Libertarianism and natural disasters

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

This is the system that exists now. You pay the inspector, the restaurant passes. If you want to know if the restaurant is safe, it takes exposure or media to spread the word.

That's not how it works in my neck of the woods. You pay the County a fee and get inspected. The fee gets paid whether you pass or not.

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

How many times have you heard of restaurants being shut down without first making someone sick, or having an angry ex employee sick the news on them first?

Happens all the time and makes the news because it's news. If a restaurant gets flagged by an inspector, cleans up its act, and then passes it is NOT news and you don't know about it. So you have no idea of the relative frequency of such events.

[Delscottio]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

This is the system that exists now. You pay the inspector, the restaurant passes. If you want to know if the restaurant is safe, it takes exposure or media to spread the word.

How many times have you heard of restaurants being shut down without first making someone sick, or having an angry ex employee sick the news on them first?

In the UK I've mostly seen it hit the news after the food esrablishment has been closed down or been served an improvement notice.

Who would force the closure in Libland? If the rstaurant agreed to pay the various local media for advertising then there is a conflict of interest and it may not get reported (i ve seen this happen with a local motor dealer)

[Rolfe]

Mostly, they don't get closed down. Mostly, they get served a "get your act together" notice, and are given a couple of weeks to put right the list of faults, and if they pass the re-inspection they're fine.

There's more ways than one of killing a cat....

Rolfe.

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

How many times have you heard of restaurants being shut down without first making someone sick, or having an angry ex employee sick the news on them first?

Around here? That's the only way I've heard of restaurants being shut down (which is rare).

We had a Chinese buffet closed down just this year because they couldn't (or wouldn't) get their act together. I never heard of anyone getting sick there.

They publish restaurant inspections every month in our local paper, and the county posts them online 24/7 (which is much more useful).

People I know regularly use the gov't-provided online service to decide where to go eat, and where to stop eating.

I've never heard of a restaurant being shut down because someone could prove (they usually can't) that a particular restaurant made them sick.

And there's no need for ex-employees to blow the whistle because gov't paid inspectors are in there every month.

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The another entrepreneur starts a publication called restaurant inspector. They charge half the price and always give good marks unless you refuse to pay. Since the consumers themselves have no way to know which is actually reliable they assume they are about the same so restaurants all pay the reduced price the real company goes out of business.

Well obviously other publications will start to inspect the inspectors, and then more to inspect them. It's turtles all the way down.

[jfeheley]

Yeah, I guess you guys are right about the free market reporting on restaurants and products. Like your comments say it wouldn't work. Take as an example Consumer Reports. Everything you say in your remarks is happening to Consumer Reports. It doesn't work. I concede to your expert analysis.

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by jfeheley

Yeah, I guess you guys are right about the free market reporting on restaurants and products. Like your comments say it wouldn't work. Take as an example Consumer Reports. Everything you say in your remarks is happening to Consumer Reports. It doesn't work. I concede to your expert analysis.

That's already been addressed.

There is no general public health threat if people buy a more expensive vacuum cleaner than they should have, or if their shampoo doesn't leave their hair as silky as it would be if they purchased a different brand.

Therefore, there is no need for taxpayers to support a public system of identifying the "best buy" vacuum cleaner, or the highest quality shampoo.

However, there is a public need for some sort of regulation to prevent people from selling dangerously shoddy products, including vacuums and shampoo, and to punish them if they do.

And the cleanliness of restaurants is sufficiently important to general health and welfare that it makes sense for taxpayers to support a centralized and mandatory inspection and reporting system.

The result is that everyone has confidence (absent corruption, of course... no system is perfect) that the places they eat in are being inspected and held to basic health standards.

This system is much more efficient than requiring everyone to go buy a magazine every month and look up each restaurant before they eat there.

Also, if it's left up to a competing private sector, you have the problem of bogus reviews. Just try typing "[product name] reviews" in an online search engine, for example, and see how reliable those reviews are. I think you'll find they are haphazard at best, and many are downright fraudulent.

Like this one, and this one, and this one, for example.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by jfeheley

Yeah, I guess you guys are right about the free market reporting on restaurants and products. Like your comments say it wouldn't work. Take as an example Consumer Reports. Everything you say in your remarks is happening to Consumer Reports. It doesn't work. I concede to your expert analysis.

