Been arguing with a libertarian buddy of mine and something has me confused. I've asked him over and over again how the progress that certain businesses have made so far in the current market will just disappear if we removed the government tomorrow? I mean, am I wrong to assume that they have made gains that are inconceivable to your average individual? If we removed the government tomorrow and had to compete with Nestle or Monsanto or google.
His argument was that the government is so entwined that if you remove the government you also remove them. But how about other businesses that are not as intermingled with government laws and regulations, business that the government doesn't regulate? Won't those businesses be able to monopolize force projection, won't these businesses be the business that security companies and PMC's run to for new work after government has gone away?
I just don't see any way that it can work without getting rid of all of it. Hard reset.
Well, the gubbermint is just as bad as corporations, but a civil servant is more likely to break a law than a corporation, because the financial gain and backing for a corporation is centered around profit, while a political figure has influence.
Best way to regulate both is fear. Sometime around 1960, we should have killed at least 5 politicians, and now they know we're soft.
Now, we can either go back to fear, or have an interior police group that's financially incentivized for how many politicians they put in prison.
Joseph Jackson
They wouldnt just disappear, but their ongoing overleveraged business model will only hurt them >how about xyz Well on one hand you have to assume that the status quo is better, its not. On the other, there are forces that counter monopolistic issues when you introduce time as a factor
The problem with retards is that if a problem exists at all its unacceptable, so they will regulate and create a bigger problem just to cure that ill. However if the market is allowed to respond to the problem over time it would fix itself, as people would find it unacceptable.
Then if youre libertarian and not ancap, you have tort law for third party damages and still have a government to deal with real threats to society as a whole as opposed to social ills, usually water and land issues
Jordan Perez
That's the thing, some people would still argue that any government is unnecessary. It just sucks to have a fren breakdown and call you a lefty just because you don't believe that the people at the top have a good reason to follow the NAP.
Jose Collins
In theory ancapistan is possible, and i would be an ancap if not for foreign governments. This isnt to say ancap is wrong in this regard, but that I am afraid it might be >have a good reason to You misunderatand libertarianism then, the entire purpose of it is distrust. Libertarianism as opposed to ancap just sees government as a necessary evil.
Market forces provide more of an incentive than government prosecuting itself
Brandon Wilson
Let me put it this way A bad actor in a free market has motive to act badly A bad actor in government has motive and potentially infinite opportunity to act on it
I would personally prefer a libertarian monarchy similar to what the dutch used to have, it takes away motive from the government and most opportunity away from the market to do bad things as well as retaining legitimacy
Because foreign governments are still governments and they still have a reason to act maliciously. So that would be the primary argument then. So one of the perplexing issues with natsoc and communism also applies to libertarianism.
>everything you've posted was made in countries with massive regulatory apparatuses, welfare, and market manipulation Kek
The counter would be a question as to whether trade relations would be more beneficial to the hostile state than the land, and to what effect the trade pseudo state would be able to muster up defense, and also the actual relative power and influence of these two entities
On the last point, its often assumed the hostile state would defeat the weaker opponent, but that would be true even if it wasnt ancapistan. If anything i would imagine the market states actors would attempt to subvert other countries to open up new markets which would defacto add ties
Kevin Cook
>b-but that wasnt real libertarianism
Gabriel Powell
>another meme Isnt the original version of that talking about self described communist countries? What modern clown state is calling themselves libertarian these days?
Sebastian Harris
>removed the government tomorrow Do you want to create a free society or do you want to create chaos to prove libertarians wrong? Why gradual transition is never an option? You can outsource government services slowly. What if we just decrease the taxes, government spending and regulations 10% every year? So truly effective and self reliant businesses can take over.
>heres your unregulated libertarian built infrastructure bro from socialist china ... cool story groomer
Jacob Bailey
Not an economist, but I can see deregulation being a little tricky with certain industries - particularly ones that are based on specific land ownership. Phone companies, power companies, railways and the like. The land that they purchased, for straight connections from one point to another, really isn't available anymore. It was purchased at a time when space wasn't really limited. It could be argued that the people who started those companies STILL took a serious financial risk and to the victor go the spoils. Just my thoughts - no answers.
Michael Stewart
The current meta in the us has courts making them share their infastructure. Something like this seems fair to me given the land issue
Alexander Rogers
government exists to fulfill a necessity. if government was removed tomorrow, another corporation would just rise up and act as one
Jacob Brooks
>act as one You people like to conflate this as an all encompassing statement but there is wide variation in government is there not? An HOA is a government, does that make the society illibertarian? No
