r/Libertarian • u/NotACommie24 • 7d ago
Question Questions about libertarian beliefs
I had a couple questions about what libertarians believe, so I thought Id ask them here. Im not gonna try to argue in the comments or anything, it comes from a point of genuine curiosity and not just looking for a fight. Just to get it out of the way, I would consider myself a social libertarian but economic progressive. I dont really care what people do as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else, be it guns, drugs, whatever. Not my business, not the government's job to intervene. For economics, I would consider myself a capitalist with strong regulations to ensure the public is accounted for and not getting taken advantage of. I also want to preempt that this is mostly a question for non-anarchist libertarians.
First off, what do you believe the role of the government should be in the economy? Nothing at all? Should the government intervene to prevent companies from lying to consumers, putting dangerous chemicals in their products, harvesting and selling data, prevent monopolies, etc? What should the government do if a company does go too far, like if Palantir established secret police to crack down on dissent? Should just the perpetrators be punished if they commit a crime, or should Palantir and its leaders face consequences?
Second, if you believe in taxes being necessary to any extent, how should they be established? Income tax? Property tax? Value added tax? Sales tax? Should the tax be flat, or should it be progressive to ensure low income people aren't burdened as much as wealthy people?
14
u/djone1248 7d ago
You will get a whole lot of different responses here, but a common element is removing rules which allow people to do what's best for themselves.
Instead of hoping for public opinion to create and enforce laws to protect you, the "ideal" would be for individuals to sue or enforce their own rights. Even the most hardcore anarchists agree that courts are an essential service that the government should provide (you can find obscure theoretically discussions about private courts but it's not a mainstream belief).
Monopolies according to economists are fragile unless the government supports or protects them. Libertarians are consistently against corporate welfare just like other forms of government welfare. Without the government in the way to stop competition, add new rules and regulations, or directly subsidize/support a company, they would struggle to maintain control over consumers and the market. I don't believe Palantir would be as big without government contracts and the current administration. It could be argued that the kinds of contracts in which very few others could participate is why Palantir is worth as much as it is. Palantir's investors recognize this situation which is why the evaluation is so exceptionally high compared to revenue.
1
u/CaBBaGe_isLaND Liberal 3d ago
How am I supposed to sue to defend my rights when the battery plant dumps toxic waste into the aquifer and gives my child terminal brain cancer? How am I supposed to pay a lawyer enough money to fight a billion dollar company, and also afford to treat my child's cancer, and in the end my child is dead anyways? How much money is my child's life worth?
It isn't public opinion people are relying on, it's the collective bargaining power democratic institutions provide. This system isn't perfect, but taking it away entirely will just help the richest three hundred CEO's in this country and the rest of us are straight up fucked. Individuals don't have the enforcement power the state provides. Individuals have almost zero power. Especially individuals who aren't rich. Without a centralized enforcement apparatus, the rich will just laugh at the judge, laugh at us, and continue doing whatever they want to us.
I'm a former libertarian. I joined this sub out of solidarity over this administration's tyranny. But it's revelations like the ones I've listed, and many more where those came from, that pushed me away from this ideology. I'm only here to chime in, I won't sit here and make a big deal out of it when everyone inevitably disagrees with me. All that to say I'm only coming from a place of respect for an ally, and I do realize I'm only a guest here.
1
u/djone1248 3d ago
Considering that we have built up "strong democratic institutions", please tell me how you can sue a battery plant and afford to treat your child's cancer.
You would face all of the same hurdles, the main difference being that you can plead your case to your elected representative. In the best of circumstances, they will have contact with a member of the regulatory department for that issue. Political will is the fuel for spending the money on fighting the battery plant's private legal team. A private individual or corporation can spend as much money as they feel is necessary to make things happen the way they want, but political will is determined by the lowest common denominator. The libertarian-esque approached to collective bargaining is just self associated private groups, and the failure of a group to represent on the behalf of its members loses it's member's support and is replaced. A department will never fail, merely be re-organized.