Consumer Reports doesn't take money from the company selling the item, they don't even accept advertising. This is very different from your example where the company trying to sell the product paid the way. It's also worth noting that Consumer Reports doesn't even come close to doing what you claimed. Few if any of the companies that receive bad reviews go out of business, most keep selling tons of product and making piles of money.

Originally Posted by Piggy

Also, if it's left up to a competing private sector, you have the problem of bogus reviews. Just try typing "[product name] reviews" in an online search engine, for example, and see how reliable those reviews are. I think you'll find they are haphazard at best, and many are downright fraudulent.

Like this one, and this one, and this one, for example.

It's not just bogus reviews. You can't even trust online communities, if a discussion board actively discusses the quality of different brands you can assume there are at least a few people being paid to post for or against a particular item. Sometimes they are easy to spot, other times these paid posters are among the most respected community members.

[JAStewart]

As a former or quasi-libertarian, I actually think that the market doesn't solve certain things. Created by men, it seems to avoid things like the Schools and Hospitals properly. These institutions are what make our lives worth living, not the banks, but it is the banks who can create wealth with incredible ease while the schools find it more difficult.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by hgc

So, you're seriously advocating that government not inspect restaurants, and not have the power to shut them down when they violate health standards?

Colbert just invited on a guy who was raided for selling raw milk. I have a problem with that. People should be able to buy raw milk if they want to take the risk.

I have no problem with people visiting restaurants that are lousy in cleanliness, as long as they are aware of the issues. See below.

Originally Posted by SezMe

I assume you follow your own suggestions. So how do you know if a local restaurant some friends invited you to meet them at is safe? Call the neighbors? Put a notice in Craigs List? Read last Sunday's obits? Start a thread on the JREF forums? Just how, practically speaking, would you put your own advice into practice?

Presumably there haven't been tons of reports in the paper giving it a horrible reputation.

Originally Posted by Piggy

Originally Posted by Beerina

Most certainly. However, this post is in the rhetorical context of showing Libertarianism as "invalid" by bringing up what is supposedly the reduction ad absurdum of what would happen in an emergency situation, "and therefore" it's false and inapplicable to every day life, which is a crock.

No, it doesn't.

What it does is to demonstrate that libertarianism, if followed, would leave us vulnerable to rare-but-devastating problems that it has no means of addressing.

You just proved exactly what I claimed in your quoted paragraph. Threads like this, whether you admit it or not, are all about a "reductio ad absurdum" of straining libertarianism with an emergency situation.

Originally Posted by Piggy

No no no, it's the Invisible Hand of the Market that upholds that.

You know, like it stopped Enron from bilking its customers and driving itself out of business, and how it stopped that processor in Georgia from having such bad maintenance that it blew itself up or that other one from sickening people all over the country and having to pay ungodly fines, and how it stopped Wall Street from creating a shadow market in risky default swaps which turned the mortgage crisis into a global recession that dragged down many of the firms themselves.

Works wonders, that Invisible Hand.

Fraud is actionable in a libertarian world. It also doesn't promise people won't lie, cheat, and steal. That has always been around, and can get worse if said people get into government itself, especially when government can forcibly intrude into private decisions.

Enron, while bad, was not the cause of the current recession. That was the housing bubble bursting, abetted by many unwise loans, a big chunk of which were prompted by the government, because a home owner is a happy voter, and every politician wants to say, "Home ownership went up 10% while I was in charge!"

And will bailouts hinder or encourage risky behavior in the future? "Too big to fail" is another red herring whose purpose is memetic support of ever-bigger government.

[BottledWater]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Happens all the time and makes the news because it's news. If a restaurant gets flagged by an inspector, cleans up its act, and then passes it is NOT news and you don't know about it. So you have no idea of the relative frequency of such events.

I worked at a restaurant for a few years. They failed more than a few inspections during the time I was there, and they were always given a chance to clear it up. After they failed, the owners would frantically scrub, clean and organize the place to pass. Once they passed, it would all go to hell again until the next inspection.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Piggy

For public health, this is not sufficient.

I'm not sure that Consumer Reports is the right comparison. Underwriters Laboratories^WP might be the more appropriate analog.

Originally Posted by Piggy

They publish restaurant inspections every month in our local paper, and the county posts them online 24/7 (which is much more useful).

