You are wrong. Here's why.

The Libertarian Party and belief structure is not about non-government anarchy, as you have ham-handedly attempted to paint it.

The truth is that libertarians (i.e. minarchists, not anarchists) believe that in most cases--but not all cases--the market should work to solve problems.  However, they also realize that for certain issues there is a legimate need for some government regulation and involvement.  The only issues that they take with involvement are that it actually be truly necessary and that exercise of that involvement be kept to an absolute minimum.

You're example of having first-responders outsourced to Viet Nam is simply ridiculous.  Just as libertarians know that police are needed and necessary to enforce the laws (which libertarians believe should be very few in number), libertarians also realize there needs to be an arm of law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services that responds to calls for assistance.

I doubt you'd find any real libertarian stating that 911 should be outsourced to a foreign country.  What some libertarians would probably put forth is the idea that maybe private charity can fund and operate emergency responder units, with some, but minimal, government obersight. However, I still believe you'd never have a libertarian majority which would absolutely entrust such a vital and necessary public service to any private entity.

Also, you use your unbased argument as the paint with which to color Ron Paul, who has never made any statement supporting what you have put forth.  You supply no evidence for your assertions other than vague generalizations.  Back up your article with some links next time, ok?

POSTED BY SON OF PUBLIS; EDITED BY RecordRat to remove the personal attacks.

by Son of Publius (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 1:45:08 AM
 

to foofighter

You would do well to check out the libertarian philosophy here in Montana. We have one who tried to run for the state house, and failed, he made if last election as a 'republican'  candidate. He, of course votes with the republicans. Not something to be proud of. I'm sure many have seen the rant of one Mike Lange, on You Tube. From what I've seen of that libertarian/republican he'd more likely be called an obstructionist.  Michael Bonanno made a lot of sense to me. Why is Mr Paul running as a republican this time, by the way?

by Pat Herrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 145 comments) on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 1:46:35 PM
 

Have We Met?

Have we met?  You seem to know something about my mental health that I’m not even aware of.  Libel?  

Libertarians may not support outsourcing 911 emergency services to foreign countries, but they certainly believe that, when they turn the service over to private corporations, as is already happening throughout The FUSA (Former United States of America), the government should have no say in how the business which handles 911 calls should handle it.  Those who don’t think that a multinational corporation would outsource the call centers for 911 emergency response as they’ve outsourced call centers for technical help aren’t really aware of what those at the top of multinational corporations are interested in, first, foremost and solely – money with which they can create more money.  

These are the corporations that Libertarians say should not be regulated and should have first crack at running everything with the exception of local police and a national military.  

Cities have thrown away municipal workers as if they were dirty old rags and have privatized many services performed by the municipalities.  The private sector is more efficient because it doesn’t have to deal with unions which protect workers against abuse.  They’re also more efficient because they don’t pay nearly as well as the municipalities paid.  And what can be more absurd than sending municipal services overseas, but it’s been done!  

The Libertarian Party does not believe in a minimum wage.  They ridiculously ask, “If the minimum wage is such a good idea, why not raise it to $200 an hour.”  Talk about absurd scenarios for dramatic effect.  

Go to The Libertarian Party web site.  It’s all there.  They want to give Americans “an opportunity” to save for their own retirement.  They’d do away with Social Security.  “Opportunity” is corporate talk for “do it yourself ‘cause we don’t care.”  

They will do away with government welfare.  They believe that charities, such as churches, will take care of the dregs of American society that a totally unregulated corporate environment would create.  These churches will take the place of government run unemployment insurance, government run food stamps.  

I’m an atheist.  Will the church help me as well?  Or will there be some charity that would really take care of me when the unregulated, totally free business leaders send almost all jobs to slave labor nations?  The charity will pay me the wage I was receiving before my job went to that slave labor nation?  

Libertarians say that the poor would be better off if there were no labor laws.  I’m quite certain that the example of my experience as an employee of a corporation which wasn’t allowed to self-regulate says it all about what happens to corporations which are not regulated.  

It’s rather amazing that someone who should already know all of this asks for links.  

I would have thought that someone who wasn’t aware of the other side of Ron Paul, who’ve I’ve seen admit to believing in a government that shouldn’t want to govern on, for example, Real Time with Bill Maher, would be saying, “Can’t be!  Prove it with links!”  

Along with your intimate knowledge of my mental state, you also seem to lack enough knowledge about The Libertarian Party to defend it as adamantly as you do.    