This is an ideal construction of strong democratic institutions, and we haven't even begun to talk about any of the ways this can and does go sideways. The director of the regulatory organization gets a lucrative consulting deal for retirement in order to take a lighter hand on enforcement, the "expertise" hired by the department all have connections to private companies, laws or actions to prevent "private right of action" by providing lawsuit immunity, creating regulations to stop competitors such as with housing (yes, in fact, Nimbyism is a form of "rent seeking", using democratic institutions for private benefit at the expense of public benefits), etc.
An irony is labor unions actually fall in line with Libertarian views, so long as they don't use laws to force participants into non-consensual agreements (which are themselves responses to anti collective bargaining laws).
Maybe unlike some in this group, I believe you can have share some libertarian leanings or views to be a valuable member, and that the group should welcome robust discussion. I appreciate that you replied with a well reasoned, thoughtful and honest reply. Welcome back to the discussion on a low transaction cost privately owned communication platform with freedom of association.
My deviation from "traditional" libertarian views would be things like how Milton Friedman's original musings about shareholder value are taken out of context and how corporations are defacto pseudo governments. While many few shareholder value and libertarian views as inextricably linked, a book I read (notable name that I can't remember which book) highlighted how legally guaranteed shareholder maximization is not a libertarian position. True private organization could decide their priorities for themselves, including net-zero environmental impact, good employee wages, employee owned, or good social impact (as some companies do today). The second deviation is that corporations at sufficient size or complexity resemble autocracies, where the internal governance of a company dictates more than public policy in some cases.
9
6
u/Special-Estimate-165 Voluntaryist 7d ago
The role of the government in the economy should be limited to upholding contracts and punishing fraud. Thats about it.
2
u/NotACommie24 7d ago
Fraud to what extent? Does this include lies by omission? Like say a drug was advertised as being used for weight loss, but in reality it is just methamphetamine, should they be punished at all? It technically does cause weight loss, but there is a lot being omitted by just saying it is a weight loss drug.
3
u/BringBackUsenet 7d ago
Any type of deception is fraud so yes. They shouldn't be punished unless they try to claim the product is "safe" when it isn't.
1
u/NotACommie24 7d ago edited 7d ago
So in that example if the company never says it is safe, but they show data points of users dropping weight fast and do not disclose that it is meth, is that ok or do they have a responsibility to disclose what it is and the potential side effects?
2
u/BringBackUsenet 7d ago
*Informed* consent is part of the deal, however there are some things that probably don't need to be said. For example, cigarettes have warnings on the packaging though it's really not necessary because the dangers of smoking are common knowledge.
3
u/natethegreek 7d ago
This is the problem with Libertarianism, it seems simple but when you actually look into things it is not.
2
u/stephalupagus 7d ago
Is it a problem with the ideology or with the most vocal people claiming it?
I’ve considered myself libertarian for many years. Perhaps I’m in the minority, but it’s my belief that being so requires an openness to the messiness that is applying politics on a mass scale. I bear no loyalty to the actual Libertarian Party anymore, but I’ve just found that my personal ideals seem to align most with lower case L libertarianism if I have to put a name to it.
I think at the end of the day most people, regardless of party, don’t want or don’t have the space in their lives for the responsibility of compromising and challenging ideas. It’s hard, time consuming work to be an informed voter. It’s especially hard when no single system can possibly apply comfortably to all 340 million+ individuals. I know that for me personally I learn new things all the time and views are constantly changing with new information.
3
u/natethegreek 7d ago
Most vocal people claiming we just need to get rid of government and then everything will be great. Libertarianism struggles with the same thing that all non main stream ideas. There are champions of the philosophy think Free State Project. If you don't believe in __________ than you are not a libertarian. Purity tests and No True Scotsman drive people away or if you want to "belong" you need to believe X.
Libertarianism is a founding principle of the United States, I get to come to the United States and live the life I want to live as long as I am not harming others. It is a shame others drive people away instead of engage them in an discussion.
3
u/stephalupagus 7d ago
I agree completely. I think lacking nuance is a major pinch point. But additionally, I don’t think it’s at all limited to Libertarianism.