North Carolina appears to have a pretty good system. Restaurants are periodically inspected and given a sanitation score, which they are required to prominently post. My daughter's summer camp program had planbned a field trip to a local restaurant for lunch. On the day of the trip, though, they found out that the restaurants score had fallen to an unacceptably low level. So, they took the kids to a pizza place instead.

ETA: and you can check the restaurants score, and detailed inspection results through your county government's web site.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Quote:

So, you're seriously advocating that government not inspect restaurants, and not have the power to shut them down when they violate health standards?

Colbert just invited on a guy who was raided for selling raw milk. I have a problem with that. People should be able to buy raw milk if they want to take the risk.

I have no problem with people visiting restaurants that are lousy in cleanliness, as long as they are aware of the issues. See below.

That's all very interesting. So you're seriously advocating that government not inspect restaurants, and not have the power to shut them down if they violate health standards?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by hgc

That's all very interesting. So you're seriously advocating that government not inspect restaurants, and not have the power to shut them down if they violate health standards?

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by hgc

That's all very interesting. So you're seriously advocating that government not inspect restaurants, and not have the power to shut them down if they violate health standards?

Actually, I read his post as Beerina advocating exactly that AS LONG AS there are "tons of reports in the paper" about unclean restaurants so that customers can be "aware of the issues."

Presumably the free market would sort out how to get accurate newspaper reporting at reasonable cost while allowing the newspapers to receive advertising dollars from the restaurants being reported on ... :shrug:

[The Don]

Would the same apply to the FAA, no regular inspection of planes ?

We just take it on trust that aeroplane manufacturers and airlines will prefer not to have crashes on their watch ?

Does the same apply to power stations, especially nuclear ones ?

We allow the market to remove the dangerous by refusing to buy their tickets, electricity or whatever.

Presumably the same applies to medicine. Anyone should be allowed to practise, the market decides between those who have spend £loads getting an actual medical training as opposed to those who just set up on a whim.

Oh, and we assume that no-one tells lies about their qualifications either

[Cain]

Originally Posted by The Don

Oh, and we assume that no-one tells lies about their qualifications either

If someone tells lies, then he'll get busted, it gets reported and then he'll be even more busted.

The problem with libertarianism is that once we've abolished the government's Swiss-Cheese safety net, efficient private charities will move to help the poor. Sure, there will be fewer poor people, but far more generous support, which might actually make them lazy. That's how capitalism works. Hundreds of years ago, only kings could listen to music. Now music is way better and freely available on the Internet. Under a free market system we'll have ridiculously lavish soup kitchens.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Mr.D

Actually, I read his post as Beerina advocating exactly that AS LONG AS there are "tons of reports in the paper" about unclean restaurants so that customers can be "aware of the issues."

Presumably the free market would sort out how to get accurate newspaper reporting at reasonable cost while allowing the newspapers to receive advertising dollars from the restaurants being reported on ... :shrug:

Yes, it's as if the magic market will cure all that ails human nature, as long as people are "free." Of course, when this lack of societal control through governments and trade associations with enforcement powers and the like are taken to their logical conclusion, we call it a "failed state." I haven't heard much about outside investment streaming into Somalia in the last 20 years for some reason.

Please, libertarians: Show me the success example.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by The Don

Would the same apply to the FAA, no regular inspection of planes ?

We just take it on trust that aeroplane manufacturers and airlines will prefer not to have crashes on their watch ?

I believe the answer is that the free market will cause the airplane manufacturers with the most fatal defects to shape up or go out of business.

And there's the other major flaw with "pure" Libertarianism. Even assuming a perfectly efficient free market, significant numbers of people still have to die/get hurt/sick to weed out the bad businesses. I think radical Libertarians live in a world where it's only other people that suffer the consequences.


ETA: To paraphrase: Libertarianism is great as long as you're the one living off other peoples' consequences.

[Almo]

Originally Posted by hgc

This is absurd. Ideas don't win. People with power win. This is just as true in Libertopia as it is in the USA.

Guitar Hero's continued success in the face of the far superior Rock Band is proof of this.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Mr.D

ETA: To paraphrase: Libertarianism is great as long as you're the one living off other peoples' consequences.

EXACTLY.

Anyone advocating true libertarianism is either a blind believer, or planning to scam other people once those pesky laws are abolished.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by Chaos

EXACTLY.

