CreateDebate


Debate Info

41
43
Yes No
Debate Score:84
Arguments:94
Total Votes:101
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (32)
 
 No (28)

Debate Creator

steve789(207) pic



Would Libertarian fundamentalism be a good form of Govnerment

Say there was a form of Government where a court created a list of statutes based on 4 primary laws in a constitution. And then there was only police who enforced these laws, and a court of appeals just in case it the police tried to make their own laws. Then the court could order the impeachment of any chief of Justice that did not remove such a law after it was taken to an appeals court. And the court could order the Chief of Justice to remove in individual chiefs who violate the constitution. Then there was a national representative who set a tarriff to collect money for policement and an environmental property protection agency. And then their were city managers who sold land, controlled immenent domain, set aside land for private parks, and lit, cleaned, and maintained streets. And if the court somehow violated the constitution eventhough they are self appointed they police would just ignore their unconstitutional law.

Yes

Side Score: 41
VS.

No

Side Score: 43

I am a Libertarian. I support a Libertarian form of government. I think a minarchist Libertarian form of government is best.

Side: Yes
1 point

But do you think this specific system would work?_

Side: Yes

Yes. I do. More freedom would be a good thing. :)

Side: Yes
StickinStone(649) Clarified
1 point

I don't think your system would work so well, and I don't really think it's very libertarian. If the government set aside land for private parks, they would then have the power to choose which private entity gets the land. After that, they would be able to make sure it was used as a park. This situation, if enforced, is more fascist than libertarian.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes I think it would be good, but I wouldn't even include some of the government agencies the question lists. Instead it would basically be focused on courts, law enforcement, and defense, everything else can be handle by the private sector.

Side: Yes
3 points

Your rambling and somewhat incoherent explanation aside, fundamentalism in any form is generally more harmful than beneficial.

Side: No
1 point

Government run by libertarians=corporate feudalism; that doesn't sound like a good world to be in the working class. Corporations can and do take your liberty just as easily (if not more easily) than a corrupt government. Why should I trade a government that derives its power from me for thousands of fiefdoms run by corporate entities that deny that they derive their power from me (which they do)? Ayn Rand was not a great thinker. Privatization of everything does not make for a better world. In addition to all this, places in history that have been run according to the libertarian vision have not been very good places in practice to live.

Side: No
Coldfire(1014) Disputed
3 points

Government run by libertarians=corporate feudalism

= slippery slope

Corporations can and do take your liberty just as easily (if not more easily) than a corrupt government.

I don’t see how this is an argument against libertarianism.

Why should I trade a government that derives its power from me for thousands of fiefdoms run by corporate entities that deny that they derive their power from me (which they do)?

I’m not sure what you mean here. This is not what libertarians advocate.

Ayn Rand was not a great thinker.

She had a few good points, but for the most part I agree.

Privatization of everything does not make for a better world.

Privatization of everything is not what libertarians advocate. I believe “limited control” of the government is what’s being promoted.

In addition to all this, places in history that have been run according to the libertarian vision have not been very good places in practice to live.

Examples please?

Side: Yes

Well said. I think libertarians are awesome. .

Side: Yes
Rotbart(101) Disputed
1 point

slippery slope

= Historically proven. Ever hear of a Company Town?

I don’t see how this is an argument against libertarianism.

It is against libertarianism because libertarians are against regulation of corporate entities. If corporate entities are not regulated they will take advantage of that. Look to history at the 19th century to see what I am talking about. Corporate entities used to force people to work without drinking water like they did at the Wheatland Hops Ranch. Corporate Entities used to chain workers to their machines and infringe on their 1st amendment rights. Even today, corporations infringe on our rights, and people cheer for it for some reason. Libertarians will often say "it's their choice" when a corporation union-busts or uses coercion to scare workers into compliance.

I’m not sure what you mean here. This is not what libertarians advocate.

If you ever read John Locke or the Declaration of Independence, you'd be familiar with what political scientists call "social contract." Basically, the idea is, the government is ultimately accountable to you because you vote and pay taxes. In other words, without citizens, there is no government, so the government is supposed to govern in your interest.