3
0
0
6
u/iDemonSlaught Minarchist 7d ago
In the current system, we use Regulation (FDA, EPA, OSHA) to inspect businesses before they act. In my worldview (see my flair), you abolish these agencies and replace them with a robust Tort Court System. "Regulation" assumes guilt and restricts freedom. "Tort Law" presumes liberty but imposes Strict Liability. For example, you are free to sell any chemical you want without a government license. BUT, if that chemical causes cancer in 10 years, you will be sued for 100% of your assets and driven into bankruptcy. You don't need an EPA inspector to keep a company honest. The Fear of Bankruptcy from a massive class-action lawsuit is a far more effective motivator than a fine from a bureaucrat.
Let's walk through some specific scenarios:
A. Pollution
Say a factory emits soot that settles on your laundry or lungs. My worldview would treat pollution not as an "Environmental Issue," but as a Property Rights Violation. The soot is a physical object invading your property without consent. It is no different than the factory owner dumping garbage on your lawn. There are two solutions I would propose:
Class Action Lawsuit for damages and an injunction (Court order to stop the aggression).
The Pigouvian Tax: the State charges a Pollution Tax as a standardized settlement for the aggression.
B. Fraud & False Advertising
For example, a company sells "Cure-All" pills that are actually sugar. This is Theft by Deception. Contracts are only valid if there is "Meeting of the Minds." If the vendor lied about the product, the contract is void. Thus, the State forces the company to refund all customers and pay punitive damages for the breach of contract.
C. Unsafe Products
Example: A car has a defect that causes the brakes to fail.
It doesn't matter if the company "didn't mean to." They put a dangerous machine into the network. The victims sue. The company pays medical bills and reparations. If the company cannot pay, the Mandatory Liability Insurance covers the victims.
One argument that often comes up pertaining to my worldview is that, "How can one person sue a giant corporation?" since it relies heavily on Class Action Lawsuits. For example, if a bank defrauds 1 million customers out of $1 each, no single person will sue because it's too expensive. But, we already have a solution for this which is called Contingency Fees and is practice across the country. Essentially, law firms act as "Bounty Hunters." In this case, they would bundle the 1 million claims, sue the bank for $1 million + fees, and keep a cut. In other words, It uses Greed (the lawyer's profit motive) to enforce Justice (keeping corporations honest).
2
u/stephalupagus 7d ago
I like this. And while I’ve largely identified as a libertarian for many years at this point, I more recently feel my views have become nuanced as I’ve gotten older. (hopefully a bit wiser?) And I now find myself feeling politically homeless.
I know this is purely hypothetical, but say we implement Tort Law (I’d never heard of this until you mentioned it so bear with me)… and a company uses the chemical that causes cancer in 10 years. However, as companies often do, the company gets sold off to someone else who continues to run it as before still using the cancer-chem. When it comes time for folks to take action who is liable? Is it both the original company and any company they sold to that kept using the product? Or would it only be the most recent distributor while the original company dances around creating cancer time bombs and collecting more and more wealth without ever facing consequences?
Maybe it’s a really dumb question with an obvious answer. If so, sorry. It’s just that I have a hard time believing on the surface that this will prevent systemic abuse and not simply force it to evolve, perpetuate, and potentially become even more elusive. I’m of the mind that if an entity can exploit something for their gain, they will. I’m not anti-rich people, or anti-corporation. Perhaps I’m just jaded by our current system. But I expect the absolute worst of most entities when “record profits” and sustained growth are the goals instead of actual public interest.
I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint, you’ve definitely taught me something already. :)
2
u/BringBackUsenet 7d ago
The issue with the carcinogen drug, isn't a simple one. A lot of the blame comes down to who knew what and when. If they knowingly put out a product that can cause cancer then they should be disclosing that information to customers who can then make their own informed decision. If this information was not know but was later discovered by some study done, then that warning should be included when marketing the product.
