What would a Libertarian utopia look like?

Since Libertarianism is enjoying some time in the political spot light this year, I think it might be interesting to discuss what would an ideal utopian state might look like.

Your thoughts?

Let me take a stab at it.

- No public education
- Fee based fire services
- Fee based police services
- Fee based emergency medical services (need to prove abiltiy to pay before services are rendered)/and must pay fee in every EMS jurisdiction in which you travel, so you would need to do some additional research before traveling)
- No FAA as they impose silly safety regulations as we all know airlines will not crimp on safety
- No Federal Food and Drug Safety programs: everyone will be responsible for checking the efficacy and safety of their own drug supply
- No need for any consumer protection laws (e.g. those laws that forbid lead in paint and in childrens toys)
- No need to regulate oil industry safety or mine safety as private industry will do a better job of it. No need to ensure that corproations can pay for the damage they inflict on others or the environment.
- No welfare
- No Social Security
- No regulations on insurance companies to make sure they can pay their claims
- No regulation of banks to ensure they can pay back the money you keep in their banks
- No Federal Reserve
- Go back to commodity based currency
- Erect trade tarrifs to fund government
- Eliminate all antitrust laws
- Eliminate local utility regulations
- Eliminate the department of energy
- Eliminate state and federal parks or privatize them
- End all state sponsored research projects (NASA, Medical Research, etc).


I am not sure how you fund foriegn policy and the military...perhaps an opt in or out on funding of those expenditures.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you describe here is ANARCHY not LIBERTARIANISM.

To educate yourself on what Libertarianism is a good place to start is Hayek's 1940'2 classic 'The Road to Serfdom'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

Mind you, there are some anarchists who call themselves Libertarians, probably because it sounds like a less extreme word...but the differerence is in having no economic planning vs. having no ethical rules or government whatsoever.

An example of economic planning would be price fixing...of wages and interest rates, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you're describing is right wing or free market libertarianism, as opposed to anarchism which is very anti capitalism and the free market. Some right wing libertarians call themselves anarcho-capitalists but this is a tiny minority very different from the mainstream.

The best way I can describe free market or right wing libertarianism is its not. When you think about it, it is the most repressive regime in human history that makes Nazi Germany look like a free state. Effectively the system is handing over total power to the corperations and the people having no control over them whatsoever. In the current system an elected government at least provides some limitations and recourse to the public. In a libertarian system the idea is people can simply withdraw their custom to control them. Well think, this has really worked stopping fast food chains and hypermakets from closing down local stores. And self regulation really did a good job in controlling the banking industry and making sure there was no global crash. Effectivelty the whole population would become slaves in a society where the only people who had a say had money and they manipulated the world entirely in their own interest.

Anarchsim on the other hand, doesn't believe in capaitalism or free trade so there would be no companies or corperations. They believe all produce should be free of charge and distributed evenly to the entire population, so quite different.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well if taken to an extreme is not Libertarianism anarchy?

The point of starting this thread is to find what level of government is acceptable to most libertarians. And frankly, my impression is that most people in the forum who fly the Libertarian banner are not far from anarchy.

My point in starting this thread was to draft out what most libertarians think would be a good government. What level of govenment involvment is acceptable to most libertarians? Where is the line drawn? How would it affect government agencies and funding? What changes need to be made to our government to make it acceptable to American Libertarians.

If people are serious about change, they should be able to define in some detail what they want.

 

A crash of dysfunctional investment banks and commercial banks is exactly what the libertarian ideal relys on.

It is the CURE not the PROBLEM.

 

This is like saying 'if taken to extreme are not the democrats really communists?'

Most distinctions are matters of degree...like hot vs. cold.

 

Every economy has coercive and consensual aspects.

The Libertarian ideal is to make the economy as consensual as functionally possible.

At its most basic level this means an end to extortion in the form of taxation, and all forms of price fixing.

 

I can go along with you on the price fixing issue. There is far too much of that today. The whole point in antitrust law is to prevent price fixing and encourage competititon.

But Toltec brings up a good point, in the Libertarian world view who should control govenment? Citizens or the monied interests? In our current system is seems more and more power is being accumulated by monied special interest groups.

A lot of discourse has been rendered about what Libertarians are against. My question is what are they for? What would a Libertarian government look like at state and local levels.

