Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Capitalism vs Libertarianism (Pt. 2) | Mark Pellegrino | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

Bernie doesn't point to Scandinavian countries as "socialist meccas". He points to them as countries which have been influenced by social democrat policies. ... which is simply a fact. Varying social democrat governments in Denmark, Norway and Sweden have played a huge role in shaping society during last century. But they haven't been alone about it... The classical liberals (and the conservatives) have had government power too (on and off).
13
Dave... there's an answer to the tax question: Georgism.
5
No ... Mark is just wrong about libertarianism. What he describes is "anarcho-capitalism" Classical liberal don't need to be against government. ... The founding fathers obviously wasn't. They created one.
2
Nitron DSP Yes... many who call them selves "libertarians" work only from a premise of "government is always bad" and not from the basic principles of classical liberalism like: * You own your own body. * You have the rights to the fruits of your own labor * You freedom extends only so far that it does not infringe on the equal freedom of others. Goverment is actually needed to ensure those rights, but the dogmatic anarcho-capitalistic world view often doesn't even get to reflect on that.
2
Scott Daniels I have to object to the term "hardcore libertarian". To me what these people believe is not a "more" libertarian kind of libertarianism. It's not a quantitative difference. There's a qualitative difference. In classical liberalism the government has a role in ensuring the basic principles of liberty. These guys work out of the dogmatic principle that government is always bad.. That's not libertarianism. That's anarcho-capitalism. And yes ... it's just as utopian as communism.
2
Nitron DSP So ... first of all... you obviously haven't listened to people like Walter Block. Secondly ... many just talk the talk and don't walk the walk. I cannot count the time I've heard the "argument" that it doesn't really matter what the facts are, any solution to a problem which requires government is per definition bad. I simply don't buy that libertarians in general use reason to evaluate the role of government on a case-by-case basis. The pre-assumption is most often that government always makes it worse. And a very concrete example of that is (now you mention it) the Libertarian partys policy wrt. climate change. If you read the official text of their policy it's simply just assumed that any solution involving government will make it worse, and since they don't have any other solution to propose, their policy effectively is "sit on our hands". The same seems to go for Mark Pellegrino here. Yeah he says there's role for government, but if you read the Capitalist partys climate poilcy it's (again) based on the pre-assumption that government is bad and there's no reason based proposal for an alternative solution. Thirdly ... I don't think I need education about that. I have plenty of empirical evidence from conversations with countless "libertarians" to know how the reality wrt. actual policy. Unless it's about National defence, government is always assumed evil as soon as the problem is inconvenient. Neither do I need to take insinuating comments from you. Prove me wrong: Come up with a solution to the climate problem which: * Doesn't deny the nature and severity of the problem. * Doesn't in some way involve government coordination.
1
Nitron DSP ... but Walter Block regard him self as the "right" kind of libertarian. In fact, he separates libertarians in 3 categories: * Anarcho-capitalists. * Minarchists * Classical liberals. ... and he dislikes Milton Friedman exactly because Milton Friedman didn't oppose all taxes of principle. And my point is that many who call them selves "libertarians" run with anarcho-capitalistic logic whenever it comes to actualy policy, regardless of whether they start out by saying that there in principle is a role for government. ... That's what all experience from hundreds of conversations with other libertarians tells me. ... I don't know what you think I've "proven" for you... I think I've made my point perfectly clear for anyone actually interested in reflecting on an argument.
1
Nitron DSP "anarcho-capitalists is a different political ideology...." You are not listening AT ALL to what I say. That's EXACTLY a part of my argument. As libertarian, I see anarcho-capitalism as another (utopian) ideology. BUT....my argument is that too many libertarians in practice reason like anarcho-capitalists, when it comes to concrete politcy: That government is per definition always bad. I view that (fact) as that many libertarians have misunderstood classical liberalism. "in fact you can have a libertarian government with a massive size - it is not exclusive." Yes. I agree... and my point is not all who call them selves libertarians do. They seem to approach the issue from a dogmatic conclusion that government is always bad and all taxes are equal bad.
1
Nitron DSP "why are you so angry?" I'm not angry. I just have a healthy skepticism for your sincerity after you started talking down to me. Remember the part about "educating individuals like me" ? My first response to you was actually to agree with your first post. ... but then you felt the need to "lol" etc...
1
Nitron DSP ok... apology accepted. I guess we agree about the subject then.
1
***** First of all... I didn't say anything which your comment could be an answer to. Secondly... nonsense... I suspect you don't know much about Danish national debt.
1
***** What's happening in Sweden right now has nothing to do with the question at hand (whether we're talking "socialist mecca" or "society shaped largely by social democrats"). If you think otherwise, you should really see the last Interview Dave Rubin did with the Swedish economist. The problem in Sweden is that regressives have made the discussion about immigration taboo. They haven't succeeded with that in Denmark (although they have tried). It's simply a different problem.
1