Anyone advocating true libertarianism is either a blind believer, or planning to scam other people once those pesky laws are abolished.

I think you meant true scotsman. Of course the true republican is a greedy plutocrat religious nutjob and the true democrat is a marxist classist, economic ignoramus, anti-business nutjob ?

Thanks for the strawman'ing and opponent ad hominem mischaracterizations. Perhaps you'd care to play again without the logical fallacies.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by hgc

Yes, it's as if the magic market will cure all that ails human nature, as long as people are "free." Of course, when this lack of societal control through governments and trade associations with enforcement powers and the like are taken to their logical conclusion, we call it a "failed state." I haven't heard much about outside investment streaming into Somalia in the last 20 years for some reason.

Please, libertarians: Show me the success example.

Incredibly incompetent example; suggesting Somolia is anything like a libertarian state. You seem to be one if the ppl who confuses libertarianism with anarchy in an attempt to create a cartoonish strawman fallacy to support your position. Libertarianism isn't anarchy. You can't have any sort of reasonable libertarian state without enforceable property rights and civil tort law, and most of the criminal law we are all used to.

There is no pure or true libertarian state to use as an example, but some are closer or farther from that ideal. Name a pure democracy or a pure republic, before you try your strawman'ing libertarianism again. If you'd like to consider some non-cartoon based comparisons ...

Chile before and after the Pinoche regime. Chile has since the 1980s has rather libertarian federal economic policies.

Or compare Haiti vs Dominican Republic; No one can argue that DR is any model of libertarianism, but the vast difference between the "basket case" of Haiti and the 2nd wealthiest nation in the Caribbean basin, DR demands an explanation. One reason the per capita income in the DR has increased 50% in the past quarter century, and the per-capita in Haiti has declined by 50% is their federal free market (or lack of in Haiti) policy.

Unlike some purists I would agree that free markets alone cannot solve every problem well, but some of the glaring faults in our own social structure are not well addressed either. The ad absurdum argument against libertarianism can be equally applied against other forms of government. It turns into an "aha your plan has flaws too" pointless discussion.

The real question is, would we benefit from freer markets, and less government regulation, more personal freedom ? I think the federalists/central-planners on this thread (and elsewhere) fail to accurately account for the costs vs benefits of regulations. Much regulation is what I would consider erroneously designed. Politicians often regulate methods instead of outcomes, thus institutionalizing current methods and stalling innovation.

==

I think the restaurant inspection case is a useful one. Being able to sue a bad restaurant or circulate a bad report about it is an after-the-fact solution in a case where we clearly want a predictor. Publishing a list online in some NC county may help the locals, but when I am driving through and need a bite it's rather unlikely I'll even know the county or it's website. In the 1960s/1970s days AAA used to publish books and have route maps that would list rated restaurants and hotels, has stickers for the establishment's window, tho' it's unlikely that where inspected often enough to be very useful. Still this negates the "living off others consequences" argument. We can have privately developed standards without regulation. Whether they are sufficient is arguable, and we can't really know except to see what actually develops in the absence of regulation.

Of course pollution, strip mining, and many similar cases involve a "tragedy of the commons" issue. The libertarian view would be that the commons should be privately owned, but so far no one has arrived at any practical means to assert private ownership of the skies, oceans or eve na small aquifer.

When operating a potentially dangerous plant, for example a fireworks or munitions factory or a nuclear power plant, one could argue that there is another "commons" case where the commons that is being abused is the abstract concept of "safety". I suppose if you create a munitions factory next door, I can sue you for my increased insurance costs, but .... that's pretty weak and unsatisfactory. Trying to compensate people for an unrealized risk would quickly become a political firestorm. For xample some might argue that a gram of saturated fat is pure poison, while others might consider it harmless.

So in practice I think it's probably necessary to consider some things as held in common by the state, and also safety must be considered part of a common interest, then any use of these commons (beyond normal personal use?) could be regulated and paid for, but on an equal and business-like basis.

So for example I have no great issue with "the state" charging a fee for every gallon of sewage water delivered to the treatment plant, or for every ton of carbon emitted to the atmosphere - a bill for use of the commons, but it has absolutely no business regulating the size of a toilet tank, or the choice of incandescent light bulbs.

===

On another regulatory issue - I have no problem with legalization of drugs. I suspect it would be far less damaging to society in general, and removes a restriction of personal freedoms.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by stevea

Chile before and after the Pinoche regime. Chile has since the 1980s has rather libertarian federal economic policies.