Michael Bonanno

by Michael Bonanno (72 articles, 18 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 123 comments) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 2:58:45 AM
 

Heh

"Altruistic" legistlation is generally created by people lobbying congress. Lobbying takes money. So the labor unions and corporations with money enact laws to protect their own positions in the market (big companies like to keep their monopolies so they can under-charge and over-pay). Sometimes this does good for your average worker, other times not. Many think the Fair Labor Standards Act which instituted minimum wage was really lobbied for to protect certain labor unions of well-paid workers from those willing to work for lower wages - below the proposed minimum wage. Most economists seem to believe that price-setting (or wage-setting, in the case of the minimum wage) is harmfull to the economy as a whole, including the poor.

In any case, Ron Paul is probably more of a constitutionalist before a libertarian, and under the constitution the states have rights to do all sorts of things.

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 1:59:25 PM
 

Sick to death hearing about "Ron Paul"

You nailed it Michael. I'm getting sick of hearing about Ron Paul.

I'm glad Ron Paul is messing up the Republican debates with unwanted truths, but I'd shoot myself in the head before voting for a Libertarian president.

All you Ron Paul lovers, please stop trying to convince Liberals, Progressives and Independents that he is the best thing since sliced bread. We just ain’t buying it. No amount of rhetoric is going to change our minds.

Now if you start talking about a draft Al Gore movement, you might have some luck here.

by John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 601 comments) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 5:59:58 AM
 

I think

that  anyone who is antiwar, whatever premise used is valuable in the fight, especially one from Texas:) The www.antiwar.com, for instance is a terrific resource.  Now, I agree that liberitarians  are  opportunists but who isn't.  Make no mistake- ALL forces   are to unite to get rid of Bush and Co.   Most of us do not ' love' Ron Paul. But he is against war and Bush-  we need him.

by Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3359 comments) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 9:12:12 AM
 

Re: I think

Most libertarians are not opportunists. Most are simply people who want the government to leave them alone, unless they are doing something harmful to others or the environment. They are also the anti-thesis of warmongers and racists.

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 2:12:33 PM
 

Respectfully

the whole world wants to be left alone. In practice it means,'leave me alone and  go bother someone else'.  But I am not here to argue the platform. I am here to keep  and cultivate allies.   The only  bad thing about anti- Bushies is that they  sometimes hate each other more than they hate the Bushies.  And.. Bushies know what they want but we here sometimes do not. I thus am ready and willing to unite with anyone who  wants Bush out. We will resolve our differences later.

by Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3359 comments) on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 8:46:30 AM
 

You're deflecting.

I don't know you, and I wouldn't want to meet you.  But I can still see from your expressed worldview that you are probably missing a few crayons from your coloring box.

There are still some major wholes in your argument:

Who implied local governments are going to outsource to giant multinationals?  You did.  Chances are they would keep in entirely in state, if not kept in their municipality, hiring out local businesses, charities, or organizations to do the work.

Who implied that the private entities awarded the contracts are always going to be for-profit organizations?  You did.  Non-profits can operate just as effectively and efficiently as for-profits, and both are preferable to slow-moving, inflexible bureaucratic government control.

Odd that you should infer so much from that first article you linked.  It's testament to your dull critical-thinking skills.  Also odd that you picked that article since it concludes that privatizing gives the local governments much more flexibility in picking the best options to meet the needs of their community.  Guess you overlooked that.

You then turn to unions.  Libertarians wholeheartedly believe that you have a right to unionize under your First Amendment right to freedom of association.  You also have a right to strike if you aren't happy with your job or to protest bad decisions made by your employer.  We don't wish to take any of those rights away.  We simply wish to give everyone, both workers and business owners, the freedom to make the best choices for themselves.

Next up is you argument that the Libertarian talking point on minimum wage is absurd.  That's called avoiding the issue.  Good job at offering no argument of substance there.  Their point relates directly to the issue.  Your point in your original article takes many leaps of faith to get to arrive where it does. Their argument: "A to B to C, so why not ramp C up?" Your argument: "A to B to C--OMIGOD!! Q!"

You then attempt to paint all charities as religious. I guess I'll let you in on a little secret: most charities aren't religious. They are single issue charities focused on a common goal and have no religious mission.  Here's something fun for you to do: go to http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html and see what percentage are religious-based charities!

As an atheist, you sure do have lots of illogical and unfounded beliefs... Just like those pesky religious people you seem to think are bad.  Really, I'd like to know the basis of your conspiracy theory that privatizing welfare will mean churches get all the action? That's just another example of your "A to B to C--OMIGOD!! Q!" thinking.

