My parents are not libertarians, but their thinking occasionally resembles that of them.
You see, they are small business owners.
Anybody who ever had to work long hours, both in and out of office, to keep their business running into the next year, only to lose time out to deal with tax authorities, workplace regulators, and visits from municipal officers all of them wanting to harass them, and thus cutting them off further and further from the money they had to spend hundreds of hours throughout the year to make - it hurts. It really hurts.
For a small business to have a week of bad sales alone is a lean budget at home for the next few months. We have to save 90% of what we earn from the business just to keep up with uncertainties!
Drurg dealers profit from the misery created by the state. If there was a free-market in drugs, drug dealers would have to get a honest (low-paying) job.
They are no different from big pharma that profits from state granted patents.
Yes of course. If you take a reasonably broad definition that includes everything, then you can prove anything. Isn’t quibbling an amazing art?
As I said, it’s a reasonably broad definition, but it’s somewhat conventional. Generally economists will be “liberal” on social issues and “conservative” on economic ones. Generally this means they favour choice and voluntary exchange, although they may certainly advocate government intervention for efficiency reasons, the extent varies from economist to economist. It’s not a perfect definition, it’s probably philosophically wanting, but it’s also a definition that predominates a lot of political discourse, and it serves us well enough in this discussion.
I think that the fact economists lean more towards libertarianism than other scientists or intellectuals certainly tells us something, and I think that message is positive. The under-representation of libertarianism in other social sciences also tells us something, but I’m not so sure that message is positive.
Your definition would include anyone who isn’t a marxist, right?
I think the term ‘libertarian’ should be used more ideological and not just in a technical context. You’re not a libertarian just because you think markets work reasonably well, and in fact you could be a libertarian even if you believe that markets do not work.
I would say that anyone who believes that violence (government) is ‘evil’ or unnecessary(+therefore is against it) could be described as a libertarian.That certainly is a very broad definition, but I think it works. (even though this would include some horrible people)
+Small businessowners tend to be very libertarian, simply because they’re pretty much the victims in the current system. (+ I guess ‘natural born’ libertarians would like the prospect of self employment and would be further radicalized in that field)
IT and gambling. I would say economists have the most ‘libertarian’ views on average.
I think the term ‘libertarian’ should be used more ideological and not just in a technical context. You’re not a libertarian just because you think markets work reasonably well, and in fact you could be a libertarian even if you believe that markets do not work.
This is true, understanding some economics does not make you believe in magic as libertarians tend to.
A regulatory state tends to foster monopolies. Of course everyone would like to have a ‘monopoly’, that is to say little competition for their wares. It is just not practical to achieve unless your legal system is based on statute laws and the ability of a central government to intervene in the production or distribution of a product.
>>>>Pretty sure that drug dealers want drugs to remain illegal. If it weren’t for the black market, big farms and pharmacies would easily drive them out.
So capitalism tends towards monopoly?
rather it leads to a civil society in stead of one with shootings on street corners