Before I go any further here - are you actually holding up pinochets chile as an example of free market policies that you advocate?

[jfeheley]

Hi Stevea, your last reply was excellent.

Can any of you big government guys name one government program that has ever worked and didn't have corruption, waste, mismanagement and in general a mess? Can you name one government program that we would all agree was generally run well and a success? Just one that is as successful as the free market running the same endeavor?
Remember we are talking federal government here where it is one way for all. There is always room for government in cities and states as these governments can learn and prosper from watching the freedom of choices these cities and states have in their style of governing.

I will name two out of thousands of well managed programs in the free market. UPS and FedEx. I'll even throw in a third one. Amazon.com.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by jfeheley

Hi Stevea, your last reply was excellent.

Can any of you big government guys name one government program that has ever worked and didn't have corruption, waste, mismanagement and in general a mess? Can you name one government program that we would all agree was generally run well and a success? Just one that is as successful as the free market running the same endeavor?
Remember we are talking federal government here where it is one way for all. There is always room for government in cities and states as these governments can learn and prosper from watching the freedom of choices these cities and states have in their style of governing.

I will name two out of thousands of well managed programs in the free market. UPS and FedEx. I'll even throw in a third one. Amazon.com.

Well, I suppose i'll throw out that the US mostly uses private healthcare, while the UK mostly uses nationalised healthcare. Both countries have the same life expectancy, but the UK only spends half the amount per person per year that the US spends on healthcare. That's the most obvious example off the top of my head of a nationalised system being clearly better than a private one.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by jfeheley

Can any of you big government guys name one government program that has ever worked and didn't have corruption, waste, mismanagement and in general a mess? Can you name one government program that we would all agree was generally run well and a success? Just one that is as successful as the free market running the same endeavor?

You are setting up an impossible challenge. You expect people to come up with an example of a program that had no corruption, waste or mismanagement even though no human endeavour ever was entirely free of those things. I can think of several government programs that seem to work quite well, but there are none on which "we would all agree". You want an example of a government program that was as successful as the free market running the same endeavour -- assuming as axiomatically true that the free market does them successfully -- while government programs almost never do the exact same thing free market companies do. You are also presenting a false distinction between government and free market, as if they exist independent of each other.

Quote:

Remember we are talking federal government here where it is one way for all. There is always room for government in cities and states as these governments can learn and prosper from watching the freedom of choices these cities and states have in their style of governing.

... and you are backtracking already. You can't just limit your argument to one particular government. Governments can change the way in which they are organised. There are many different governments in the world. Just because you happen to think that the US federal government failed in some respects doesn't mean you have a good argument against "big government" in general. It would at best be an argument against one specific big government.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

This isn't an attempt to antagonise any Libertarians. I'm just interested in whether you think the Free Market, in these cases, would be better.

The free market will come to a solution, eventually. The problem is that it will likely take generations to reach that solution. It is similar to evolution. The fittest for the prevailing circumstances will prevail.

Of course there is always a faster solution to anything. Lower taxes.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by richardm

I think most Libertarians would, by definition, say that the Free Market would be better in every case imaginable.

Then you would be wrong. Libertarians have long known about, and for many years talked about this sort of issue. (article at Reason.com discussing this very issue) This is essentially a problem of 'the commons'. Dealing with problems of the commons is one of the primary reasons for the existence of government and very few libertarians have any issue with the government dealing with this sort of thing - in fact, libertarians would say that this sort of thing is one of the few functions of government that are legitimate.

Quote:

In the specific case of the pandemic, I'm guessing that many would say that it's the theatre owner's choice to open his business or not, and it's the individual's choice to attend the theatre or not. Only an idiot would go to an enclosed public space in the middle of a pandemic, and if people want to be idiots that's their right, so screw 'em.

Actually, that would not at all be the response of libertarians.

Assuming a pandemic, the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens is paramount. "Even the staunchest civil libertarian must accept that one person's liberty may be restricted when this is necessary for preventing harm to another."1

Quote:

I'm not sure that the common good ever enters the equation, so taking a universal stand for it doesn't seem very likely. I'm prepared to be surprised, though.

