The Libertarian Temptation

[BT]

It was really unwise to stand up Letterman. I bet no one repeats that.

Yes. Letterman rode that for a month.

[MissusDe]

I thought McCain ran an uneven campaign.

Agreed.

[Universe Prince]

Yes, we see....

That's it? That's your counterargument? Fear the immigrant because he's anti-gay? This does nothing to prove your point. I can post YouTube videos about immigration too:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuMZZ0wv1oE[/youtube]

Since when are the Pink Hankie Libertarians from Reason in favor of smaller government?

I have no idea what Pink Hankie Libertarians are. I'm sure it some sort of childish insult, but I haven't the time to look up the meaning of your childish name calling.

In any case, the libertarians of Reason are quite regularly in favor of smaller government. For example, here and here and here and here.

Apparently, their objection isn't so much to the government as it is to the nation.

Recognizing that a more prosperous nation is more likely to have a larger government is not an endorsement of larger government. And arguing for a more pragmatic libertarianism is hardly an anti-nation argument. And somehow you moved suddenly from referring to "smaller government" to simply saying "government". More on that in a moment.

 When it comes to imposing their particular version of freedom, Ol' Pink Nick and the Gang seem to be perfectly fine with the government.

That particular article is about federalism, hardly a manifesto of imposing libertarian ideas on others. But you're making a common mistake. You've conflated the concept of a large and overbearing government with the concept of government period. And so when a libertarian who is not a complete anarchist, and/or calling for the end of all government now, says something about using government to protect the rights of individuals (a position that is in no way incompatible with libertarian ideas) you then claim they must not be advocates of smaller government. In the article to which you linked, Gillespie essentially argues for a smaller federal government with more choices made at the state and local level. And what is your half-baked assessment? "Ol' Pink Nick and the Gang seem to be perfectly fine with the government." Even a cursory examination of your arguments shows them to be shallow and little more than fearmongering propaganda.

I notice one freedom they seem to be light on - the freedom of a people to political self-determination. Liberty, as defined by Reason, mostly amounts to unilateral disarmament of normalcy.

Normalcy according to whom? You? Are you the arbiter of normalcy? Is there some magical percentage of the populace that determines what is normal? And "unilateral disarmament of normalcy"? You say this as if there is some form of "normalcy" that should be imposed on everyone. You bitch about libertarians supposedly not having "ever proposed anything that would actually have the consequence of increasing anyone's liberty" but you do not appear to propose any sort of liberty at all. Any individual who disagrees with you politically you seem to believe to be a threat to some inanely romantic and rather collectivist notion of national unity. Your criticism of libertarianism is not only shallow and essentially baseless, it is also conspicuously hypocritical.

[Xavier_Onassis]

In what ways would the election of a Libertarian government result in greater liberty fo the people?

[Universe Prince]

In what ways would the election of a Libertarian government result in greater liberty fo the people?

That depends on the libertarians elected. A few things I fairly sure would happen if we're talking about the federal government: an end of the "war on drugs" which would include the legalization of many drugs allowing them to be sold legitimately by pharmaceutical companies; more federalism, which is to say more control at the state level and the elimination of things like the fed Department of Education; appointment of judges who showed a commitment to individual rights and property rights, likely resulting in a reversal of decisions like Kelo v. New London.

If instead we're talking about merely state government, likely what would happen is: fewer needless licensing regulations; greater refusal to work with the federal government and/or accept federal funds; and attempt to give greater control to parents on where their children attend school. Possibly there would be either legislation allowing homosexual marriage, or a severe reduction of state legislation regarding marriage which would result in eliminating the need for homosexual marriage to have government approval (which I would prefer to see happen). Also there would likely be reduced overall spending, allowing the state to reduce property taxes and sales taxes and possibly gasoline taxes as well.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Also there would likely be reduced overall spending, allowing the state to reduce property taxes and sales taxes and possibly gasoline taxes as well.

Being as the gasoline tax does not currently raise enough to maintain the roads we use, do you suppose that federal, state and local highways would be privatized and turned into toll roads which could charge whatever price they wished?

Nearly all of my property tax goes to pay for garbage pick up and public schools. If this tax is cut, how would schools and garbage pick up be paid for?

[Universe Prince]

Being as the gasoline tax does not currently raise enough to maintain the roads we use, do you suppose that federal, state and local highways would be privatized and turned into toll roads which could charge whatever price they wished?

No, I do not suppose that all or even most roads everywhere would become toll roads.

Nearly all of my property tax goes to pay for garbage pick up and public schools. If this tax is cut, how would schools and garbage pick up be paid for?

You'd have to take that up with your local and/or state governments. I'm not going to decide how your garbage pickup and public schools get funded. Maybe your property taxes would not be lowered. Maybe someone would discover ways to lower spending for public schools without sacrificing quality of education (coughlikecoughmaybecoughvoucherscough).

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, sure, like vouchers are going to make teachers teach harder.

The fact is that Libertarians don't get the votes precisely because they have the attitude that "it will be ever so much better, but don't expect us to describe how it will actually WORK." Yeah, maybe all your highways will extract a toll from you on behalf of some conglomerate, maybe your kids teachers will be lackeys, and you will have to haul your own trash to the dump. But we are all for PRINCIPLES here.

