3 ms·

That's why I'm in favor of the RW libertarians view of big government and how it's in the best interest of society to have as much small a government as possibl

That's why I'm in favor of the RW libertarians view of big government and how it's in the best interest of society to have as much small a government as possible to avoid situations like these as large bureaucracies tend to corrupt over time and when they turn evil, they hurt innocent people that come close to them.

otalp 10y ago
The original Libertarians were left wing anti-government anarchists. The word was appropriated by the far right in the US, and The ones today are Ayn Rand fanatics- the likes of Paul Ryan, who are anti-labour and pro-business. Reducing the power of the government - an institution in which people have some kind of say in - while allowing corporations to flourish - institutions where citizens have absolutely no say in - leads to oligarchy. There are interesting approaches to reducing government size from left-liberterains(Libertarian socialist and Anarchists) but they are not mainstream in the US, which has shifted so far right over the last few decades that Eisenhower would in many policy matters be considered a far-left unelectable today.
- gotchange 10y ago
  I'm a left libertarian, the real deal, and that's why I prefaced the libertarians designation with the RW label to avoid upsetting my leftist friends here :)
  - otalp 10y ago
    Well, large parts of the Right "Libertarians" are already in charge. All they do is remove healthcare, slash spending on PBS, environmental agencies and Science, while giving corporations and billionaires gigantic tax breaks.....These people are the ones in power. Small government just means making the parts of the government that actually help the people smaller, according to these people.
    - gotchange 10y ago
      I totally agree with you on this and your previous comment to me that right wingers are giving libertarianism a bad name by appropriating it to advance their agenda of screwing poor and other disfranchised groups while enriching their donors and paymasters.
- meanduck 10y ago
  > while allowing corporations to flourish - institutions where citizens have absolutely no say in Wrong. Corporations are the one of most sensitive organisation types. Stop giving them money, see how soon and peacfully they die. Remind me a state that has given its power peacefully ?
  - otalp 10y ago
    Difficult to stop giving them money when they sell products billions use, and also employ millions. It's probably easier to overthrow the half the states in the world than to bring down Apple.
    - meanduck 10y ago
      Oh cmon at least be realistic. Are you sure, 5 years from now, Apple is going to be as powerful as today ? Market always tend toword decentralisation. More so in AnCap one.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - wfo 10y ago
    I've stopped giving my money to plenty of corporations. Nobody noticed or cared and nothing happened. I've called a corporation and asked for transparency and data so I can see what they're actually doing. They oddly didn't return my call. I've called a corporation and told them how I want them to represent my interests. They oddly didn't return my call. I've complained corporations have no reason to do things which are good for me, the consumer or employee, and all the reasons to do things that are bad for me. By design. Not because of corruption or because of malicious actors who fail to do their jobs. My complaints fell on deaf ears.
hype7 10y ago
This isn't the right answer. There are times when you need government intervention, and there are times when you don't. The trick is figuring out which is which. As they often say, libertarians didn't defeat Nazism.
- gotchange 10y ago
  I'm a left libertarian and therefore I have a natural allergy to statist solutions for problems but I acknowledge that government is a necessary evil that in many instances do good things but the fact remains that large bureaucracies, whether governmental or not, tend to corrupt over time and that's why the smallest size of government possible to carry out its function should be the goal of society.

otalp 10y ago

The original Libertarians were left wing anti-government anarchists. The word was appropriated by the far right in the US, and The ones today are Ayn Rand fanatics- the likes of Paul Ryan, who are anti-labour and pro-business. Reducing the power of the government - an institution in which people have some kind of say in - while allowing corporations to flourish - institutions where citizens have absolutely no say in - leads to oligarchy. There are interesting approaches to reducing government size from left-liberterains(Libertarian socialist and Anarchists) but they are not mainstream in the US, which has shifted so far right over the last few decades that Eisenhower would in many policy matters be considered a far-left unelectable today.

gotchange 10y ago
I'm a left libertarian, the real deal, and that's why I prefaced the libertarians designation with the RW label to avoid upsetting my leftist friends here :)
- otalp 10y ago
  Well, large parts of the Right "Libertarians" are already in charge. All they do is remove healthcare, slash spending on PBS, environmental agencies and Science, while giving corporations and billionaires gigantic tax breaks.....These people are the ones in power. Small government just means making the parts of the government that actually help the people smaller, according to these people.
  - gotchange 10y ago
    I totally agree with you on this and your previous comment to me that right wingers are giving libertarianism a bad name by appropriating it to advance their agenda of screwing poor and other disfranchised groups while enriching their donors and paymasters.
meanduck 10y ago
> while allowing corporations to flourish - institutions where citizens have absolutely no say in Wrong. Corporations are the one of most sensitive organisation types. Stop giving them money, see how soon and peacfully they die. Remind me a state that has given its power peacefully ?
- otalp 10y ago
  Difficult to stop giving them money when they sell products billions use, and also employ millions. It's probably easier to overthrow the half the states in the world than to bring down Apple.
  - meanduck 10y ago
    Oh cmon at least be realistic. Are you sure, 5 years from now, Apple is going to be as powerful as today ? Market always tend toword decentralisation. More so in AnCap one.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- wfo 10y ago
  I've stopped giving my money to plenty of corporations. Nobody noticed or cared and nothing happened. I've called a corporation and asked for transparency and data so I can see what they're actually doing. They oddly didn't return my call. I've called a corporation and told them how I want them to represent my interests. They oddly didn't return my call. I've complained corporations have no reason to do things which are good for me, the consumer or employee, and all the reasons to do things that are bad for me. By design. Not because of corruption or because of malicious actors who fail to do their jobs. My complaints fell on deaf ears.

hype7 10y ago

This isn't the right answer. There are times when you need government intervention, and there are times when you don't. The trick is figuring out which is which. As they often say, libertarians didn't defeat Nazism.

gotchange 10y ago
I'm a left libertarian and therefore I have a natural allergy to statist solutions for problems but I acknowledge that government is a necessary evil that in many instances do good things but the fact remains that large bureaucracies, whether governmental or not, tend to corrupt over time and that's why the smallest size of government possible to carry out its function should be the goal of society.