The Student Room Group

Why isn't libertarianism more popular?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by im so academic
The average person really doesn't care whether someone can get high or marry multiple people. They care whether they can get a job, earn a decent salary etc. That can answer the question in the OP actually.


Again, you're doing the same thing.

Who cares about the individual issues?

Surely people care about the principle of self-ownership?
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Why shouldn't everything be in a free market?


i think this idea is too pure.

i think everyone ends up wanting coffee without caffeine, meat without fat and so on, it becomes regulated by its unregulatedness, essentially it is self corrupting and may result in mass corporate globalist monopoly.

i wonder if all the world can live with a western style of life or what will happen with biotechnology and genetics, what will happen to minorities and so on.

should the army be free market?
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Again, you're doing the same thing.

Who cares about the individual issues?

Surely people care about the principle of self-ownership?


I don't know. Don't ask me, ask the electorate. I'm not even eligible to vote.
Original post by robin22391
i think this idea is too pure.

i think everyone ends up wanting coffee without caffeine, meat without fat and so on, it becomes regulated by its unregulatedness, essentially it is self corrupting and may result in mass corporate globalist monopoly.

i wonder if all the world can live with a western style of life or what will happen with biotechnology and genetics, what will happen to minorities and so on.

should the army be free market?


How is giving people what they want 'corrupt'?

I have no idea with what you even mean in the second paragraph.

And thirdly, sure. Why not? We often forget that there are more people in the US employed as private security than are in the entire US police force. If security can be provided at home privately, why can't a national defence force be provided privately?
Original post by im so academic
I don't know. Don't ask me, ask the electorate. I'm not even eligible to vote.


I'm not sure why you claimed to know exactly what people wanted five minutes ago then.
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Again, you're doing the same thing.

Who cares about the individual issues?

Surely people care about the principle of self-ownership?


most people are trained to want a job and a big salary and to follow the leader.

cattle dont care about being fenced in a field
Original post by robin22391
most people are trained to want a job and a big salary and to follow the leader.

cattle dont care about being fenced in a field


...what?

I have no idea what you're getting at.
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
How is giving people what they want 'corrupt'?

I have no idea with what you even mean in the second paragraph.

And thirdly, sure. Why not? We often forget that there are more people in the US employed as private security than are in the entire US police force. If security can be provided at home privately, why can't a national defence force be provided privately?


thats asking for trouble, you'll end up with feudalism...i suppose these armies are allowed nukes too?

usually libertarianism has the government protecting property etc

freemarket armies would perhaps be something for anarchism, but i would think laws would abolish such things else we end up having wars between ikea and mcdonalds
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
...what?

I have no idea what you're getting at.


im saying people dont seem to care about principles
Original post by robin22391
im saying people dont seem to care about principles


Which is exactly what I said on page one of this thread, and I said it was a problem.
Original post by robin22391
thats asking for trouble, you'll end up with feudalism...i suppose these armies are allowed nukes too?

usually libertarianism has the government protecting property etc

freemarket armies would perhaps be something for anarchism, but i would think laws would abolish such things else we end up having wars between ikea and mcdonalds


Do you even understand the non-coercive axiom? :facepalm2:
Reply 51
Avatar for Mbob
Mbob
12
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
I find it somewhat odd that maximising personal freedom isn't more popular in modern society. Why do you think that libertarianism isn't more popular?

Would you vote for a libertarian party?


It's very hard to campaign on a libertarian platform. While you can make general arguments, it's difficult to attract people with any particular policies.

When people got to politicians, they tend to say "What are you going to do about this?" or "How are you going to improve this?".

If your answer is, "We're not going to do anything, sort it out yourself", you're probably not going to get that person's vote.

People tend to be all for small government in general, but not in particular.
Original post by Mbob
It's very hard to campaign on a libertarian platform. While you can make general arguments, it's difficult to attract people with any particular policies.

When people got to politicians, they tend to say "What are you going to do about this?" or "How are you going to improve this?".

If your answer is, "We're not going to do anything, sort it out yourself", you're probably not going to get that person's vote.

People tend to be all for small government in general, but not in particular.


I find that odd, though. Do people really like having such little autonomy? I would feel rather insulted if someone said 'you couldn't possibly look after everything yourself, so the government will have to run x y and z for you'.
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
:lolwut: eh?

I have never heard anyone advocate that.

The style of anarchocapitalism I am familiar with is based upon the non-coercive axiom: it is always wrong to use force unless you are using it in self-defence or in defence of another.]


It doesn't matter. There's no public police, only private defense agency. Private defense agency act only for their clients. An unwanted baby has no representation and the person raping them can do. Hence, whose going to help?
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
It doesn't matter. There's no public police, only private defense agency. Private defense agency act only for their clients. An unwanted baby has no representation and the person raping them can do. Hence, whose going to help?


I think the problem here is you seem to think the right not to be assaulted is a positive right; that is a right that creates a duty for another person to act in order to give effect to the right.

I think that right is a negative right; a right that creates a duty of non-interference.

I do not think any negative right 'trumps' any other negative right.

I do not think positive rights exist ab initio; they can only be created voluntarily.

I think this to be the case because we can all respect the negative rights of others without having positive duties created for ourselves that infringe our own negative rights.
I would vote for it. I dont think many people believe in maximising individual freedom which is why it isnt more popular, people expect the government to step in and do something if things arent working out how they would like.
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Do you know anything about economics? Or are you being deliberately silly? If you printed money and gave it to people, that would just cause inflation which would make everything more expensive in line with the amount of extra money in the economy and therefore nobody would be any better off.

That's what they tried to do in Zimbabwe, and look where it got them.

Furthermore, if you don't want to give failed businesses money through bailouts, why do you think failed people should get money through welfare which is just another kind of bailout? If the principle is that nobody owes a duty to compensate people for their own bad practices or bad luck, why should people be treated differently from businesses which are ultimately just groups of people? It is illogical to make a distinction between the two.




its better than bailing out banks. better than allowing malinvestment and ponsy schemes,

for example you could cancel debts of homeowners, which is what iceland did and now its recovering very well.
Original post by Stalin
Probably because the vast majority of the country have never heard of libertarianism. UK politics for the masses is simple: you vote Tory or Labour and no longer Lib Dem.


This, said very nicely, by Stalin o.o
Original post by robin22391
its better than bailing out banks. better than allowing malinvestment and ponsy schemes,

for example you could cancel debts of homeowners, which is what iceland did and now its recovering very well.


But if you cancel debts, lenders will fail...
Original post by Aspiringlawstudent
Do you even understand the non-coercive axiom? :facepalm2:


what that has to do with it i dont know,

your morals are not necessarily the free market morals, free market morals change and do not have to resemble non aggression principles, people are not computers.

you seem to not be critical enough, there is no free market utopia.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you