Corporations, ALSO derive their power from you. You buy their products, you work for them, and they SHOULD be doing things in your interest as a result. Without you, corporations do not exist. However, corporations deny this connection, and that's how they justify doing things that harm you and the environment.

She had a few good points, but for the most part I agree.

Which part? The Social Darwinism? Or the "greed is good?"

Privatization of everything is not what libertarians advocate. I believe “limited control” of the government is what’s being promoted.

Then why do libertarians always aim to privatize things? I cannot remember the last time libertarians were in favor of fully-funding public education. In an Ayn Rand paradise, there is no service provided by the government.

Examples please?

19th Century America, for one. I can offer many more. 19th Century, and early 20th century America was a world where there was small government, and business had lots of power. There was no regulation, taxes were non-existent, there were no worker's protections, there was no minimum wage, there was no environmental laws, and there were no child labor laws.

There was plenty of "liberty" to be had, but that "liberty" only existed for big business. We had the worst wealth distribution this country has ever seen, no middle class, market failure, monopolies, robber barons, and veritable slavery. Company towns were basically fiefdoms.

Side: No
Rotbart(101) Clarified
1 point

To be clear, there would be a few people that a Libertarian fundamentalist government that would think it's a good form of government, and those would be the same people who already benefit greatly from our society (the 1%), but would benefit even more from having no child labor laws, no anti-trust laws, no minimum wage, and no environmental regulations.

So, it would be a good government for one percent of us, but it would not be good for the rest of us, who would lose a great deal.

Side: Yes
1 point

I'm kind of jumping in the middle here, but what history has shown is that economies suck when they are just getting going, it's a short run feature. Free market ideas are good for the long run, not necessarily any given short run period.

Now lets consider the company town:

1. You don't need special laws just for business to keep someone from chaining up someone else.

2. The company town can only function as a monopoly, it's power falls apart when there is even one other option. historically, monopolies last only with government help, this includes company towns. Given time (long run economics) and no interference (free enterprise), competition will undercut any company town situation.

3. If there was no factory before, where did the people of the company town live or work? Why did they come to the company town if it wasn't a better option than whatever they were doing before? This is the same idea for the sweat shop in the jungle...the jungle is still an option.

Now some other points:

1. Laws concerning pollution are valid when there is demonstrable damage outside of ones own property, even in Libertarian philosophies. This means that certain environmental laws would exist.

2. Child labor persists until the people can afford to not have them exist...that's when they make a law about it. All we have done is switched child labor that made money for child labor at school (and not learning much). Do you know why school is out in the summer? So kids can work the farm. But at least we aren't libertarians.

3. The evidence against the disaster of no min wage is that most wages are above it. The min wage is usually set too far below the equilibrium wage to actually matter. Every time the min is raised, it hurts the poor. The min wage has historically benefited middle class and working class high school kids at the expense of adult laborers. Furthermore, every time the min is raised, it pushes inflation and after about one and a half to two years, it goes back to not mattering at all..

4. Anti-Trust Laws. Whatever you believe about the goal of anti-trust laws, they are highly subjective and subject to wide interpretation. As a result, the very same laws have little impact today compared to the 20th century. The only reason for this is that the executive and judiciary arbitrarily decided to interpret these laws more lightly. They can turn around at any moment or in any situation and interpret them more strongly on a whim. This is not a proper way to have your laws.

Side: Yes
steve789(207) Disputed
0 points

You are a uninformed fool. No Libertarian wants to disregard the environment nor do they put anybody's rights over anybody else's. Every socailist has plenty of business lobbyists so its not like business wants to impose libertarianism or whatever you imagine. Libertarians understand what manipulated liberals and socailists cannot, that the voluntary world works, and the heavy hand of Government doesn't need to interfere to make the world work right. Though the alliance of power hungry corporations and beauracrats would manipulate the hell out of you into thinking you need and want to control everything, and you obviously believe that. There is no conflict between free market interests and common interests; that is just want insane beauracrats believe and want you to believe.

Side: Yes