But money buys choice/force and/or monopolies on choice/force. Which is why I said that in practical terms, fiscal conservatives - whatever the intention - hamper almost everyone they affect.
EDIT: Eh… Just ignore me. I really didn’t mean to derail. I’ll start a topic on this or whatever. Sorry guys.
There is nothing wrong or evil with paying someone to do something, that’s just contract. The use of force by individuals (or corporations) generally is and should remain illegal, it is governments that (at least try to) monopolize the use coercive force. The greater the role of government in society, the greater the opportunity, scope and temptation for it’s use by those within it to coerce individuals for their own benefit, and for those outside to manipulate and/or corrupt it to achieve the same end.
So Malathor, even in Libertarian world, the government still has the necessary coercive power and is in fact required to use it for the purpose of, for example, breaking down artificial barriers to entry, breaking cartels, punishing collusion, enforcing as close to complete information for the consumer as possible, and enforcing torts against corporate offenders?
Generally speaking yes, although my definition of each of those might not be as broad as yours. Externalities and market failure do exist, I don’t agree with Libertarians who claim otherwise.
Most libertarians are on board with this kind of thing. Libertarianism requires the existence of a solid legal system within which to operate.
Mmmm. But it seems to me, and I’m having trouble figuring out what words properly communicate my reasoning, that dismantling the intervention of government before constructing that sort of solid legal system will result in the solid legal system never being constructed.
There’s so much hazard (I don’t know if this is the right word?) in so many of the goals of libertarians that I feel that it requires the construction of the protections against exploitation first, and then the rest of the agenda.
So I feel like libertarians who want to do it the other way around are… being at best impractical.
dismantling the intervention of government before constructing that sort of solid legal system will result in the solid legal system never being constructed.
What dismantling are you talking about?
We already have a legal system in the US that functions well. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it be removed.
The tea party thread has extensive discussion on Libertarianism:
I’m pretty he’s talking about making it one that works well as opposed to how many people view the current one (usually among those who hold such an opinion, it lacks effectve teeth to keep corporate interests in check enough to protect consumers). The argument would then be that an empowered government would be needed to implement changes in the law to cover the inadequacies. Such an empowerment would seem to run contrary to the general goals of Libertarianism, as we understand them.