Why would libertarianism not work?

[Duvniask]

It generally has a lack of care for positive rights and liberties.

[Zonolia]

That's not a viable source, but nice grammar and completely nonsensical statement there.

I blame the economy, how come when the economy's nice and dandy no one talks about the debt or a lot of the problems governments have but as soon as the economy dips everyone freaks out?

Because sensationalism...that and the fact a majority of people are either uninformed or informed by un-credible sources.

[Divair]

I don't have anything to compare it to. It's gargantuan without compare. At least it is not as corpulent and blobular as the old Soviet regime.

So you're just arbitrarily deciding it's big?

That's not a viable source, but nice grammar and completely nonsensical statement there.

I blame the economy, how come when the economy's nice and dandy no one talks about the debt or a lot of the problems governments have but as soon as the economy dips everyone freaks out?

The same reason nobody whines about immigrants when the economy is fine. It's easy to blame others for your problems.

[Kelmet]

I blame the economy, how come when the economy's nice and dandy no one talks about the debt or a lot of the problems governments have but as soon as the economy dips everyone freaks out?

The focus in politics is squarely on the economy when the economy tanks. People also start tightening their belts and thus mistakenly believe that the government should too. This is the opposite of what needs to happen.

So what should the Gov do, all of its money comes out of the economy, Should it put some back in?

[European Socialist Republic]

US? Big government? It doesn't even have a universal healthcare program.

No, but a huge number of it's people are on government assistance, that counts as Big government.

So having a government that doesn't let its own people starve to death counts as Big Government?

[Liberated Freedomstan]

The focus in politics is squarely on the economy when the economy tanks. People also start tightening their belts and thus mistakenly believe that the government should too. This is the opposite of what needs to happen.

So what should the Gov do, all of its money comes out of the economy, Should it put some back in?

Uh, yes. It should put a lot back in. There's a reason the New Deal worked.

It's also generally a good idea to tighten the belt when things are going well, so as to prevent a lack of funds and resources when things are starting to go badly.

[Frisivisia]

The focus in politics is squarely on the economy when the economy tanks. People also start tightening their belts and thus mistakenly believe that the government should too. This is the opposite of what needs to happen.

So what should the Gov do, all of its money comes out of the economy, Should it put some back in?

That's what it does. In bad economic times, you deficit spend like hell, get consumer confidence up, and start the wheels turning. Economic prosperity is the time to deal with relatively minor things like debt.

[Kelmet]

So what should the Gov do, all of its money comes out of the economy, Should it put some back in?

Uh, yes. It should put a lot back in. There's a reason the New Deal worked.

It's also generally a good idea to tighten the belt when things are going well, so as to prevent a lack of funds and resources when things are starting to go badly.

Indeed

[Khalite]

I'm sufficiently convinced that Libertarian ideals wouldn't work when perpetuated on a large scale.

[Kelmet]

No, but a huge number of it's people are on government assistance, that counts as Big government.

So having a government that doesn't let its own people starve to death counts as Big Government?

Sadly yes. I'm not sayin it's a bad thing

[Llamalandia]

It would work okay. If you were a billionaire. If you are so poor that you have to work multiple jobs in order the barely scrape by, you're screwed.

That statement is a load of junk. look at how tech billionaires started out as mostly hobbits who loved computers and electronics and turned their hobbies into multibillion dollar businesses, apple micros soft hp Facebook google etc all started as tiny little ventures half of them by men who technically dropped out of college (though mostly ivy leagues i admit). Anyone who wants and deserves can be as rich as they want when govt mostly stays out of the way. :)

[Kelmet]

I'm sufficiently convinced that Libertarian ideals wouldn't work when perpetuated on a large scale.

Just like communism

[Frisivisia]

I'm sufficiently convinced that Libertarian ideals wouldn't work when perpetuated on a large scale.

Just like communism

Which proves what?

