th century = 1800s.

Then I wasn't wrong, I was really talking about the late 19th century, I read something about it a few hours back, can't really recall what exactly, but boiled down to that there were entrepeneurs in the 19th century America that came from meager beginnings (although, very few.)

[Frisivisia]

Surplus is not necessarily good. The government doesn't have a checking account, personal economics that you learn in 7th grade Home Ec. is different from big boy economics.

Agreed but, if the government has to spend a lot to get the country out of a slump wouldn't it be better to have that money on hand ?

Sure, but it doesn't really matter. Deficit spending is what gets economies going.

[Llamalandia]

God's not real and religion has no place in government.

How do you know?

I think religion has a place in society and government. It's certainly not a position that libertarianism would respect, hence why I am against libertarianism. SOME restrictions on freedom is necessary...

Well yes things like the "freedom to murder" etc but libertarians would by and large also be against that because it infringes on the the rights and liberties of others. Libertariansim doesn't mean absolute freed or absolutely no govt that would be anarchy rather it is concerned with protecting and maximizing the rights and liberties every individual so far as they harm no one else. Libnertarians are not even totally anti tax they just think it should be kept to a minimum level. But yeah the problem with theocracy is it implies a state religion which is bad and antithetical to freedom of conscience. :)

[Kelmet]

*shrug*

I'll provide figures. Give me a second.

Let's see. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2011, federal spending accounted for 24% of the GDP. It's projected to fall, stabilize, and rise a little to 23% by 2024. As for the debt, according to the CBO the debt is expected to stabilize at 58% of GDP by 2022.

Nice sourcing

[Frisivisia]

19th century = 1800s.

Then I wasn't wrong, I was really talking about the late 19th century, I read something about it a few hours back, can't really recall what exactly, but boiled down to that there were entrepeneurs in the 19th century America that came from meager beginnings (although, very few.)

The 19th Century was a horribly unfair economy. Unions were routinely crushed, there was no minimum wage, trusts and monopolies were legal, and the poor got fucked.

[Frisivisia]

How do you know?

I think religion has a place in society and government. It's certainly not a position that libertarianism would respect, hence why I am against libertarianism. SOME restrictions on freedom is necessary...

Well yes things like the "freedom to murder" etc but libertarians would by and large also be against that because it infringes on the the rights and liberties of others. Libertariansim doesn't mean absolute freed or absolutely no govt that would be anarchy rather it is concerned with protecting and maximizing the rights and liberties every individual so far as they harm no one else. Libnertarians are not even totally anti tax they just think it should be kept to a minimum level. But yeah the problem with theocracy is it implies a state religion which is bad and antithetical to freedom of conscience. :)

Why is freedom good? Tell me.

[Zottistan]

Because, as a general rule, people are short-sighted. And the rich can't produce without a workforce.

[Surfistan]

Then I wasn't wrong, I was really talking about the late 19th century, I read something about it a few hours back, can't really recall what exactly, but boiled down to that there were entrepeneurs in the 19th century America that came from meager beginnings (although, very few.)

The 19th Century was a horribly unfair economy. Unions were routinely crushed, there was no minimum wage, trusts and monopolies were legal, and the poor got fucked.

That's horribly true.

[Risottia]

Then I wasn't wrong, I was really talking about the late 19th century, I read something about it a few hours back, can't really recall what exactly, but boiled down to that there were entrepeneurs in the 19th century America that came from meager beginnings (although, very few.)

The 19th Century was a horribly unfair economy. Unions were routinely crushed, there was no minimum wage, trusts and monopolies were legal, and the poor got fucked.

Let's not forget slavery in the US for about three fifths of the 19th Century.

[Frisivisia]

The 19th Century was a horribly unfair economy. Unions were routinely crushed, there was no minimum wage, trusts and monopolies were legal, and the poor got fucked.

Let's not forget slavery in the US for about three fifths of the 19th Century.

Hmmm, that fraction. It seems... familiar.

[Llamalandia]

Uh also monarchy, anarchism, dictatorship, military junta's, need I go on?:):)

Hey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Great Britain, Sweden, and Spain are all successful, decent monarchies. Don't knock it before you try it.

These are all titular monarchies as far as I know they don't have kings and queens that make actually decisions that's what I meant when I said monarchy. :)

[Kelmet]

Agreed but, if the government has to spend a lot to get the country out of a slump wouldn't it be better to have that money on hand ?

Sure, but it doesn't really matter. Deficit spending is what gets economies going.

But you wouldn't have to go into debt to get the economy going if you already have cash on hand, and since the Gov takes its money out of the economy going into debt during a slump would make things worse, wouldn't it?

[God Kefka]

Libertarianism would likely lead to too many people doing drugs, being overall rebellious, and starting gang wars and stuff. Plus there would be no respect for religion and that would make things all the worse (religion provides moral guidance and direction).

I'd also like to bring up another point...

Libertarianism overly promotes individuality to the point where it becomes a celebration of selfishness. In this type of society, we will lack the spirit of community that makes society strong and work. Community spirit would be dampened or altogether disappear as individuality is idolized.

[Risottia]

Because, as a general rule, people are short-sighted. And the rich can't produce without a workforce.

What, do they actually produce something when they have one? Or is it the workforce that does the production, while the rich merely own the tools?

/evilcommie

[Liberated Freedomstan]

Sure, but it doesn't really matter. Deficit spending is what gets economies going.

But you wouldn't have to go into debt to get the economy going if you already have cash on hand, and since the Gov takes its money out of the economy going into debt during a slump would make things worse, wouldn't it?

The gov't can also, you know, print money.

[Kelmet]

Hey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Great Britain, Sweden, and Spain are all successful, decent monarchies. Don't knock it before you try it.

These are all titular monarchies as far as I know they don't have kings and queens that make actually decisions that's what I meant when I said monarchy. :)

you meant like Saudi Arabia

[Kelmet]

But you wouldn't have to go into debt to get the economy going if you already have cash on hand, and since the Gov takes its money out of the economy going into debt during a slump would make things worse, wouldn't it?

The gov't can also, you know, print money.

But that leads to the argument that the more dollars are out there the less one dollar is worth no?

[Mkuki]

Let's see. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2011, federal spending accounted for 24% of the GDP. It's projected to fall, stabilize, and rise a little to 23% by 2024. As for the debt, according to the CBO the debt is expected to stabilize at 58% of GDP by 2022.

Nice sourcing

To be fair I don't think any of that stuff is post-sequestration.

[Risottia]

Wow.
You actually managed to persuade me that there's something worse than libertarianism... a theocracy for instance.

Uh also monarchy, anarchism, dictatorship, military junta's, need I go on?:):)

Well, I'd rather live under Napoleon I, Elizabeth II or Peter I rather than "enjoy" libertarianism... as for dictatorships, as long as I'm the political officer, that's fine.

[Kelmet]

Let's not forget slavery in the US for about three fifths of the 19th Century.

Hmmm, that fraction. It seems... familiar.

nice reference

[Liberated Freedomstan]

The gov't can also, you know, print money.

But that leads to the argument that the more dollars are out there the less one dollar is worth no?

That's entirely true. It's also not particularly relevant if the economy is well-run and the inflation is kept relatively low.