Libertarians are considered far-right because they go further than mainstream economists in their desire to privatize everything.
Most economists recognize that some government regulation is actually beneficial to the economy, lest organizations become oligarchies and monopolies. A mixed economy, where competition flourishes in tandem with fair regulation, capitalism and socialism if you will, is supposed to be the ideal economy.
They’re also considered far-right because they often believe all rights derived from the individual right to liberty. Personally, it sounds nice philosophically, but practically it just amounts to the rich dictating everything. There was a brief moment I considered myself Libertarian…and then I grew up.
So, between those two, they come together nicely for most social problems. Everybody has the individual right to participate in the economy without state interference. And if workers accept contracts for wages that do not meet their needs, then it’s not the states fault nor the company. If the worker wants a better wage, they should develop skills that demand their desired rate of remuneration.
Similarly, if you live near a polluting power plant, whose fault is that? Just move. If you can’t move because you’re too poor…then, see the previous paragraph. And if you die in the meantime, or otherwise contract some serious illness, it’s not the government’s job to interfere with the administration of private power plants.
These ideas and hypothetical scenarios are behind my appalled reaction to this quote:
The president-elect also announced that public works would be “cut down to zero” and those already in progress would be put out to tender so that “there would be no more state spending”.
As far as I can tell, he’s going to abandon Argentinians to the business class. That’s what makes libertarianism far-right.
While I want a smaller government. I’m not opposed to regulations. I just want the regulations to make sense and provide value.
Where I differ from a libertarian is that I’m not opposed to taxes. I just want them to be as low as possible and as efficient as possible. I don’t want the government distributing wealth as that isn’t efficient. If they want to lower poverty, makes minimum wage higher. Don’t create more welfare programs when wage increases would make more sense.
It’s one thing to want smaller government. It’s another to want to completely shut down core function of the government. This quote shows that he want to do the latter and I think it clearly illustrates why you would call him “extreme” right wing:
The president-elect also announced that public works would be “cut down to zero” and those already in progress would be put out to tender so that “there would be no more state spending”.
Public works includes roads and other such infrastructure work. He isn’t saying shrink. He’s saying zero. Shutting down core public works is pretty damn far out there.
That is where I disagree and am radically differ from libertarians.
I do believe the government is the best choice for some projects, even when it is not the most cost effective.
Roads are a perfect example. I have had libertarian friends claim the roads could be privatized with better results. I do not believe that since roads are vital for living. Imagine if someone bought all the roads in your town and then charged a crazy fee to use them. Roads would only be maintained in areas where it’s profitable instead of all over the place.
I also believe in a single payer health system. I think that is something the government should do. The military is another example of something that should be run by the government.
The less government spending the more they can cut all people’s income tax. The more governemt programs people want, the more moeny they must cut out ofyour pay.
I will not listen to any criticisms of businesses from anyone who has not experienced what is required of an owner in order to have the previlage to pay someone to work for them fulltime, and then they can demand more government regulations.
Libertarians are considered far-right because they go further than mainstream economists in their desire to privatize everything.
Most economists recognize that some government regulation is actually beneficial to the economy, lest organizations become oligarchies and monopolies. A mixed economy, where competition flourishes in tandem with fair regulation, capitalism and socialism if you will, is supposed to be the ideal economy.
They’re also considered far-right because they often believe all rights derived from the individual right to liberty. Personally, it sounds nice philosophically, but practically it just amounts to the rich dictating everything. There was a brief moment I considered myself Libertarian…and then I grew up.
So, between those two, they come together nicely for most social problems. Everybody has the individual right to participate in the economy without state interference. And if workers accept contracts for wages that do not meet their needs, then it’s not the states fault nor the company. If the worker wants a better wage, they should develop skills that demand their desired rate of remuneration.
Similarly, if you live near a polluting power plant, whose fault is that? Just move. If you can’t move because you’re too poor…then, see the previous paragraph. And if you die in the meantime, or otherwise contract some serious illness, it’s not the government’s job to interfere with the administration of private power plants.
These ideas and hypothetical scenarios are behind my appalled reaction to this quote:
As far as I can tell, he’s going to abandon Argentinians to the business class. That’s what makes libertarianism far-right.
I also was once a libertarian and then I stopped drinking
While I want a smaller government. I’m not opposed to regulations. I just want the regulations to make sense and provide value.
Where I differ from a libertarian is that I’m not opposed to taxes. I just want them to be as low as possible and as efficient as possible. I don’t want the government distributing wealth as that isn’t efficient. If they want to lower poverty, makes minimum wage higher. Don’t create more welfare programs when wage increases would make more sense.
It’s one thing to want smaller government. It’s another to want to completely shut down core function of the government. This quote shows that he want to do the latter and I think it clearly illustrates why you would call him “extreme” right wing:
Public works includes roads and other such infrastructure work. He isn’t saying shrink. He’s saying zero. Shutting down core public works is pretty damn far out there.
That is where I disagree and am radically differ from libertarians.
I do believe the government is the best choice for some projects, even when it is not the most cost effective.
Roads are a perfect example. I have had libertarian friends claim the roads could be privatized with better results. I do not believe that since roads are vital for living. Imagine if someone bought all the roads in your town and then charged a crazy fee to use them. Roads would only be maintained in areas where it’s profitable instead of all over the place.
I also believe in a single payer health system. I think that is something the government should do. The military is another example of something that should be run by the government.
The less government spending the more they can cut all people’s income tax. The more governemt programs people want, the more moeny they must cut out ofyour pay.
I will not listen to any criticisms of businesses from anyone who has not experienced what is required of an owner in order to have the previlage to pay someone to work for them fulltime, and then they can demand more government regulations.
So, you’ll only listen to the business class, then?
You’d make an excellent politician.