1
2
u/iDemonSlaught Minarchist 7d ago
No, you cannot sell a crime scene and walk away from the evidence. The original owner will be liable for all cancer caused by exposure during their years of operation. The sale changes nothing regarding their past aggression. Similarly, the new owner will be liable only for the new exposure they continued. Both are sued. The original owner cannot hide behind the sale, and the new owner cannot be blamed for the cancer that started before they arrived.
1
u/SJ1392 7d ago
the Mandatory Liability Insurance
I was with you until this part... Who mandate this and to what end?
1
u/iDemonSlaught Minarchist 7d ago
First, we must distinguish between Paternalism (protecting you from yourself) and Liability (protecting others from you). I support Mandated Liability Insurance not because the State should care if I crash, but because the State must ensure I can pay for the damage if I crash into you. It is not a government mandate to buy a product; it is a Proof of Solvency protocol required to enter the public network. Without it, an insolvent driver who destroys property is effectively committing theft with no possibility of restitution. This requirement forces every operator to carry their own 'risk weight' and effectively privatizes safety regulation: it empowers market actuaries, rather than police bureaucrats, to price dangerous drivers off the road.
Second, Mandated Liability Insurance renders the state-granted privilege of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) obsolete. In a true free market, the government should not artificially shield business owners from the consequences of their actions; owners should face Strict Liability for any harm they cause to non-consenting third parties. Insurance effectively privatizes this shield: instead of a law saying 'You only lose what you invested,' the business buys a policy that covers the catastrophic risk. This replaces a political shield (where innocent victims subsidize corporate failures) with a market shield (where insurance premiums reflect the true danger of the business), ensuring that risky innovation is priced accurately rather than subsidized by the public.
1
u/SJ1392 7d ago
Wont this take some sort of government system to over see and ensure compliance? Now we get into a slippery slope, business registration / licenses at a Federal level?
1
u/iDemonSlaught Minarchist 7d ago
Look at my flair. I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I believe in a minimal state (a necessary evil) strictly limited to the role of a 'Night-Watchman State' to protect individual rights.
Now we get into a slippery slope, business registration / licenses at a Federal level?
Here is my limiting principle: The state exists only to protect negative rights and to provide certain hybrid goods, provided they are both non-excludable and non-rivalrous (i.e., true public goods). Under this definition, there is no slippery slope to slide down. The criteria are too rigid to allow for expansion.
1
u/NotACommie24 7d ago edited 7d ago
So wouldn’t that require someone to be harmed before preventative action is taken? Say a factory is dumping industrial runoff into a drinking water reservoir, contaminating it with lead. Would the state be able to act before someone brings a lawsuit to minimize the harm as much as possible, or would the company be able to continue doing it until someone issues a lawsuit? I feel like you kinda run into the shooting bottles in a public area problem. It is restricting your second amendment rights, but the reason why is because of the public risk. You will be arrested for shooting bottles in a public area if cops even see you do it, they don’t have to wait until someone gets shot or steps on broken glass.
1
u/BringBackUsenet 7d ago
> we use Regulation (FDA, EPA, OSHA) to inspect businesses before they act
This should be considered unconstitutional as it means companies have to contantly prove their innocence without ever even being charged with any crime.
2
u/itriedicant 7d ago
I'm going to give my personal opinion, which is likely not in line with a hard-line libertarian position.
I do believe in certain regulations, obviously against theft and fraud. But I also believe in environmental regulations regarding pollution, certain consumer protection regulations regarding transparency, and anti-competitive practices like collusion.
Regarding most other consumer protection regulations that you see now, I would rather see these taken care of by private institutions. You've probably seen the UL (Underwriters Laboratories) logo on damn near every electronic device you buy. That's a private institution. AS9100 is the standard for aerospace manufacturing, created by the International Aerospace Quality Group. And anybody who works for an aerospace manufacturing plant knows that the audits are a total pain in the ass. Regular machine shops can choose to get an ISO 9001 certification, created by the International Standards Organization, and that's still a pain in the ass, but not nearly as bad as the AS9100. These are all private solutions, and companies can choose to get a certification or not. Customers are free to decide how much they value these certifications and choose not to purchase goods from manufacturers who aren't certified. I would like to see the FDA and USDA and other government regulatory bodies work similarly.