If the a byproduct of Libertarianism is the disenfranchisement of citizens, I think it will be short lived and result in social chaos. And who knows what kind of government would emerge from the chaos.

 

You for got to add: Open borders, with no restrictions on who may immigrate here or come here seeking work.

I think (in fact, it is clear) you are confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. That is akin to describing a "liberal utopia" as "communism"—patently caricaturish. It is entirely possible, for example, to be both a libertarian, and not embrace Austrian school economics or the positions of Ron Paul, as even they are more extreme than the typical libertarian.

Libertarianism is more of a spectrum of beliefs, but the general statement of their principle position would be "to secure the maximum amount of liberty for oneself that is consistent with a system in which all people enjoy the same liberties." In that sense, it is a Rawlsian ideal and is entirely divorced from economic questions.

To be sure, libertarians by their bent tend to prefer free market solutions (so not tarrifs to support the government, since tarrifs distort the free market), but the degree to which they do is highly variable. I do think, contrary to what you suggest, that on economic matters most libertarians (who tend to be better educated than your typical liberal or conservative) understand and agree that externalities do exist. That does *not* mean that the government "must" step in and fix them, necessarily. (That the free market cannot arrive at a perfectly efficient solution doesn't mean that government solution will be more efficient, only that it may be more efficient.) It needs to be determined on a case by case basis whether government intervention would help or hurt the situation, and also whether and to what extent the government intervention justifies the loss of liberty that invariably accompanies government intrusion.

That is to say: government action is justifiable in libertarian philosophy, just that they are thoughtful and circumspect about when and where government's coercive power should be used.

 

An important ommision on my part. Thanks for mentioning it.

I took it to the extreme intentionally in order to faciliate some discussion and thinking about libertarianism. Let's start with the extreme and work towards a happy medium.

I don't think a lot of folks have really thought much about their political notions and the logicial implications of various positions.

A good statement of belief. I don't think many Americans would have a problem with that statement. Everyone wants maximum amount of liberty. But the kicker is the later part of that sentence, "that is consistent with a system in which all people enjoy the same liberties." How do you define and implement the last portion of that statment? How do you make it real? Where do you draw the lines?

I don't know that the average Libertarian is any better educated than the average Joe or Jane. But there is nothing particularily radical in your statement.

The key here is understanding when government must intervene. I think most individuals would prefer the most efficient soltuions. But efficient solutions sometimes trod on personal liberties. Who draws the lines? Where are the guidelines?

That suggests that government intervention today is not always thoughtful and circumspect. And given what happened during the Bush II years, I think that is a true statement. But then the question is what needs to change to make sure government intervention is thoughtful and circumspect?

p/s Ron Paul (so called libertarian) has some very strange ideas about economics. I hope you are not refering to him as an example of libertarianism.

 

The main factor in a Libertarian utopia is total 100% unanimity on exactly what constitutes "rights" and what does not. Given that, you can then set up a concensual government with the strictly limited purpose of preventing abuses of said rights, and nothing else.

The world we'd actually get if we followed the prescriptions of Libertarians would be a toxic wasteland populated by impoverished serfs and ruled over by rapacious corporations with paramilitary armies. So it's no surprise that the Libertarian movement is bankrolled by billionaires who want tax cuts, deregulation and other types of welfare hand-outs for themselves.

 

Let me take a stab: everyone will have liberty.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yes because everyone had so much liberty in the 1880's

 

It was the libertarian sentiments of the neo-cons that allowed the deregulation in happen in the first place. It was pretty much the cause of the problem.

 

Most neo-cons are not libertarians...and the most significant act of de-regulation was passed by Bill Clinton on Nov. 12 1999.

 

What you describe is exactly the kind of unethical coercive scenarios libertarians seek to proscribe.

Corporate welfare for example is high on the list of taboos.

 

In my view...citizens who can pass a test of general aptitude.

 

Yeah, I know. The point is that they're being played for suckers by cynical, powerful corporate interests.

True as such, but "corporate welfare" has been cynically redefined within Libertarian rhetoric to exclude the primary forms of corporate welfare: deregulation and tax breaks. Instead, they are equated with "liberty" and openly advocated.

 

Deregulation AND Corporate Welfare is the deadliest combination in libertarian thought.

It creates an economic layer cake of moral hazards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

 

Amen to that, and how can anyone with half a brain take them (any one claiming to be a libertarian) seriously given the truthfulness and accuracy of your statement?