Libertarian question.

Despite the fact that the poster you are conversing with does none of that.

Why don't you discuss ideas he actually holds instead of creating your own arguments for him?
That would be a sign of intelligence and honesty, no.

 

Where does he understand anarchism? Be honest! Be intelligent!

 

Again, ascribing an argument to a poster that the poster clearly did not verbalize.
Do you have any honesty or integrity in your debate?

 

He has told you his personal political philosophy.
Why will you not engage him in discussion on that philosophy? Why do you keep trying to discuss somebody else's school of thought as if his philosophy is dependent on writings of other individuals?

 

This is a petty effort. He's referred to the end of the minimum wage numerous times (and so do the fake American libertarians)

 

Come now. You're trying to critique. Left-Libertarianism refers to anarchy. Has, or has he not, referred to it with any credibility? Don't be shy!

 

He told you his personal philosophy.
You keep trying to change the argument to something you want to discuss.

 

That would be consistent with his philosophy.

River boolean logic.

Some of A is B
All of B is C
Therefore A=C

 

You do so struggle. I referred to the reality of libertarianism. Neither of you can critique it. That you're so 'innocent' of left-libertarianism is the point! I was being dreadfully shy of honesty by using innocent mind you.

 

Which is the point! The end of the minimum wage will destroy mutually beneficial exchange. Keep up!

 

Libertarianism isn't about being suspicious of government. It's about limiting governments' control over the lives of consenting adults, and keeping government from passing unneeded reglations. People who push for complete deregulation are not really libertarians because some regulations are necessary to protect the lives of the general public.

My view on libertarianism is simply this.....The role of government when it comes to passing laws is to protect the rights of those who do not, or can not consent to be effected by the choices of others. If you make a choice that has any effect at all, no matter how small, no matter if it's good or bad, on the ability of another person to reasonably live their lives the way they see fit, you do not have the right to make that choice, and your choice must be regulated.

When it comes to business, government should stay out of their general business practices, except when those practices have unreasonable effects on their customers or employees.

 

Capitalism requires government to stabilise it. Does that make libertarians socialist?

 

Mutually beneficial exchange is subjective and non quantifiable, and the use of violence to reinforce your version of mutually beneficial exchange is not the proper role of government.

 

So does socialism. Neither can exist on the large scale without a government

 

Your subjective reality based on your subjective views on what mutually beneficial means

 

I would call minimum wage a necessary evil. Busineses have pushed for free trade for years so they can outsource jobs to countries like China and Mexico who allow their people to be treated like slaves being paid pennies on the dollar, with almost no protections, and this has caused wages to stagnate for the last 30 years. Without minimum wage, American workers wouldnt be able to live, because businesses have no incentive to pay fair wages without it.

 

No, there is a difference. Capitalism is always threatened through market concentration. It ensures, for example, the need for discretionary macroeconomic policy (often of horrendous levels, such as quantity easing). Socialism avoids that. Can you be a libertarian and capitalist?

 

needing government and being controlled by government are NOT the same thing.

 

Let them sell their products to the Chinese and Mexicans

 

This amused me. What's the difference?

 

90% of all products made in outsourced factories are imported back into the United States. Apple makes all of their goods in China. GM mades most of their cars and trucks in China.

Nike produces almost all of their products in Mexico and South America.

Almost all products sold in Walmart are imported from sweat shops.

it's hard to find any affordable products not made oversees anymore.


Free trade with China and Mexico were the two biggest mistakes ever made. The US should never have free trade with any nation who does not meed a certain standard for wages and labor protections. All it does is incent businesses to outsource.

 

The government can stableize the market without overregulating it.

 

This is a meaningless comment. Capitalism requires government to ensure the reproduction of capitalist profit. So where is the restriction on it? It is, after all, the key economic agent (as illustrated by how government is bought through special interests). Compare that with market socialism. There's no macroeconomic discretionary role for government. It is therefore easily restricted, by definition.

 

By definition socialism requires government, because it is based on a strong central government owning all means of production and ensuring equal shares for the citizens. You literally can not have socialism without a central government

 

You started with a fallacy. Left-Libertarianism, for example, refers to libertarian socialism and therefore elimination of centralisation. Personally I follow market socialism, itself based on restricting government compared to the current capitalist paradigm.

There is always a role for government's protection of property rights. You ignore the important part: American fake libertarians celebrate capitalism which undoubtedly kicks 'limited government' into touch for its very survival.