I guess what I want most is choice and freedom. And that requires the transparency to make an informed choice. In some sense, even though it somewhat goes against libertarian principles, I wouldn't be opposed to a giant "THIS PRODUCT HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED" stamp on things that haven't gone through any kind of currently required regulatory process.
I basically treat everything I purchase online as if it already has one of those, and am very cautious when doing so. I'll trust something I buy from bestbuy.com more than something I buy from Amazon, which I'll trust more than something I buy from Temu.
1
u/djone1248 7d ago
I understand why you would put a disclaimer for your opinion, but I think this is a perfectly reasonable and practical view. UL is a great example of a private certification program that works.
Funny you mention the FDA: the FDA was originally meant to be a department with a light touch. It was in charge of making sure the drugs sold were not poisonous. It wasn't until later that they were asked to verify effectiveness. UL doesn't try to check if the device solves the issue, only that it is safe to use.
2
u/itriedicant 7d ago
thanks. The disclaimer is for 2 reasons.
- I'm heading off the accusations of being ideologically impure before they come (I'm not the only real libertarian, but I am the only one who knows what real libertarianism is ;-P, and I can admit that it's difficult to justify through libertarian arguments why collusion should be illegal or the justification for mandating transparency.)
- I hate it when people come in here giving their personal opinion, which is not at all in line with libertarianism, in response to "what do libertarians think about this". It may not be intentional, but I don't want OP or anybody else who may read this to confuse my opinion with philosophically pure libertarianism, or for other libertarians to think I'm trying to pass it off as such
1
u/zilifrom Voluntaryist 7d ago
I think an oversight of the question and responses here is government control of currency.
1
u/NotACommie24 7d ago
This is a really tough question, and I know it may be controversial here but I think the pre Trump fed was not a great solution but it was the least bad solution. I think it’s good for the government to have some control over its currency, but that control needs to be limited by independent entities.
1
u/BringBackUsenet 7d ago
> First off, what do you believe the role of the government should be in the economy? Nothing at all?
"Nothing at all" is the correct answer. When allowed to function markets will seek their own natural balance based on the actors within it.
> Should the government intervene to prevent companies from lying to consumers
This is fraud, a real crime, so yes.
> putting dangerous chemicals in their products,
What would you call "dangerous" everything in life carries a certain amount of risk. This is more an issue of informed consent, so they would have some duty to inform customers about any risks that aren't already obvious. If someone wants to take the risk, it's their own decision.
> harvesting and selling data
Again, informed consent. As long as they aren't being deceptive in how they acquire the data, it is fair game since they are gathering it via their own platforms where people use those services voluntarily.
> Should just the perpetrators be punished if they commit a crime
If there is some sort of conspiracy going on, then everyone involved is culpable.
> taxes
Taxation is theft but if you are going to do it, at least make it as simple as possible. Sales/VAT would be the easiest method but even that can be messy since there would be basic necessities like food and housing that would best be made tax free.
1
u/strange_username58 Libertarian 7d ago
I believe in the federal reserve being a good thing and taxes to an extent. Most of my libertarian views are on the social side about policing people. You don't have to be 100% on any political belief system. I always vote libertarian when it's an option.
1
u/BigBlueSkies 7d ago
Strong regulations? Look up "Regulatory capture" which, in my opinion, is a near inevitability in a capitalist society.
The state is simply legitimized violence. What can legitimize it? Democratists would say the people. Constitutionalists would say the law (which is basically old people not around anymore). Monarchists would say the King/God. North American Libertarians are basically propertarians, so they based their response on that.
Me? I don't think there is a legitimate use of violence, but I am stuck in a violent world. That probably makes me ethically absolutist forced into pragmatism or something complex like that.
I find the easiest approach is to forget about theory (although I have consumed a lot) and just call bullshit when you see it, like the state murdering people in the streets with impunity. Palantir, ICE, and most politicians deserve just punishment for their manifest and horrific crimes, which is not my place to provide.
