Forum Post: hmm philosoraptor, that is a good question!
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 16, 2011, 11:24 p.m. EST by sickmint79
(516)
from Grayslake, IL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
1 comments 6 days ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
2 comments 4 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
3 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
13 comments 4 months ago by grapes
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
Besides Koch industries, of course....
And in general, they do, they just don't call it that. They work through the parties that have actual power to have as libertarian policies as possible in all areas that affect their interests, unless, of course, they want a subsidy.
Make it simpler: Do mega-corporations lobby to be regulated?
actions speak louder than words - it does not appear that the kochs are really libertarians.
they don't lobby to be regulated (and i do support practical, smart regulation) - note that they often do make the regulations though. (regulatory capture)
IMO supporting practical, smart regulations is not a libertarian position. Nobody supports impractical, stupid regulations, at least not publicly. The distinguishing feature of libertarian ideology is no regulations except those that are needed to protect personal liberty and property. That's not the same thing as practical, smart....
i agree that the ideology is that way, but think in the real world that practical libertarians allow for more regulations. the environment is a good example; in the real world simply enforcing property rights to take care of it just doesn't work out that well. it is hard/expensive to catch/capture/prove the damage.
i don't think anyone purposefully creates bad regulations or mandates - but i think we have many problems now that are the unintended consequences of what was thought at one time to be a good idea.
As an environmentalist, I've been battling libertarian ideologues (and I realize you're saying that's not what you are, but you're in here defending the ideology) for years, and not one has ever volunteered environmental regulations like that. They always explain property as the ultimate solution to the tragedy of the commons (bullshit) and dismiss any role for the state. It's why I'm such a hardcore opponent.
I appreciate your position, but haven't seen anything in a candidate's platform that reflects it. Fundamentalism is the norm, for example: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/08/on_the_environm.php (which, by the way, is exactly why I believe the Kochs to be true proponents of the ideology)
as the article points out, it is not possible to measure some of these things. i was recently advised to read the book 'a civil action' (and not see the movie) regarding water contamination. i have never thought that in the real world property rights alone could protect the environment well. this seems like a debate over beers that should be able to swing your way !
Ok, then. :-) I'm just pleasantly surprised to find a libertarian for whom the environment seems like a genuine priority. It's a hopeful sign I think.
well, i wouldn't say it was one of my hot button issues. finding solutions that actually work in the real world is though.
because people will defend what they own.
everybody's property is nobody's property.
A logging interest owning the redwood forest, when there's such a profitable market for redwood lumber, and they grow so slowly, will mean no more redwoods. You can argue in the abstract but the history says different. Profit seekers seek profit, short term often as not. The redwoods would likely be replaced after "liquidation" with a faster growing cash crop.
Subscriber wall, but from the abstract... Give the land to the people that live in them? We going to give the parks to Native Americans (instead of selling them off as I believe Paul would want) and have them move back in and revert to traditional lifestyles? Wow that's far from reality as I see it here.
Maybe works where there's a.) an indigenous subsistence population - a rare thing except in the poorest countries - and b.) not a commercial interest willing to pay relatively huge sums to buy those people out. This is what's happened all through Indonesia, which has been converted into one large palm oil plantation. Same is happening in Amazonia.
Unless you see regulations to prevent the indigenous from selling out for cash and moving to the city?
I don't think we're going to agree here.
this is not abstract.
private interests indeed take better care of their forests: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427293.400-give-forests-back-to-local-people-to-save-them.html
The answer is that the mega corporations would have to conglomerate, monopolize, and buy the gov't again. Granted, that would be extremely easy in a "libertarian" society, but why go through the extra effort you know?
why again? the libertarian stance is to root out special advantages that make competition unfair.
A "libertarian" society would have a tiny government that could be lobbied even more easily than our current government by what ever big boy will inevitably pop up in the absence of market regulation.
any less corrupt politician (of any ideology) would be less likely to introduce anything that would make competition unfair. libertarians especially so as they despise the intervention on philosophical grounds. let's not forget that government would be much weaker too.
as far as big boys and market regulation, it depends on what you are regulating. a system with no bailouts incents businesses to make more conservative decisions. private enterprise can come in and set standards and be a watchdog too; look at things like UL and the consumerist.