Actually, I know it's fashionable to simply assume those with a different philosophical outlook must have that particular outlook because they are venal, but surprisingly enough, that often isn't the case. It might surprise you to learn that libertarians believe that doing the utmost to protect the rights of the individual, every individual, results in the greater good.

And in spite of apparent misunderstanding of what libertarians believe (or the crude straw men, I'm not entirely sure), libertarians do not believe that the free market is the answer to everything. The free market, when left to itself (with the appropriate safeguards against fraud, theft, breach of contract, etc.) just so happens to provide the optimum outcomes for those problems related to property. It does NOT work well with (nor do libertarians claim it does) those issues which deal with the commons in some way. It might surprise you to learn that libertarians are generally those who are the first to distinguish whether something is a problem of the commons, and thus not amenable to a market solution. In fact, if someone even uses the phrase 'the commons' or 'tragedy of the commons', there is a pretty decent chance you are talking to a libertarian - just like if someone uses the phrase 'social justice' it would be safe to bet they are probably a leftist of some sort. The tragedy of the commons is very basic: "absent individual property rights in any common, everyone's incentive is to overuse the resources available there." That's why the buffalo were almost hunted to extinction in the 19th century, but cattle weren't - hint: cattle were private property and buffalo weren't. The only buffalo that actually survived were those that someone caught and turned into their private property.

There are problems of the commons that can be resolved by providing private property rights and allowing the market to work, like in the case of privatizing fisheries. But there are problems of the commons that can't be resolved that way; private property rights won't help keep air clean of pollutants because we don't 'own' air, we own the land over which air moves...and move it does, along with any pollutants. If any pollution someone released simply stayed on their own property and had no impact on the environment around them, the market could indeed resolve it...but alas, it doesn't work that way. That is a problem that requires governmental regulations to resolve. Pollution in groundwater is the same.

There are indeed problems that simply can't be resolved by market forces (and I've never heard of any libertarian claiming that the free market can magically push a planet killer asteroid out of the way using 'market power') but just about any problem related to property can be resolved by the market, assuming there is government protection of private property, enforcement of contract, and protections from fraud, theft, etc.

Libertarians are not the same as anarchists.

[Mr. Purple]

Originally Posted by stevea

On another regulatory issue - I have no problem with legalization of drugs. I suspect it would be far less damaging to society in general, and removes a restriction of personal freedoms.

This is a (counter)-example of why I began to doubt the 'intellectual purity' of libertarians (very numerous in my town- a famous Libertarian radio personality hosts his show from here).

Why are the rights over your own body not more important than your rights to property? I would imagine they are THE most important rights to secure; never the less we do not have Tea Party / Libertarian protesters screaming to keep the government's laws off their bodies, we have them screaming to keep the government out of their pocket.

I have yet to see (though it doesn't mean it isn't out there) a photo of a Tea Party demonstrator holding up a sign demanding rights relative to drugs, abortion, prostitution, euthanasia, etc.

(Don't even get me started about TRUE 1st amendment protection / religious freedom....an impossibility without full legal rights over one's own body).

Without disregarding the importance of financial liberty, isn't personal (as in your body) liberty more fundamentally important?

I would stand in bread lines (OK, short bread lines- and only if it is that really good bread with the honey in the crust) if you told me the government would rescind all laws regarding my body (assuming of course my actions relative to my body would infringe upon the rights of others).

[Elind]

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

Libertarians are not the same as anarchists.

I have never thought so, although I confess I have not been very sure exactly what they stood for, and I would like to know what the difference, specifically, is between Libertarianism and the Tea Party crowd (other than irrational frustration).

[Mr. Purple]

Originally Posted by Elind

I would like to know what the difference, specifically, is between Libertarianism and the Tea Party crowd

I thought Tea Party people are Libertarians. I meant no offense by my post above (I know you weren't speaking to me Elind- I just wanted to be clear).

Around here they seem to use the terms interchangeably (correct or not).

[Elind]

Originally Posted by FSM76

I thought Tea Party people are Libertarians. I meant no offense by my post above (I know you weren't speaking to me Elind- I just wanted to be clear).

Around here they seem to use the terms interchangeably (correct or not).

If they are Libertarians, then there is a coup in progress and the Republicans are too stupid to notice.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Elind

If they are Libertarians, then there is a coup in progress and the Republicans are too stupid to notice.

The tea party includes libertarians, and generally is supported by many libertarians. Just like the Republican party includes libertarians.