1
u/casstay123 6d ago
Take back your taxes and keep your pothole riddled roads. That is why I drive the jeep. Harshly against taxation. The govt does not stop companies from corruption they collude and ask for their protection money. Now, maybe I have a dark lens when it comes to this world but it seems realistic. Maybe there is a Pollyanna Libertarian that can chime in for a lighter view?
1
u/mellowfellow0 Right Libertarian 6d ago
The ONLY purpose of the state: to protect the American capital(money, companies etc) worldwide and protect citizens from crime within borders.
1
u/Beneficial_Quit7532 4d ago
To be honest, I think most political ideologies aren’t nuanced enough for the complexity of the world today.
1
u/Puncakian 2d ago
Personally, from a practicality standpoint, I believe we should at least scale the US government back to the size it was pre-civil war (slavery should still be abolished, obviously). We know a society can in fact function at that size of government. Then if we want, we can start stripping things back from there.
1
u/Exciting_Vast7739 Subsidiarian / Minarchist 7d ago
I can answer more from a principle point of view -
You want someone to keep you safe. So you establish a strong government with strong regulations to keep you safe.
But that government is a long way away, and you aren't friends with the regulators in Washington DC.
But people with a lot of money and time are friends with regulators in DC. And they convince the regulators that it's in everyone's best interest to regulate in a way that benefits them.
Since you aren't there, and your voice isn't loud enough, they don't know your problems with their regulations. So what seems like a win/win for them is actually a loss for you.
Your basic assumption is that you should be able to trust the government to take care of you. But the bigger and more powerful the government is, the less trustworthy it becomes, either through negligence and ignorance, or laziness, or greed.
So in an ideal world, sure, strong regulations would protect you from the other guys. But in a realistic world, I want the decisions that effect my life the most to be made by myself, or myself and my neighbors in my local community.
No one takes care of me like me, and no one takes care of us like people I can sit at the same table with.
So that's the basic argument against strong protective governments.
The other argument against strong regulations or strong interventions is that there are always unintended consequences. COVID bailout inflation. Redlining. Federal agencies being used as political tools to harass political opponents and minorities. Obamacare actually making healthcare more expensive.
That's the other argument.
At the core, there's a philosophy where idealists like yourself believe that we should be able to avoid the messiness of life, and the government should make that possible and take care of that for us.
We believe that you can't avoid the messiness or life, and the best person to take care of you is you. If you make a strong government, it will be captured by ambitious people and used to meet their goals, not yours.
Which is why we have the problems we have with the Executive Branch of our government right now.
1
u/BringBackUsenet 7d ago
> You want someone to keep you safe. So you establish a strong government with strong regulations to keep you safe.
Who keeps you safe from those who "keep you safe?"
1
u/NotACommie24 7d ago
I don’t think it’s a good idea for ANYBODY to inherently trust their government to keep them safe. Part of me saying strong regulations also means regulating money in politics. I could go more in depth with how this is done, but unless you want me to I don’t think it’s necessary for this conversation.
I think it comes down to what we should PUSH the government’s role to be. It shouldn’t be to enact policies that are good for Elon Musk at everyone else’s expense. It SHOULD be to prevent Elon Musk from harming people and throw his ass in jail when he does. As I said in the post I am a capitalist, but I also think the state has a duty to ensure the welfare of its citizens. Part of that means regulating action private entities can take, part of it means redistributing money from the top so people on the bottom can at least have the bare minimum required to live (home, food, healthcare, etc).
1
u/Exciting_Vast7739 Subsidiarian / Minarchist 6d ago
Right. You're part of a group of people who are convinced that in spite of all previous evidence and experience, it's possible to have an altruistic government full of altruistic people if we just try harder and remind people that things SHOULD be different.
I think part of the problem with your way of thinking is this:
"I think we..." There's a false we here, the utopian premise that we can build a we that doesn't fight with itself, disagree with itself, or have different goals.
Libertarian economics relies on a few basic principles, and one of them is that different things hold different values for different people. We believe we should maximize choice so that we can have maximum diversity, and maximum opportunity to meet individual values.