Next, while your experience is something to note and take into account, it's rather arrogant of you to think that your unique experience is the be-all, end-all experience that encompasses in its entirety all possible experiences.  News flash: it's not.  So pull your head out of your bum, ok?The fact is, I've read all of these issues before. The fact that you link to them as proof you are right while failing to illustrate why shows you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. Congrats!

by Son of Publius (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 8:28:59 PM
 

Can We Debate Like Progressives?

First of all, your personal attacks, very Republican in style, are starting to get old. We’ve all tried very hard to keep this side of the political spectrum clear of that kind of “debating”.  

Secondly, I linked to sites that prove my points, not with which I necessarily agree.  For instance, the link to Privatization Watch indeed proves my point that municipalities have outsourced municipal work to oversees contractors.  

Debate if you wish.  Debates may utlimately be unresolved in which case civil people agree to disagree.  We need more debate in this country.    

However, no regular contributor to OpEdNews wants to see unnecessary references to anyone's mental health in an obvious attempt to debase a person’s character

Consequently, such unwarranted personal attacks may adversely affect one's privilege to comment on this site.  

Please try to keep it civil.  

Thank you.  

Michael Bonanno  

by Michael Bonanno (72 articles, 18 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 123 comments) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 9:41:49 PM
 

Just maybe...

listen_up doesn't know much about Russia style communism..communism was practised quite successfully by several native american tribes, before white man ever set foot on this continent, ..it is not the form of government that is corrupt, its how corrupt the persons who controls the government are..and that can happen in any form of government..including a Democratic Republic that has a capitalistic,  free trade form of economics. Nazis blamed all their financial woes on the "communists" also, and started their own "party"...turns out that the Nazis were a much worse form of government...fascism (corporatism) on steroids, with a completely insane leader..its the corruption within the government that is the problem

by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 252 comments) on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 1:19:41 AM
 

foofighter

Your attempts to drum up support for libertarians is not going anywhere. You haven't said anything that would change anyone's mind here.

Libertarians are right-wing Republicans that want to legalize vices. Probably so they can tax them.

by John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 601 comments) on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 5:11:17 AM
 

Agreed

I dunno about the extreme example of having the emergency services outsourced to Vietnam, but I agree that Ron Paul's 'amen' corner in the progressive sectors should remember he's also pro-life.

It might be nice to have a REAL fiscal conservative in the White House, after the last 7 years, though.

by J. Edward Tremlett (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 55 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 11:12:14 AM
 

Not Quite...

1) Ron Paul is more of a constitutionalist than a libertarian.  He would only advocate, as president, that the federal government stay out of emergency response...powers not specifically granted to the US by the constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

2) As an anarcho-capitalist, I can tell you that your hypothetical situation of a private emergency response unit, in a society with little or no government, is possible but very unlikely.  First, it is apparent that you assume that without government organizations to monitor one of these private units, consumers would have to choose almost blindly which response unit would be their best fit.  This is untrue because such ineffectiveness or inefficienciency would be an opportunity for a group to make a profit.  By that I mean that different private organizations would arise to compete for the best form of monitoring these units.  Units like this one would likely go out of business if communication was so difficult or transportation so slow, etc.  Otherwise, people would know what they are paying for, at least.  But remember, the response unit's main goal is profit as well so they will do what it takes to make the most profit, which is provide the best service.  It is understandable to be pessimistic about that last statement but that is a product of our current society.  Government today has become a means for big business through special interest groups to profit more through subsidies, taxes which hurt small business more than big business, etc., than buy providing the best service or product.  Also, jobs wouldn't be outsourced because there would be no minimum wage.  This gives more people in this country the opportunity to work.  Also, with more private businesses needed to take over and compete for former gov't jobs, there will be a higher demand for workers which means wages will go up. Finally, private services' prices will continue to go down as new methods/technology are discovered to perform/produce services/products better.  This varies from public services which essentially "freeze" in time because there is little if any incentive to improve methods.  Take a look at education...since the late 1800's we've had a teacher in front of a room of students with a chalkboard as education quality has decreased and its cost has increased.  But, as you can see, this is very complicated to explain, and I'm sure I've left things out.  It takes much much time and effort to explore a free society, one without government, especially after 18to20+ years of pro-state propaganda that we experience every single day beginning with parents, then state mandated schools, plus every single media outlet all filled with people who have known nothing but the same propaganda their entire lives.  Once one can "unlearn" much of what he's been told, he can begin to explore this very complex area of study.  But in my very very limited experience, I've found it very fulfilling, even if it seems like there's no one to listen.

by John Proodian (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 11:04:03 PM