Once my radio stopped working. The tuner needle stopped moving when I spun the dial. I took it to Big Ed, an Electrical Engineer at the top of his class for a master's degree. Big Ed said "I don't do radios: I am not a hardware man". That's Libertarians for you: they are stuffed chock more full of theory then a Thanksgiving turkey, but they can't fix a thing.

[Universe Prince]

Yeah, sure, like vouchers are going to make teachers teach harder.

No one said they would. No one said they would have to.

The fact is that Libertarians don't get the votes precisely because they have the attitude that "it will be ever so much better, but don't expect us to describe how it will actually WORK."

That is an AMBE criticism. I am not an engineer and I don't know where you live. I can tell you what a bridge does, but I cannot tell you what kind or how to build one in your specific location. That doesn't mean a bridge is a stupid idea that will never work. You're asking me to detail exactly how every portion of government from the federal down to local will function, and then criticizing me because I cannot. Guess what: no one else can either. What you fail to grasp is that part of allowing more local control means I don't have to determine how your local government functions. The whole point of more liberty for the people means not having a ton of strictly enforced top down controls. Duh.

Once my radio stopped working. The tuner needle stopped moving when I spun the dial. I took it to Big Ed, an Electrical Engineer at the top of his class for a master's degree. Big Ed said "I don't do radios: I am not a hardware man". That's Libertarians for you: they are stuffed chock more full of theory then a Thanksgiving turkey, but they can't fix a thing.

"Oh libertarians won't tell us how it will work", wah wah wah. Are you stupid? Do you live amongst morons? Can you not determine for yourselves how you're going to pay for garbage collection? Do you really need someone else to tell you what to do and how to live? You go on and on about how libertarianism is so wrong or so unrealistic because it doesn't include a plan to cut up your food and hold your hand as you cross the street and give you lollipop to make you feel better when bad things happen. Here's a clue: Grow up.

Here is what your criticism is like: The libertarian says, "We're want to shrink government and return control to the local level". You say, "But who's going to pick up my trash?" The libertarian replies, "That is something for you to decide at the local level." And you say, "Ah-ha, the libertarians have no plan!" No, the plan is to let that decision be made at the local level. Libertarians at the local level might have a more specific plan. Ask them. That I, not even living in your state, personally do not have a specific plan for garbage collection in your town and at your house does not mean there is no plan. Your criticism, however, does indicate you may have severe reading comprehension problems.

[Plane]

When I was a child the government was less than half so big at all levels.

Could the thing shrink as slowly and inexorably as it grew?

[Xavier_Onassis]

When I was a child the government was less than half so big at all levels.

When you were a child the country had half as many people.

Could the thing shrink as slowly and inexorably as it grew?

In a word, no.
You will never see a shrinking government in the US.
Never.

[Plane]

When I was a child the government was less than half so big at all levels.

When you were a child the country had half as many people.

Could the thing shrink as slowly and inexorably as it grew?

In a word, no.
You will never see a shrinking government in the US.
Never.

You may be right , but I hope not.
I don't really like the idea of a crash being needed , but it does seem as though the urge to grow is insatiable in the government.
But if it gets too big to work it will wreck for certain , I am imagining a ship with a Wheel house bigger and heavier than the engine room. This ship keeps adding weight to the controll features without increasing engine power or ballast in scale . This ship will become stable when it turns turtle.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Depression of the Thirties did not cause the government to shrink. Nor did it shrink during the short periods between wars (1945-50, 1953-1960, 1976-1990, 1993-2001) There were minor wars in those gaps: Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Salvador and Nicaragua, Bosnia, and all sorts of interventions and smaller meddlings.
,
Perhaps if we actually were at peace for a serious period of time, we could get by with less growth in government.

[Plane]

The Depression of the Thirties did not cause the government to shrink. Nor did it shrink during the short periods between wars (1945-50, 1953-1960, 1976-1990, 1993-2001) There were minor wars in those gaps: Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Salvador and Nicaragua, Bosnia, and all sorts of interventions and smaller meddlings.
,
Perhaps if we actually were at peace for a serious period of time, we could get by with less growth in government.

I don't remember any period of peace shrinking the government either.
Tho to be fair , periods of peace tend to be shorter than three years.

The Military has been shrunk tho , after WWI and after WWII and after the end of the cold war , the first World war enede and set up a big depression , but the other two big decreaseds in Military spending were co-incidental with booming economys.

Can you imagine a government being too big? What if the biggest industry in the country was government?At what point would we have more than we need?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Can you imagine a government being too big? What if the biggest industry in the country was government?At what point would we have more than we need?

Obviously, the government cannot employ mor than 100% of the population. I am absolutly certain that that would be too many.

"Need" is a difficult thing to evaluate.
Ask your wife: "How many pairs of shoes do you need"?

Most wives could tell you how any pairs you need, but getting a specific number for how many she feels she needed will be likely a difficult chore.

No people, at least those with the standard number of feet, logically need more than two shoes at one time.
Pretty much everyone you ask will admit they feel they need more than one pair.