The tea party is basically a big tent group with very different takes on social issues (ranging from full on libertarians to strong social conservatives) who are putting issues other than spending, size of government, and general fiscal conservatism on the back burner so that they can band together for what seems to everyone in the tea party to be the most pressing issue.

Instapundit

Quote:

TEA PARTY LEADERS urge GOP to avoid social issues. It’s good advice. We’re heading off a cliff financially. Other stuff, not so urgent.

I would hazard a guess that the tea party probably has a higher percentage of libertarians than the Republican party in general, but that is just an impression.

And yes, many in the tea party are purposefully attempting the equivalent of a coup of the Republican party, in an attempt to get the Tom DeLay type Republicans out. Pay no attention to those who say that the tea party is trying to make the Republican party more "extreme" or right wing; they don't know what they are talking about. Mitch McConnell^WP is a good example:

Quote:

He is a conservative, receiving a perfect score from the American Conservative Union in 2006.[3]

...

Although he is considered by many as an ardent conservative, he has distanced himself from the majority in his party by supporting earmarks

Mitch McConnell is very much a conservative (both social and fiscal), but he's been taking alot of flak from the tea party groups for not agreeing to a moratorium on earmarks for the next Congress. He has since agreed to a moratorium, but only under pressure.

Earmarks, though small potatoes when it comes to Federal spending, are one of the primary routes of corruption in Congress and one of the big ways that incumbents use taxpayer money to purchase their re-election. One of the aims of the tea party is to indeed purge the Republican party, not for ideological purity reasons but to get rid of wheeler dealers who like to use their positions to entrench their own power at the expense of taxpayers and also to get rid of those politicans who think of themselves as part of a ruling class to which a different set of rules applies.

ETA: and yes, believe me, there has been a pretty bitter fight going on between tea partiers and the Republican party establishment both during the primaries and afterwards, and some of those primary winners did not exactly get the whole-hearted support of the NRSC or the NRCC, in part because the establishment felt threatened, and in part because those primary winners didn't hire the right consultants. That's one of the types of insider backscratching (and electorate ignoring) that the tea party wants to eradicate.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

The tea party includes libertarians, and generally is supported by many libertarians. Just like the Republican party includes libertarians.

So Republicans are composed of the Republican party, the Tea party and the Libertarian party.

Figures.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Elind

So Republicans are composed of the Republican party, the Tea party and the Libertarian party.

Figures.

Do I need to create a Venn diagram?

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Elind

So Republicans are composed of the Republican party, the Tea party and the Libertarian party.

Figures.

More like this: Many people registered to vote as Republican and/or who usually vote Republican do indeed consider themselves libertarian (small l). "Tea party" is a label for a variegated faux movement within the ranks of Republicans to excite masses of idiots who suddenly to become interested in deficits and spending now that a Democrat has become president.

[Phrost]

Here's how every thread on libertarianism on the JREF forums goes:

1. Original post, something to the effect of "So how would a libertarian deal with an alien invasion, huh?"

2. Ten-or-so subsequent posts by non-libertarians, providing grammatical caricatures of how the extreme fringe of people who label themselves as libertarian would respond.

3. Actual libertarians rolling their eyes and ignoring the thread.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Phrost

Here's how every thread on libertarianism on the JREF forums goes:

1. Original post, something to the effect of "So how would a libertarian deal with an alien invasion, huh?"

2. Ten-or-so subsequent posts by non-libertarians, providing grammatical caricatures of how the extreme fringe of people who label themselves as libertarian would respond.

3. Actual libertarians rolling their eyes and ignoring the thread.

Are you saying that anti-restaurant inspection/closure by government agencies is a caricature of the extreme fringe? If so, I'm glad to hear it. But, within this very thread that's an argument many were engaged in. Perhaps you can tell us which of the characterizations of libertarianism in this thread are caricatures.

[Phrost]

What I'm saying is that, unless you're an actual libertarian, perhaps you should wait until a few posts into a thread asking libertarians a question before you add your two cents.

Seriously, should a bunch of doughy, out of shape couch potatoes respond to a thread asking what Cagefighters think about Subject_X before the actual cagefighters do?

This isn't any different because you have an opinion on the subject. Unless, of course, the premise isn't to actually engage libertarians (which it isn't), but to brow-beat them in order to try validate your own ideology.