[Liberated Freedomstan]

It would work okay. If you were a billionaire. If you are so poor that you have to work multiple jobs in order the barely scrape by, you're screwed.

That statement is a load of junk. look at how tech billionaires started out as mostly hobbits who loved computers and electronics and turned their hobbies into multibillion dollar businesses, apple micros soft hp Facebook google etc all started as tiny little ventures half of them by men who technically dropped out of college (though mostly ivy leagues i admit). Anyone who wants and deserves can be as rich as they want when govt mostly stays out of the way. :)

Except some of us don't get the opportunity to enter an industry that grows rapidly. The vast majority of people will not have the opportunity to become millionaires. These people would suffer horribly under a Libertarian government, and you would probably be among them.

[Kelmet]

Just like communism

Which proves what?

Nothing, just comparing 2 things that have nothing to do with each other

[Mike the Progressive]

It's not that it wouldn't work, it's just rather heartless.

I'm not an over the top bleeding heart, tax and spend liberal (well to an extent, I suppose I am), but you can tax a little and do a lot of good.

[Llamalandia]

So having a government that doesn't let its own people starve to death counts as Big Government?

Sadly yes. I'm not sayin it's a bad thing

Even as hunter gather societies people didn't just randomly starve all the time and there was little govt in a meaningful sense, people did work collectively but only if they wanted to. at the end of the day I doubt without govt people wouldn't starve (maybe a few exceptions).

[Mkuki]

I don't get it. Federal spending is a pretty small percentage of the United States economy.

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.

[Llamalandia]

I'm sufficiently convinced that Libertarian ideals wouldn't work when perpetuated on a large scale.

Why?

[Khalite]

It would work okay. If you were a billionaire. If you are so poor that you have to work multiple jobs in order the barely scrape by, you're screwed.

That statement is a load of junk. look at how tech billionaires started out as mostly hobbits who loved computers and electronics and turned their hobbies into multibillion dollar businesses, apple micros soft hp Facebook google etc all started as tiny little ventures half of them by men who technically dropped out of college (though mostly ivy leagues i admit). Anyone who wants and deserves can be as rich as they want when govt mostly stays out of the way. :)

We live in economies based upon scarcity. Not everyone can be rich. We have finite resources. Since most of these finite resources are already parceled out to the existing classes of rich, it's unlikely that the "new rich" will arise from anywhere except new market niches that didn't exist before.

[Liberated Freedomstan]

Sadly yes. I'm not sayin it's a bad thing

Even as hunter gather societies people didn't just randomly starve all the time and there was little govt in a meaningful sense, people did work collectively but only if they wanted to. at the end of the day I doubt without govt people wouldn't starve (maybe a few exceptions).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but hunter-gatherer societies become irrelevant when the world's population of humans has reached a burgeoning 7 billion.

[Llamalandia]

It generally has a lack of care for positive rights and liberties.

Positive rights don't exist in any meaningful sense because they require disadvantaging some to benefit others. Pareto efficiency and whatnot.

[Liberated Freedomstan]

It generally has a lack of care for positive rights and liberties.

Positive rights don't exist in any meaningful sense because they require disadvantaging some to benefit others. Pareto efficiency and whatnot.

Rights are not a zero-sum game.

[Risottia]

I have been doing some research on libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know) became a libertarian myself, and I've seen some criticisms that make sense such as "total freedom does not guarantee happiness" and I understand that.

Libertarianism would work. To the exclusive benefit of a very small fraction of humanity, namely the upper class.
Basically, libertarianism is feudalism.

Now, is that desirable?

why more people aren't shouldn't have

Eh?

[Uelvan]

I'm sufficiently convinced that Libertarian ideals wouldn't work when perpetuated on a large scale.

Why?

Remember when the down and unfortunate were the bitch of the rich and wealthy? The Dark Ages? That's why. It's not a progressive or good policy. It would work, but only those who are in power would reap any benefits of that society.