So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about using the courts to settle a dispute. Yes, there's a tax rate. You cannot get away from it, regardless. I'll not disagree that a lot of government ends up infringing. BUT, if we needed to use courts instead of regulations, we'd need to use them extensively all the time except for the fact that we couldn't afford them. They'd be mingling in our lives all the time, anyway.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about using the courts to settle a dispute. Yes, there's a tax rate. You cannot get away from it, regardless. I'll not disagree that a lot of government ends up infringing. BUT, if we needed to use courts instead of regulations, we'd need to use them extensively all the time except for the fact that we couldn't afford them. They'd be mingling in our lives all the time, anyway.

Regulations are fine, up to some point. What I don't agree with is the government controlling about half the economy. They should put a lid on their megalomania, and let the country take care of itself.

 

[civvver]

I think the main problem I have with libertarians in the usa is most of them are very isolationist, they are very critical of us involvement in middle east and other parts of the world etc. And while there is a lot to criticize about us foreign policy, to become completely isolationist is to ignore the reality of a global economy and global political climate that greatly effects the well being of Americans.

It's also just not very realistic. For example, libertarian's love the idea of flat taxes. But flat taxes mean more taxes for like 90% of Americans. Flat taxes would crush the middle class.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

It's also just not very realistic. For example, libertarian's love the idea of flat taxes. But flat taxes mean more taxes for like 90% of Americans. Flat taxes would crush the middle class.

I believe they usually want these flat taxes to come along with large budget cuts.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Libertarians are not isolationists. Non-interventionism does not equal isolationism. Isolationism implies cutting off peaceful trade relations with foreigners, which makes no sense for those who advocate for true free trade.

Libertarians don't really like any taxes, although many these days would prefer a move to simpler flat income taxes or sales taxes rather than the more complex, administratively expensive and invasive system we have now. Those suggestions are rather bad policies, imho, but they do not have universal support among libertarians by any means. Some libertarians, such as myself and the Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan, prefer the much smarter policy of using Land Value Taxes. While these are still flat rate taxes, they are also more progressive than the graduated income tax ever was. (That is even more true if they are paired with citizen's dividends.) The tax incidence falls entirely on landowners (note that most of the most valuable land is owned by the top 1%), and cannot be passed on through higher rents due to the perfectly inelastic supply of land. It is a highly efficient tax, which has no deadweight loss and can actually stimulate the economy rather than burdening it.

 

[Tahuti]

For example, libertarian's love the idea of flat taxes. But flat taxes mean more taxes for like 90% of Americans. Flat taxes would crush the middle class.

That would only be true for particular implementations of flat taxes.

 

[Traitorfish]

Given that libertarians would quite like to tear up every collective bargaining agreement, welfare provision and workplace regulation in the country, I think that "crushing the middle class" could be reasonably taken as a central part of their program.

 

[Tahuti]

Given that libertarians would quite like to tear up every collective bargaining agreement, welfare provision and workplace regulation in the country, I think that "crushing the middle class" could be reasonably taken as a central part of their program.

The middle class do not even remotely profit from CBA's, welfare and workplace regulations considering they by definition already have jobs that command high wages and working conditions from the market. And all these measures were indeed designed for the purpose of helping the low income people, and certainly not the middle class.

Then again, as an ideology, Libertarianism stresses human agency, so it's fairly insensitive to thinking in terms of "class" to begin with.

 

[Traitorfish]

I assumed we were using "middle class" as Americans use it, which includes clerical, technical and skilled manual workers, rather than referring only to high-status professional and managerial personnel.

 

[Tahuti]

We are. For instance, a Computer programmer who earns a minimum $2500 p/m likely doesn't have any interest - whether positive or negative - in welfare, safety regulations or cba's in the same way a worker at Wal-Mart may have.

 

[Traitorfish]

I can't imagine why he wouldn't.

 

[Tahuti]

I can't imagine why he wouldn't.

Middle class workers by definition can command favorable terms of employment due to their position in the market - independent of any government intervention. If they can't, it's not a middle class profession.

 

[Traitorfish]

Then it turns out we are not using the American definition of "middle class" after all.

 

[Tahuti]

Then it turns out we are not using the American definition of "middle class" after all.

So you would say that - for instance - most engineers are not really in demand and thus cannot command any middle class living standard?

 

[Traitorfish]

I would say that most people are not engineers.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I would say that most people are not engineers.

Well you also have other professions of similar wages/salaries.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd hoped the "or professions of equivalent status and/or income" was implicit.

 

[Mise]

The idea that middle class professions don't benefit from collective bargaining is absolutely ludicrous. Doctors in the UK benefit massively from the British Medical Association, not just with collectively bargaining wages with the NHS, but also in lobbying for better conditions, shorter hours, and against privatisation. The ACA and ACCA accrediations are nothing but a bunch of hoops that bean counters go through in order to secure privileged access to higher wages conferred by "chartered accountant" status -- in reality, the vast majority of accountants do not need these qualifications and could easily get away with on the job training. Indeed, the vast majority of young accountants, who do most of the heavy lifting, are "part qualified", meaning they've done one or two exams and are just learning on the job; full qualification is completely unnecessary to perform the work of an accountant. The higher wages commanded by "Chartered Accountant" status is merely a grand collective bargain organised by the accountants' professional associations. The same is true in law with its Law Society, its rules against unlicenced practitioners, its lobbying to keep run-of-the-mill legal practices such a will writing, conveyancing and other boilerplate legal stuff in the hands of overpaid professionals (even though those things don't require lawyers), etc etc. Engineers have their own professional associations, as do Teachers (the unions are strong with this one!), nurses, etc etc etc.

The idea that the middle class don't benefit from collective bargaining is laughable, being as there are countless professional associations that exist in large part to lobby employers for higher wages, to restrict the supply of labour, and to make labour market conditions favourable. Professional associations are the labour unions of the middle class.

 

[Tahuti]

I do not mean to nitpick, but lobbying is lobbying, not collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is entered with an employer, but lobbying tends to be targeted towards the government - exceptions pointed out by yourself. And while professional associations may definitely benefit insider workers, they do not benefit the middle class as a whole, as you implicitly pointed yourself. By limiting access to middle class jobs with regulations that are nakedly opportunistic, the middle class is actually becoming off limits to lower incomes.

 

[Mise]

I do not mean to nitpick, but lobbying is lobbying, not collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is collective bargaining.

The BMA and NHS Employers have agreed to discuss pay, working hours, and how much time is spent on training versus service delivery in any potential negotiations over the junior doctor contract.

The two organisations have been holding exploratory talks on possible changes to the terms and conditions of employment of doctors and dentists in training since NHS Employers published a “scoping report” on improving the current contract at the end of 2012.[1]

And while professional associations may definitely benefit insider workers, they do not benefit the middle class as a whole, as you implicitly pointed yourself.

If the definition of middle class is someone with a middle class profession, and if the vast majority of middle class profession has a professional association that collectively bargains, lobbies for better conditions, lobbies the government for preferential treatment, and so on, then professional bodies do, indeed, benefit the vast majority of middle class people. In any case, the same objection could be made for labour unions, since professional associations benefit the middle class to at least the same extent that labour unions benefit the working class.

By limiting access to middle class jobs with regulations that are nakedly opportunistic, the middle class is actually becoming off limits to lower incomes.

Well, yes, they become off limits to people who are not middle class. This benefits middle class people. Duh.