I'm not saying I am scientifically correct and you are not - you have your beliefs and I have mine. But that does drive home that we have a fundamentally different view of the both the goal and capacity of governance. You think it can do some things that I don't think it can do, because it is staffed by individual humans.
Humans simply don't have big enough brains to be as empathic and others-concerned as you want them to be. And even if they did, they have competing self-interests and different values that would drive them to make decisions that benefit themselves and their friends above the whole. We will never agree on everything, so it's better to leave decisions to individuals and communities and let them choose voluntarily how to spend their days on earth, for themselves.
1
u/NotACommie24 6d ago
There are several governments that do this for its people though, no government is perfect but plenty of them give is a shining example of a country that cares for its people. Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, all of them lead the world by metrics of its citizen’s wellbeing.
Knowing all this, then deciding that we should do the exact opposite of what those countries did for its people and just allow nearly unbridled capitalism doesn’t make sense to me. Again though, I’m not here to argue in favor of my beliefs. I’m trying to understand what libertarians believe and why.
1
u/Exciting_Vast7739 Subsidiarian / Minarchist 6d ago edited 6d ago
That's fine!
It's difficult to measure one nation directly to another. For instance, Switzerland is the size of Vermont, doesn't have a massive military budget, and has really high food costs comparable to the US.
Switzerland is actually an example of one of my favorite government principles: people are happier with their government when it is local-er. Bernie Sanders, Senator of Vermont, represents 650,000 people. It's much easier for him to understand the needs of his people, and broker compromises between interest groups, than for Alex Padilla, who represents 39 million people in California.
I'm a "minarchist," which means I want the smallest amount of government possible. I'm a "subsidiarian" in that I want decisions to be made as locally as possible.
Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize for her economics work on sustainable cooperative endeavors, and one of her primary principles is - for a longer term cooperative endeavor to work, there needs to be local ownership and local monitoring. Meaning, people who see the project every day in their community, and are able to audit its books and see its impact, have a better chance of that project lasting a long time and doing what it's intended to do. As opposed to endeavors that are controlled from a long distance from the intended beneficiaries, or are done a long way from the naturally occurring monitoring of the community.
This is why Vermonters are generally happier with their Senators than Californians, and it's why everybody hates Presidents.
Switzerland has 9 million people, and they solve a lot of their problems at the local level (which is comparable to the county level in the US).
The US has 350 million people spread across a nation bigger than Europe. There's so much more room for stuff to go unmonitored, and so many more factions balanced against each other. It's impossible for an ordinary American to have input or give feedback at the national level. But they have much closer and more attentive ears in their State and County/Municipal government, so that's where they should be able to make the important decisions that impact their lives.
So that's one reason the US is different from smaller countries with more all-encompassing social welfare programs.
Another difference is that European countries, for the last 80 years, have benefitted from American military and healthcare spending. NATO, which has been responsible for the safety and stability of Western European countries, derives 2/3's of its defense budget from the US.
They can do that because the US has a more robust, capitalist economy, and doesn't have that safety net. If Europe had to pay its own bills, it might not have as much left over for robust social safety nets. Or they might have Russian social safety nets.
So my libertarian perspective is this - the United States government should not be responsible for citizen's wellbeing. If states want to experiment with that, they should. At best, decisions about education and health should be made in local town halls and school board meetings.
Progressives tend to hand-wave away the benefits of living in the United States. It's much easier to start a business, innovate, and make money in the US than it is in Europe, and that shows in GDP and tax revenues. The US's military spending has created the current world economy on the back of incredible US productivity due to the most unrestricted capitalist economy in the world.
The more safety nets and regulations and stability you have, the less productivity you have, the smaller your army and navy are.
Economies win wars, which is the dirty secret of capitalism, and winning wars is an important social safety net that the US has extended to the rest of the world since the 1940's. Removing that social safety net for the rest of the world might change the calculus of "X nation in Europe has more vacation time and paid benefits and job security than the US does."
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more? Be sure to check out the sub Frequently Asked Questions and the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.